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.

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

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...)

Anthony Indelicato

[ No Legal Threats -- Redacted, user cautioned ]

Joshua Pellicer

Joshua Pellicer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - Article is repeatedly edited to add that 'Joshua Pellicer has positions teaching dating and relationship-related content with a number of companies'. However, this is uncited and there is no evidence that Joshua Pellicer has any position with any company, let alone in the dating field. // ~HateToLoveMe

Omar Khadr

Omar Khadr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Noticed that this article has been edited with predjudice. Just wanted to bring it to the notice of someone who knows how to right such things.

1986 Hvalur sinkings – categorising an event as terrorism

• 1986 Hvalur sinkings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article needs attention. It is about two Sea Shepherd members scuttling two unmanned whaling boats in a dock. At the time the Icelandic government called it "terrorism", which is of course hyperbole. It is at most "eco-terrorism", and that only because the term has been defined so widely as to include a lot of stuff that is not terrorism in the usual sense.

Now I am having a little edit war with the above user, who insists on applying Category:Terrorism in Iceland to this article, which mentions the two executors by name. The name of one of the two is David Howitt, which was linked, presumably incorrectly, to David Howitt (an English footballer). The other is Rod Coronado, whose article is in Category:Terrorism in the United States, but apparently for better reasons.

My reading of WP:BLP#Categories, especially in conjunction with WP:WTA#Extremist, terrorist, or freedom fighter?, is that we simply cannot categorise this incident in this way. I would appreciate comments, and additional eyes on the article. Hans Adler 22:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added more explanation to Discussion. I still submit that the article meets WP guidelines from WP:WTA: If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. Reputable news sources report organs of the Icelandic government declaring the act "terrorism". The individuals in question are not referred to as "terrorists" in any form, but the category Category:Terrorism in Iceland recognises that the Icelandic government publicly declared this event such. This is also important in that it ties the article into the general Category:Terrorism by country tree. Until such point as we have a Category:Ideologically-motivated destructive acts by country, the above is the closest we have. If all categories with the word "terrorism" are renamed to some mutually agreed alternative, I'm cool with that, but in the meantime there's no other cat which groups such acts together. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Icelandic government was a significant player in this event. When the US government declared waterboarding not to be torture we didn't take them at face value. We don't categorise evolution as pseudoscience just because some physicist-turned-mad or a large creationist organisation says so. Should we apply all categories to United States that describe the various insults that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has applied to that state? Similarly we don't categorise an event as terrorism just because a country has badmouthed activists who threaten their unsustainable exploitation of a natural resource. Not even George W. Bush is in Category:War criminals. That's because the category was deleted as a BLP nightmare after being (ab)used in just such a way that you are using Category:Terrorism in Iceland.

This is a project to write an encyclopedia. I know that some people are working on a parallel project, an ontology. But that's not why we are here and most people are simply not interested in that. Your concerns are very minor when compared to the BLP nightmare of pretending that an incident in which a living person was involved was actually terrorism (as opposed to being characterised as such by the targeted government).

On a strictly formal level, you don't need reports of the form "A called X an act of terrorism." Of course you need reports of the form "X was an act of terrorism", from a neutral, reliable source. But in this case even that would not be enough because it's clearly at most a borderline case. If you want to rename the category to make it more inclusive, go ahead. But we don't violate BLP while working on a longterm solution to some problem that exists only in the mind of some Wikipedians. In the meantime there would be a real danger of incidents such as the English ex-footballer Dave Howitt being sent back from a US airport because someone googled him and found an association with terrorism that wasn't just about a different person with the same name (although until a few minutes ago there was a misleading link), but was even mere hyperbole in the first place. Hans Adler 23:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view, calling this a BLP issue is a bit of a red herring. It was eco-terrorism, it happened in Icelandic territory, so I see nothing wrong with using a category that is called "Terrorism in Iceland". A category of that type on an article about an incident is not the same as and in my opinion is a far cry from calling the perpetrators "terrorists". If the user doesn't like the categories in Category:Terrorism by country, there is an obvious solution, and that is to nominate them all for deletion, and see if there is consensus to delete them rather than deciding unilaterally that one or more of them is problematic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This particular article is on my watchlist and this particular article has the BLP problem. We are definitely claiming that two named individuals were involved in an act of terrorism when objectively the most we can say is that it was an act of eco-terrorism. And that some newspapers have reported, as if it was odd, that certain people called it terrorism.

I have proposed the category Category:Terrorism in Iceland for deletion, but only because it is now empty and because I want to make sure that the empty category is not abused in the same way again. Every normal person would be glad that Iceland has no terrorism, rather than make things up and try to present other things as terrorism.

Many instances of eco-terrorism are not terrorism at all. Not even the attack on the bank in Athens, where three people were killed, falls under the common definition of terrorism, so it makes no sense at all to include relatively limited action against things that didn't even endanger a single person and was obviously never meant to terrorise anybody. Hans Adler 19:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What I've stated is just my opinion. I came to this "dispute" without any pre-conceived notions of the incident or who was correct and who was incorrect, but I have to say that I largely agree with User:MatthewVanitas's position. I understand you feel that using the category in this way is an "abuse", but there are two of us so far who do not agree. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to quote from eco-terrorism:

Eco-terrorism usually refers to acts of terrorism, violence or sabotage committed in support of ecological, environmental, or animal rights causes against persons or their property. [...] Critics of this use of the term argue that it has been defined in order to try and vilify activists [...]

Therefore the mere fact that acts of eco-sabotage are nowadays called "eco-terrorism" does not imply that they are also terrorism. Let's look at terrorism:

Terrorism is, in the most general sense, the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). [...] The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism) carry strong negative connotations. These terms are often used as political labels, to condemn violence or the threat of violence by certain actors as immoral, indiscriminate, unjustified or to condemn an entire segment of a population.

Therefore we must distinguish whether basically everybody calls an act terrorism, or whether newspapers merely report that certain sources (e.g. the Norwegian state) have called something terrorism. Moreover, we should consider the standard dictionary definitions of terrorism, see wikt:terrorism, none of which covers normal cases of eco-sabotage, like this one.

It is unfortunate that this noticeboard is nearly defunct at the moment, perhaps due to the cleanup of unsourced BLP articles. But I will edit war against anyone trying to restore the category if these points are not addressed. Hans Adler 17:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to chill a bit. Announcing that you "will edit war against anyone" trying to restore a category that you believe should not be on an article is a good way to lead to events that will get yourself blocked. It's just not productive. You're basically saying, "I'm right and I will edit war with anyone who disagrees". A little humility and an acknowledgment that none of us are perfect and necessarily 100% "correct" in all our opinions could be useful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring to keep a BLP violation out of an article while trying to draw the attention of the wider community to the matter so that consensus can be reached is explicitly authorised by the BLP policy, see WP:GRAPEVINE if you really don't know that. Posting here was a necessary step for doing that. Of course the assumption of the policy is that there would be neutral input and reasoned debate. Unfortunately that does not seem feasible at the moment. The only responses so far were from MatthewVanitas, who was involved from the beginning (and indeed caused the problem), and from you, who apparently came here via my category deletion request, initially only complained about my "emptying" (with a single edit) the category before asking for deletion, and have not even tried to make a case that classifying this act of sabotage as terrorism accurately reflects the way it is treated by reliable sources. Hans Adler 08:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Edit warring to keep a BLP violation out of an article while trying to draw the attention of the wider community to the matter so that consensus can be reached is explicitly authorised by the BLP policy" ... Unless of course it's not a BLP violation. If there's a dispute as to whether or not it is and you're in the minority, there is a chance that it is is not. Which is why I suggested you should consider that possibility. Let's just say that you don't appear prima facie to be terribly open minded about this, which could deter a person from making the effort to try to persuade you of anything. To be brief—it's unlikely that a category that designates an incident as "terrorism" when the article text and sources classify it as "eco-terrorism" constitutes a violation of BLP. I understand that you disagree, but I don't think you're on terribly solid ground saying you will edit war over the issue, because it's entirely possible you are wrong. You can try to pooh-pooh the contributions of the editors who participate here—which is very convenient for you since you disagree with them—but in the end, you have to work with the opinions that are shared. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read the article. It says nothing about "eco-terrorism" because that's not in any of the sources. The event happened more than 20 years ago, and there is a reason why "eco-terrorism" is in Category:Political neologisms, along with expressions such as Flying while Muslim, McWorld and Rogue state. In contrast to "terrorism", which is a neutral description of a despicable method, "eco-terrorism" is a dysphemism. I don't know if it started as a term for a particular type of terrorism and its meaning was later widened beyond reason, or if someone wanted to coin a word for a particular type of activism and chose the most ominous-sounding one he thought he could get away with ("ecologically-motivated mass murder" or "eco-fascist bomb throwing" might not have been accepted as uncritically).

The unreflected assumption that something is terrorism just because it's called "eco-terrorism" is of course precisely what the governments pushing this term want. Reliable sources are falling for this game to some extent by using the term without reflection. Reliable sources tend to accept uncritically both the ridiculously wide (when judged by its etymolgy) definition of this term and any claims to the effect that eco-terrorism is terrorism. What they generally don't do is put these two things together and claim that every random act of sabotage is terrorism when it obviously isn't. Doing that kind of thing is a speciality of Wikipedia editors, and is so popular that we need the explicit prohibition in WP:SYN. Hans Adler 09:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You can presume that I have read the article. You make many arguments as to why you are right and other editors, governments, etc. are wrong and that things should be changed to suit your opinions, but your central problem from my point of view is that this is not a BLP issue. But despite this, if you could even acknowledge the possibility that you may not be 100% correct, I would consider your posting this on the BLP board to have been worthwhile. Regarding lack of participation, I think one way to encourage participation in things like this is to avoid the War and Peace problem and try to keep things concise. Nobody much likes to wade through a bunch of writing to find the central issues. Much of what was said here was irrelevant, which I regret getting sucked in to. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? "It is at most 'eco-terrorism'"? "At most" implies that it is not terrorism. That does not matter though:

Sources called it terrorism and since categories are navigational there shouldn't be a problem. It isn't a label. If it assists a reader in navigating the topic area then it should be in. If eco-terrorism is a subcategory of terrorism then it should be sufficient. If the eco-terrorism category is ever deleted than terrorism needs to be substituted. Another subcat should be on the same footing with the subcat also mentioned but that might be an Mos and not a BlP issue.Cptnono (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's bad wikilawyering. The fact that Category:Eco-terrorism is a subcategory of Category:Terrorism doesn't prove every instance of "eco-terrorism" is an instance of terrorism. In fact most are not. We recently had an RfC on the similar case of Ghost, which was categorised in Category:Paranormal, a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. The result was that while both individual categorisations are fine, it would be incorrect to categorise the article directly as pseudoscience.

Almost(?) all reliable sources did not call it terrorism. Sources reported that the Norwegian government and Greenpeace called it terrorism. Those are not neutral parties at all, and the reliable sources did not appear to take that claim seriously. Hans Adler 09:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Accusing someone of wikilawyering is bad form and you have been around long enough to know better. Do it again and I am dragging this to another noticeboard.

And you didn't read my comment at all it looks like. Eco-terrorism is fine in place of terrorism. If another subcategory is available then it should be considered as well.Cptnono (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't get around providing reliable sources for the claim that this act of sabotage was terrorism by a WP:SYN argument that abuses our category system. Trying it anyway is bad wikilawyering. You have the experience to know that, so it must be allowed to point it out when you are doing it anyway. If I felt it was sufficiently egregious, I would take you to ANI for it. But it isn't. If you think my pointing it out in the wrong venue is sufficiently egregious, take me to ANI. That's fine for me because then the behaviour of all parties will be examined.

"If another subcategory is available then it should be considered as well." That is precisely the point of this section. This discussion is about Category:Terrorism in Iceland, of which the page under discussion was the only member. Hans Adler 10:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't SYN at all. Sources call it terrorism. Enough of them do so that it is not fringey so calling it SYN applies to how to discuss it in an article but not as navigation. Enough sources are available calling it terrorism that disregarding it is a disservice to the reader. So if Category:Terrorism in Iceland survives deletion (why is it at deletion anyways?) and is at the same level subcat wise as eco-terrorism then it is MoS not a BLP concern. I would assume that both should be mentioned.Cptnono (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Sources called it terrorism." – "Sources call it terrorism." – Don't repeat it, WP:PROVEIT. The sources in the article don't call it terrorism, and trying to get around that obstacle with rhetorical tricks is not acceptable. Hans Adler 11:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

<- The problem is that reliable sources call all sorts of things terrorism and there isn't a way to attribute category membership to a source e.g. Communist party of China's actions against Falun Gong, Falun Gong's actions against the Communist party of China, Sri Lankan government's actions against the Tamil Tigers, Tamil Tigers actions against the Sri Lankan government, Pakistan's actions for and against all sorts of things, Venezuela expelling the Israeli ambassador for use of state terrorism in Gaza etc etc, I could go on endlessly. It's a can of worms. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Although WP:TERRORISM has BLP implications when living people are involved, I think that guideline and the logic behind it are enough to resolve this issue. We cannot reasonably say, or categorize, the event as terrorism. Governments and their agencies do indeed get mileage out of calling their adversaries terrorists. The most we can say in the article, and a far more encyclopedic approach, is to simply note that the government of Iceland has called the incident an act of terrorism (assuming it is adequately supported by the sources). Better yet, mention the specific way they did so. However, also note that adding an article to a category (or Wikiproject) on terrorism does not necessarily label them as such, although it may depending on how it is done. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems that this thread is finally getting some attention from editors who were not previously involved. In my opinion creating a category named "Terrorism in Iceland" for the sole purpose of putting a single page in it that is actually only about a rhetorical accusation of terrorism is akin to creating a category named "US Presidents with uncertain place of birth" for the obvious purpose. I have just gone through all pages that are in Category:Eco-terrorism, and I have found only one other article there that is also questionably in such a terrorism by country category. (There are a number of clear cases of terrorism which are categorised as such. All the clear cases of no terrorism are not categorised in terrorism by country categories. There is one borderline case categorised in that way. In a previous probe into some terrorism by country categories I found only very few cases that were miscategorised.) Hans Adler 11:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, categorization is not a label. Maybe this would be better at Village Pump if there is so much confusion? We can add sources from Canada, Iceland, US, and who knows where else that say it is terrorism. But it does not matter because it is not a label. In fact, the article should detail that it has been called terrorism more. But that isn't the discussion. Is the discussion really Terrorism in Iceland? It looks pretty close to jumping boards since that cat is up for deletion. The country does not pop up with terrorism in news searches but that is again another discussion. So Eco-terrorism seems obvious (not saying it is just saying it has been called such in sources). If Terrorism in Iceland is a valid cat then it makes sense. Wikilawyering has been tossed around in this conversation but it is pretty apparent to me that it is a wikiclusterfuck.Cptnono (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This is beginning to look like a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If there are reliable "sources from Canada, Iceland, US, and who knows where else that say it is terrorism", then put them on the table and you win automatically. But make sure that they talk about terrorism, not eco-terrorism, and that they don't simply report an accusation without endorsing it. Hans Adler 11:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The real problem here is abuse of language. The politics or correctness of either side are irrelevant. For this to fit the definition of terrorism, it would have to be be intended to cause serious injury or death to innocent persons. I could see calling this an act of vandalism, sabotage, or even war, but calling it terrorism is simply an error, so removing the "Terrorism in Iceland" tag is just a fact correction, not a political statement. (Also, this entire discussion seems seriously misplaced as a BLP topic.) Dusty14 (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP applies in all articles, not just biographies. The two people who committed this sabotage are named in the article. The name of one of them is David Howitt, and for months we had a misleading (I assume) link David Howitt in the article. (The other one is Rod Coronado, but given what else he has done I guess the article under discussion is at most a marginal problem for him.) If someone wrote an article about something I have done and put it into a terrorism category, I would be very worried. I am not planning to travel to the US anyway, but in that case I would not dare do it because there is always a chance that someone googles at the border. Hans Adler 18:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have just learned that we don't know the name of Coronado's accomplice. He is being referred to under 3 1/2 different, relatively common, names, so he is practically anonymous. I didn't know this when I posted here. Hans Adler 20:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There is currently an ANI discussion related to this matter, see WP:ANI#I am edit warring against two admins who try to connect two living people with terrorism.... Hans Adler 11:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"If there are reliable 'sources from Canada, Iceland, US, and who knows where else that say it is terrorism', then put them on the table and you win automatically." Done. Read the article (someone else added it not me). This isn't wikilawyering and this isn't bias. It is just the way it is. Sources call it terrorism. I really don't think it was terrorism as in 9/11 or other stuff but the category is a navigational tool based on how the sources discuss it. Your continued forum shopping and accusations don't change that. You are battling with two admins (admins screw up sometimes so I understand), reporting yourself at 3rr, and forum shopping. Get it together.Cptnono (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Many of the sources that have been added recently are not accessible to me. Those that are generally give the impression that this cannot simply described as terrorism, note e.g. the inverted commmas in "Iceland adventure ‘easy’ for whaling ‘terrorists’". Under these circumstances I would say you really need to say which of your sources supports your claim that this was described as terrorism, and give a bit more context. E.g. the title "No cause can justify terrorist acts" sounds promising in this respect, but without more context it's impossible to say. This might be an editorial, or it might be one of those frequent cases where the author had no control over the headline, which is catchy but incorrect; or it might be about something entirely else and merely mention Iceland in passing. Hans Adler 13:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Note also that saying that something is terrorism is not the same as casually referring to something as terrorism. Context is important to tell whether an author meant to seriously characterise something as terrorism or merely used a printable equivalent of words such as "shithead" and "motherfucker". Another way of saying this: "Terrorism" has a wide range of meanings, and it's not OK to simply dig out the few sources that use the term in the widest sense imaginable. I am a bit suspicious about your inaccessible sources given that the numerous accessible sources don't support you.

The quoted New Yorker article says about Paul Watson: "Some have even called him a terrorist". I believe a similar sentence about characterisations of the sinkings would be appropriate in the article instead of the undue weight of a full paragraph. Hans Adler 13:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As has been noted repeatedly, the real issue here is the semantics of category labels: if you take them as factual or ontological contentions then you need to be incredibly careful about how they are implied. So careful, in fact, that the whole category system would need to be scrapped. (Do we really want editors emptying out Category:Infotainers, for example, because they feel some of those tagged are better described as pure journalists?) If instead you just take them as a navigational structure—a means of finding articles that touch on particular topics—then it seems pretty obvious that this article should be in the category. And this latter interpretation is the way categories work in Wikipedia. The category tag should be restored/retained. Rvcx (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a long-standing consensus that some categories do label. In fact, there have been countless edit wars on Wikipedia precisely because of this labelling function of Category:Pseudoscience, and there was an entire Arbcom case about when this labelling category may be applied to an article and when it may not be applied. If you want to change this consensus you have a lot of work before you. Hans Adler 14:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

We cannot as editors determine by decree how other people will interpret the significance of a category label. People will, obviously, read the category and decide that Wikipedia has classified the incident as terrorism and the perpetrators as terrorists. If this were a viable category, the solution would be to work on the name and/or add suitable disclaimers so that a typical reader does not make the connection. However, if it's true that the category exists only for this one article, then there's no purpose in keeping it at all. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the appropriate policy page for this? As I say, my concern is that setting the standard for categories as high as that for asserted facts would mean most category tags should be removed; I had assumed that category tags were appropriate so long as their content rose above WP:fringe. Rvcx (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would personally choose WP:Village pump (policy) or WT:Categorization. I recommend reading WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience before you start a discussion, to get an idea of how contentious categories can be. Also highly recommended is WP:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people, which is only about a related problem, but much more recent. I think that should give you an idea of the range of feelings in the community. Hans Adler 15:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: I protected the article for one week due to edit warring. The BLP issue with the label "terrorism" certainly warrants a complete discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A large part of the input here has been from involved editors. The matter temporarily got some attention while it was on ANI, see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615#I am edit warring against two admins who try to connect two living people with terrorism.... In that thread I could find the following comments on the underlying question from previously uninvolved editors:

• Floquenbeam: "I'm slightly ambivalent about the underlying issue; I can see both sides."
• CBM: "Given the recent history and trends with BLP, it is very difficult to understand how established editors could believe it is appropriate to repeatedly insert a category entitled 'terrorism' while the matter is being discussed at the BLP noticeboard."
• Wikidemon: "Having considered the matter, I do not believe it does harm, nor do I think the policy fairly applies to events or groups."
• Stephan Schulz: "To quote from WP:CLN: 'Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of neutral point of view (NPOV) when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.'"

CBM has protected the article for a week, but that's not a long time given how long this discussion has been going on already. We should really find a consensus soon. It seems conceivable to me at this point that we already have a consensus because everybody agrees that the two sentences from WP:CLN which Stephan Schulz quoted settle the matter. I note that this text has been in the guideline, essentially unchanged, ever since David Gerard rewrote an earlier formulation on 31 July 2004. [1]

If we do not have a consensus about the category yet, I think it is at least clear by now that a consensus is needed to put the article in the category. That makes me hopeful that there will be no more edit warring on the matter. Therefore I propose taking the discussion to WP:NPOV/N, where there will be less focus on whether this is a BLP problem or not, and hopefully we will get additional input from previously uninvolved editors. I am not doing this immediately because (1) it's not necessary if we already have a consensus, and (2) I have previously been accused of forum shopping for my attempts to get a wider section of the community involved. Hans Adler 10:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to my initial thoughts on the matter, WP:CLN does seem pretty clear: if a category tag is controversial (particularly in the case of BLP-relevent controversy) it shouldn't be added. I'd prefer a different interpretation of categories (i.e. that category tags not by taken as asserting facts, but merely indicate that a classification rises above WP:FRINGE), but current policy and semantics are what they are. The terrorism tag should be/remain removed. Rvcx (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Artel Kayàru

There is an image being used on the Artel Kayàru article that could be cause for concern. Editor Drgreative (possibly Artel or someone affiliated with him) has strongly disputed that the image is that of the actor and repeatedly removed it as well as details of his place of birth. Ultimately JzG deleted the article due to it being unsourced, contentious and for not meeting notability criteria. The next day Phrasia recreated the article and included the contentious photo. I removed the photo and left a note on the talk page that it should not be restored unless it could be determined that the image is accurate. Phrasia has now restored the image with the note "The photo is him. I uploaded the picture so I think I should know if it is him or not". Note that the image page does not identify the person as Artel, and Phrasia did indeed upload the photo. I'm strongly inclined to remove the photo again as unverified, but would like some additional input from this board to determine consensus. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 14:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Judging by his pictures on imdb and Google images, that image is definitely not Artel. You guys can be the judge of that. However until we know for sure that the photo is authentic, it should be removed to avoid BLP issues. I've gone ahead and removed it. Aditya Ex Machina 15:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Added and removed again....--Tom (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have the feeling that an IP will be along shortly to add it back in. Is the upload of the photo itself valid? I don't really understand where it even came from. Phrasia has uploaded many troublesome images including screen captures and his/her talk page is littered with fair use warnings and deletions. I think there is an all around non-comprehension regarding copyright, WP:V and BLP policies. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 16:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone

Richard Goldstone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm concerned with what appears to have been going on with the article on Richard Goldstone, a distinguished South African judge. I read this article for the first time earlier today and was dismayed to find that it had some major BLP problems - focusing heavily on recent allegations from an Israeli newspaper and prominently featuring quotes from apparent fringe figures comparing Goldstone to Josef Mengele and Nazi war criminals and accusing him of committing crimes of "moral turpitude". A substantial amount of material was sourced to blogs and thoroughly unreliable sources such as WorldNetDaily. This issue has already been raised at Talk:Richard Goldstone#Proliferation of poorly sourced material on Goldstone as judge in South Africa. The conduct of Tallicfan20 (talk · contribs) causes particular concern (e.g. diffs: [2], [3]), as does that of Gilisa (talk · contribs), who introduced this material in the first place.

I've responded by rewriting the section in question to give a much more comprehensive expanded overview of Goldstone's career in South Africa, working in material from recent reporting without unbalancing the entire article to focus on one allegation to the exclusion of everything else. (See diff). However, it would be helpful if uninvolved editors could provide some feedback on this rewrite at Talk:Richard Goldstone#Major BLP concerns: South Africa section rewrite. I suggest that the article could also benefit from being watchlisted and/or reviewed by BLP regulars so that these problems don't recur. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting long paragraphs of perfectly sourced and perfectly valid information under the excuse of BLP is unacceptable. There may have been issues with pieces of the text. That doesn't mean you delete it all and rewrite it with information that makes him look like a saint, just because you personally feel that he is a "disguished" judge. Other people think the exact opposite of him, and you should not be deleting text just because you disagree. Check out WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Breein1007 (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think editors of that article need to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Editors_counseled and ask themselves honestly whether they are complying with the sanctions. If an editor sees something negative about Goldstone and feels absolutely compelled to add it to the article simply because he has said bad things about their favourite country they need to walk away. At some point, editors need to recognise that dragging Wikipedia into the latest information war shitstorm/character assassination campaign is inconsistent with what we're supposed to be doing here. The mandatory requirement that this cannot be a battlefield isn't that difficult to understand. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Goldstone has been the target of an extended smear campaign in the press. It's obvious enough that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a vehicle for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's been going on since March last year and there's no reason to believe it's going to stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, ChrisO deleted entire paragraphs justified by a very weak rationale. While I do agree WND is not a reliable source, only a fraction of what Chris0 removed was supported by that source. Most of the content meets the general requirement of BLP and the sources are reliable (jpost, ynet, haretz, etc..). It seems ChrisO removed both the negative and supportive sections, and replaced them with very basic cherry-picked facts that don't help the article very much. there really is no need to turn this into an epic battle. I suggest Chris0 restore the major edits and work towards a consensus in talk on the disputed paragraphs. Sound good? If any of you see the article as a victim of a smear campaign please be explicit. I don't think its right to infer other editors are somehow part of a campaign to vilify Goldstone. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's in the interests of the project to openly acknowledge that over an extended period, several editors have repeatedly dragged Wikipedia into multiple shitstorm/character assassination campaigns to vilify Goldstone, Kenneth Roth, Joe Stork, Sarah Leah Whitson, Marc Garlasco, Desmond Travers and many other people. There are 2 common factors, 1) the BLP subjects have criticised various actions by the State of Israel as part of their professional duties and 2) the editors adding the material (often poorly sourced) consistently make edits that can be characterised as 'pro-Israel' (although I would dispute that description personally). This is inconsistent with the discretionary sanctions and it needs to stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sean, that isn't particularly relevant at this point. We are talking about ChrisO removing entire paragraphs (cited with reliable source) about Goldstone's history in South Africa. Now are you seriously accusing me of contributing to a smear campaign of Goldstone because I have a problem with ChrisO' deleting paragraphs that contained criticism of Goldstone's reputation as a lawyer in apartheid South Africa? Sounds like fear-mongering to me. Just follow the rules. Restore the edits and keep the dispute relevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs)

What we had here was basically allegations of questionable accuracy from a non-South African newspaper being used to present a revisionist view of his South African career that simply isn't supported by contemporary sources. As I've said on the article talk page, the material I removed was not in any way "responsible, conservative or disinterested" and grossly unbalanced the article, focusing on one issue - Goldstone's sentencing record - out of context and to the exclusion of almost everything else about this period in his career. Its division into opposing criticism and support sections - with criticism going first - is a classic sign of bad, biased writing. The excessive attention paid to this one issue is also clearly a distortion of the historical record; in researching his career in South Africa I found no evidence that his conduct as a judge was the subject of controversy or criticism at the time. Note that none of this is about whether sources are "reliable." BLP requires much more than that, as the first section of WP:BLP states: biographies "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." -- ChrisO (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you want to censor his well sourced and easily verified sentencing record because you think it portrays him in a bad light. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider making complete paragraphs more concise instead of flat out removing them.Cptnono (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Not at all - his sentencing record is dealt with in the revised version of the article. The difference is that it's dealt with in context and without undue weight. It's not a matter of presenting him in a "good light" (how about assuming good faith some time?) but of presenting a balanced overview that isn't distorted by recent controversies and is consistent with the broader historical record. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, when you remove most of the information (reliably sourced of course) that would put his actions in question, and at the same time put his explanations in the encyclopedia's neutral voice, it would seem you're trying to present him in a good light.

For example, I see that the issue of him upholding Apartheid law through death sentences, lashings, putting children in jail for disrupting school, etc, has been excised from the article. On the other hand the article now states in the neutral voice that "he had always been against the death penalty" (despite sentencing 2 people to death himself and rejecting the appeals of 28 more). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindenting) The context that you are omitting is that - as the article now states - he swore an oath to uphold the law. He wouldn't have been a judge if he hadn't, but by becoming a judge he was able to undermine apartheid from within the system. There's no doubt that he was against the death penalty - another South African judge, D. Curlewis, said in 1991 that he was more likely to impose the death penalty than Goldstone because the latter was one of several judges who were "at heart abolitionists for one reason or another... Obviously, and for that reason, they cannot be sound on the imposition of the death penalty" (7 South African Journal on Human Rights, p. 229). And indeed when Goldstone became a judge on South Africa's Constitutional Court, he voted to abolish the death penalty. I've not yet looked into the "28 appeals" claim you mention in much detail, but my impression is that none of the sentences were carried out because executions had been suspended in 1989, before Goldstone became an appellate judge. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources reported Goldstone did some controversial things. The article should reflect that. It should also reflect the context and other pertinent information. Currently the article reads like a fluff piece. The lead didn't even include the fact he was a judge under Apartheid until I added that a few days ago. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's just review the situation for a moment, shall we? Goldstone has had a long and extremely distinguished career. If you review the sources in detail, it's soon apparent that he had a stellar reputation in South Africa. He was supported and trusted by both sides. Nelson Mandela himself hand-picked Goldstone to sit on the Constitional Court. There is simply no significant controversy and a huge amount of praise in the sources about his role.

As against that, we have a piece published 11 days ago in an Israeli newspaper that makes lurid claims about his past, which contemporary sources and his peers in South Africa do not support, and quotes from fringe figures on the American right that compare him to Josef Mengele and Nazi war criminals - grossly over-the-top and insulting, particularly considering that he's Jewish. You apparently believe that this material is more important than everything that's previously been published about Goldstone. On the contrary, it's classic red flag material - "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons." The "Goldstone as Nazi war criminal" line is an extreme fringe view far removed from the established view of his career.

As I've said before, the fact that something appears in reliable sources does not mean that we should include it or give it more weight than it deserves. BLP isn't just about reliable sources - it's an intersection of multiple policies and a conservative approach to biographical material.-- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Copy and paste from original discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not following you here. You are saying that the fact, reported by a reliable source, that he sentenced a 13 year old Black kid to jail because he was disrupting school in an anti-Apartheid protest should not go in the article because...? What exactly is your policy based argument here? How would presenting this to the reader be a violation of BLP? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Who cares about that? This person has probably made 1,000s of rulings. Why is this one notable? Because somebody with an agenda said so? How widely has that been covered by reliable sources? I have zippo knowledge about this guy and give less of a dam about him. What does concern me is what are editors agenda's for introducing any contensious/agenda driven material into a BLP. Having seen ChrisO works before, it seems that he to really doesn't care about "sides", but is more interested in complying with Wikipedia's policies and trying to deal with BLPs "fairly". Anyways...--Tom (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I also support User:CrisO's comments. I don't know about this person but the selective use of controversial issues giving it undue weight in the life story of a BLP subject is something I also strongly object to. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is notable because he is a prominent human rights activist. Human rights activists usually don't tend to put people to death if they can help it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's completely inaccurate. Goldstone was a judge who supported human rights, not a human rights activist. To become a judge, he had to swear an oath to uphold the law as it stood. South African law at the time gave judges no discretion to avoid imposing the death penalty in certain cases (in this instance, murders with no mitigating factors). I've certainly found no contemporary evidence to suggest that Goldstone's sentencing record was any different from that of any other liberal South African judge. If anything, as the words "liberal judge" might suggest to you, he seems to have had a far better record than the judges who were supportive of apartheid. This whole business of his sentencing record wasn't even an issue until an Israeli tabloid raised it just 11 days ago. It's a textbook example of recentism and undue weight. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

He is now a human rights activist. He was a board member of HRW. How many HRW board members sentenced people to death? Your explanation about the oath he took, while very interesting, is not a reason to keep notable information out of the article.

He obviously was not a human rights activist in the 1980s. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how exactly a couple of sentences about this are UNDUE or how something that happened in the 1980s is RECENT. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

could you present these two sentences here for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion of the quality of the citations in ongoing here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Yediot_Aharonot_at_Richard_Goldstone Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

Here is a proposal for Jimmy Wales#Role: Following a complaint by Larry Sanger to the FBI that he later clarified as obscene visual representations of children in sexual situations being hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete was done hastily, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his co-founder status. He wrote in a message to Wikimedia Foundation mailing list this was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted."[4] See Talk:Jimmy Wales#Wales wades into porn debate. QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the actual question about this? Twelve minutes after you posted this here you added the content to the Jimbo Wales BLP? I have to ask you, having been here three and a half years with many thousands of edits, how come you can not yet format a citation and add it in a correct way? We don't add external links inline like that. Off2riorob (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this is a BLP I wanted to ensure the text was neutrally written including what was later clarified as "illegal obscene visual representations of children in sexual situations". It takes a lot of time to format references. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The proposal was discussed by me at this noticeboard but no rationale objection was made. It was deleted without a specific objection to the text. The text is sourced and neutrally written so logically reason was made to not include. See Talk:Jimmy Wales#Wales wades into porn debate for the discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion involves at least two people. Actually you have presented a wrong diff, the content was removed in this diff with an edit summary of, " Based on BBC rehash of Fox report - not a neutral source - more current reports have Fox involved - don't insinuate kiddiporn allegations when none have been established" you replaced it without discussion and I removed it in support of User:Simonxag's position.Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Fox news source is being used at Larry Sanger with your blessing. The BBC article meets V. The text is sourced and faithfully written to the source. Don't insinuate I added original research. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is actually much more relevant to the sanger article, the comment about insinuation is not mine, your addition to the wales article gives far to much weight to the issue, it is more about sanger, all wales did was remove some pics and got reverted, normal issues at wikipedia, sanger reported to the fbi so the content is about him. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There has been a lot of press coverage about Wales on this issue. Wales' role has changed which is notable. The BBC and other article are making the claims not me. so there was no insinuation on my part. It can't be a BLP violation when it is sourced and neutrally written. For the Sanger page, it did not have the clarification which makes it not neutrally written but you supported the biasely written text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There has been press coverage, not major but minor as it is a minor issue as I said much more to do with Sanger's life story that Wales. Wales role has not changed at all, a couple of very minor issues on minor wikis, his fundamental role has not changed at all, also Sanger made a report and it has not been actioned at all, which is a BLP issue, POV accusations and claims of illegality that came to nothing. As for Sanger that is discussion for the section below, I just supported the citation for that, and I still do. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wales' Status has changed according to the reference. Sanger made a report which is sourced according to V which is not a BLP issue when it is neutrally written. As for Sanger that is discussion for the section below, Off2riorob supported a BLP violation against Larry Sanger when the text was not neutrally written. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wales status has not changed in any notable way. As for Sanger, I still support whatever it was. I also note that you have added the content to the Criticism of Wikipedia article, where you are the third most major contributor of all time to the article, at least that is not a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob acknowledged it is not a BLP at the Criticism of Wikipedia article. When that is not a BLP at Criticism of Wikipedia it can't be a BLP at Jimmy Wales. Wales status has changed which is notable according to reliable sources. As for Sanger, Off2riorob supported whatever text it was while ignoring the BLP violations even though it was not an accurate representation of the sources and contained an unreliable reference. QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't push words into my mouth. The criticism of wikipedia article is not a blp article. I support the additions to Sanger and don't see them as BLP problem at all. I also notice that you are the vast majority contributor to the Larry Sanger article, sure you must have been asked this before but your edit history is reflective of a Single interest account as regards Larry Sanger and criticism of wikipedia. Have you declared a conflict of interest? Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

This forced change added misleading text and unreliable source from Sott.net. The recent edit is WEIGHT problem for a BLP and the material is discussed at Criticism of Wikipedia. There is a discussion on the talk page. See Talk:Larry Sanger#Child porn report section. For the material at the criticism article see Criticism of Wikipedia#Sexual content. QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me, any of about 100 references can be used including the coverage at Fox News. It is about time it was covered. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You ignored the clarification and did not elaborate about this is criticism so it belongs in the criticism article and not the BLP. There is an unreliable source from Sott.net. QuackGuru (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with one source why are you deleting the entire section that has 4 sources? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You not explained your opinion of Sott.net., you have ignored for the second time the problem about the misleading text that does not have the clarification, and I already explained this is about criticism so it belongs in the criticism page. Do you think the text is misleading because it does not have the clarification. It seems you don't care. QuackGuru (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem editor has returned and has ignored the problems again. QuackGuru (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not a "problem editor" you complained about Sott.net and I removed that source added by another author. That was your complaint about BLP, so the tag comes down now that it is no longer in the article. If you have other complaints you need to articulate them better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You did not remove the unreliable referece. You replaced the unreliable reference with another unreliable reference. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There's consensus on the talk page for including the content, there are multiple sources, and the incident is certainly notable. Most significantly, not a single specific criticism of the text has been offered anywhere; only efforts to expunge any mention of Sanger's letter to the FBI, groundless wikilawyering, and empty rhetoric. And as the "problem editor" comment above indicates, some name-calling. Rvcx (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Content appears fine to me, small comment, neutrally and conservatively written and well sourced notable issue in Sangers life and not given excessive weight in his Bio. Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob ignored there was an unreliable reference added and the clarification is missing from the text. QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob has continued to ignore there is an unreliable reference added and the clarification is missing from the text. QuackGuru (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The text is strickly criticism that is already mentioned in the criticism article. See WEIGHT. This is clearly a BLP violation when there is no clarification. Editors continue to ignore my concerns. I request admin oversight. QuackGuru (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Quack, do you mean that it's criticism of Wikipedia or that it's criticism of Sanger? Certainly the fact that Wikipedia has been accused of distributing child pornography is relevant to Criticism of Wikipedia, but the fact that Sanger sent a letter to the FBI is relevant to Sanger himself. Given the coverage the Sanger has received as a result, this certainly seems notable enough to merit at least a single sentence in his bio. Further, I have no idea what "clarification" you're looking for; once again could you please explain in detail what your objection is? Frankly, I'm bewildered (and annoyed) that this discussion needed to be brought to the notice board instead of you simply explaining your objection on the talk page. Rvcx (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Misleading text is a BLP violation against Sanger. See Criticism of Wikipedia#Sexual content that explained the clarification. There is no need to repeat a story about criticism in a BLP. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, Quack—answer the questions and articulate your objections or just drop it. What do you find misleading about the text? I can't even fathom the logic that anything related to any kind of "criticism" is a BLP violation. As I've said, this isn't criticism of Sanger. What's more, Sanger's letter to the FBI need not even be viewed as criticism of Wikipedia—he's repeatedly argued that he thought he was legally compelled to send it. The current text is extremely neutral on this count. Rvcx (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As previously explained, there is no clarification. You can read the clarification at Criticism of Wikipedia#Sexual content. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton has now added an unreliable reference about discussion logs. QuackGuru (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't unreliable, that is the organization that Sanger chose to make his actions known. He chose to contact that organization with news of his actions and they are posting his original email to them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It is unreliable and does not verify the text and it does not explain about the clarification. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You have not shown how the reference is reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a reliable secondary source. It IS a primary source, with the attendant cautions and restrictions. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The text is specifically about criticism and not written from a neutral point of view, and the clarification that is in the Criticism of Wikipedia article was left out of the Larry Sanger page. If editors want to violate WEIGHT they should at least write something that is factually accurate like what is written in the criticism page. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You keep using Wikipedia phrases like NPOV and unreliable-source, but to be honest I haven't a clue what changes you are lobbying for. I think you want the section removed because you think it looks bad for Sanger, or you are Sanger. You need to make it clear what you are lobbying for and not just regurgitate the names of Wikipedia guidelines. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton ignored the comment made by Jclemens. Richard Arthur Norton did not remove an unreliable source. He replaced an unreliable source with another unreliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens was pointing out that as a primary source it is more reliable as a reference for that fact, not less. I ignored it because I agree 100%, nothing more needed to be added to his cogent logic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, don't say anything that could be understood as suggesting that the QuackGuru account is controlled by Larry Sanger. That's an offensive claim (for Larry Sanger), obviously false, and to some extent BLP applies on talk pages. Thanks. Hans Adler 17:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton ignored that Jclemens wrote "It's not a reliable secondary source. It IS a primary source, with the attendant cautions and restrictions." That is clear to me the reference is an unreliable primary source according to Jclemens. QuackGuru (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is still an unreliable source added by Richard Arthur Norton for no reason. QuackGuru (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton also added a BLP violation to the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve Jones (musician)

Steve Jones (musician) is getting hit by a lot of vandals. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama, proposed controversies

Could we get some eyes at this page? A recent closed section, Citizenship conspiracy theories, is being accused of a BLP violation for providing some dirty laundry on Barack Obama; namely that he opposed bills to stop children who survived abortions from being left to die (including the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed in 2002), that he disqualified all 4 candidates in his first election via petition rule technicalities using a team of lawyers, and that he struck a deal with Illinois Senate leader Emil Jones to get himself appointed head of legislation worked on by other senators to raise his political profile.

The problem is, those three controversies alone were sourced with 19 Wikipedia pages already mentioning the controversies, and 33 independent sources from major media organizations like CNN, the New York Times, Time Magazine, the Chicago Tribune, FOX News, the Boston Globe, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, National Review, MSNBC, ABC News, the Washington Post, the Chicago Sun-Times, and the New York Sun. Additionally, 2 Illinois Senate transcript pages were included showing Obama's words verbatim concerning the 1st controversy.

Therefore, I am concerned that this is unfairly being labeled a BLP violation. It's not a BLP violation if there is overwhelming proof that this has been addressed in the media, right? After all, they don't need to be portrayed as accurate, it would be enough simply to point out these have indeed been major issues in the media, and what was reported on. Right now, the discussion is on whether these can even be mentioned on the page at all, and despite overwhelming sourcing showing these to be major issues, there is also adamant opposition from a select group of editors who have been frequently involved in past disciplinary action on the page. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether the discredited "birther" and other stuff about Obama as a BLP violation (as some people would term poorly sourced / unduly weighted / POV / fringe stuff about major political figures), or simply material rejected by consensus on any of a number of other content policy grounds (as I would put it), or simply material that the community has decided through editing process not to include, is a moot point. There is no consensus to add any of this stuff. Further, the editor bringing this seems to be having some major problems with civility, attacks, forum shopping, edit warring, tendentiousness, etc., and appears to be on a flame-out at this point. I've given what should be understood as a final warning on the topic. A serious discussion of this here would be redundant, and frankly, a waste of time. If anyone believes this is a legitimate, sincere editor who may be able to adopt a constructive approach, I strongly suggest they act quickly - if this continues, given that they are renewing the behavior for which they were recently topic-banned for a month, it's probably headed in the direction of a longer term or indefinite separation here. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

'Birther'? Isn't that typically used to refer to the suggestion Obama was not a U.S. citizen? Your use of the term seems disingenuous at best. I would invite anyone to examine the page themselves to see whether the material in question was 'poorly sourced' (YEAH RIGHT) and thus unduly weighted/fringe stuff, as Wikidemon would like to label this. I would even post the sources here to disprove this erroneous lie, except I can assure you Wikidemon would have it closed. I have a problem with thread closings of potentially valuable contribution to the article when it is well-sourced; and this admin, Wikidemon, allowing insults and attacks against conservatives to go unstopped, while using any little excuse (like using bolded red font formatting) to close threads. He would like to portray this as a recent topic ban. The incident in question occurred in December. All of his points are through and through misportrayals of what's actually going on here, and his own problematic actions, and in some cases inaction, as an admin. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This highlights the problem with really enforcing NPOV: even if something is reported in RS, folks who don't like it can manufacture a consensus to reject it. Does NPOV trump consensus? UNDUE, as I read it, and YESPOV, demand that unpopular views be included. FRINGE is inappropriately cited in some cases to suppress minority opinions and beliefs as if they were scientific assertions about reality. Is it any surprise that those who want to see "fair and balanced" representation of what RS'es say can become frustrated? Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

All I would like is for the material to be examined by the merits of its sourcing, rather than an alleged consensus that seeks to silence all who get in its way. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to escalate this to AN/I at this point. Could someone please close this as vexatious and unlikely to lead to any constructive resolution? If there's any hope for the above editor, it isn't by continuing a discussion like this here. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• A thread is open at ANI-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Jzyehoshua.2C_again Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 614

Resolved

 – poorly cited content removed-speedy deleted at AFD

I redirected and protected this article, since it seems to have numerous blp allegations sourced to blogs. I have also voted "delete" on its pending AfD, but I feel that this being a BLP violation, it should be removed immediately. Any admin is welcome to review and possibly reverse my actions. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

AFD is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Airlines_Flight_614 seems to be an issue with format as the template has not appeared on the article, if someone know how to add one belatedly that would be appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see, Crum has deleted and redirected the title to the main American airlines article, here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Airlines_Flight_614&diff=362892774&oldid=362889341 is the content pre deletion, it seems strange and unnecessary to AFD something you have blanked on BLP claims, speedy would have been cleaner, now there is an AFD about removed content? Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I should have protected the redirect originally, but assumed it would just go away. I was then directed to the AfD, where I voted delete, then realized that per BLP the article should be stubbed or redirected. I did this, and this time protected the redirect. Crum375 (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yes your actions are all totally within policy, it just took me some time to work it out and then I see it is all explained an the AFD. I was tempted to snow close and speedy the redirect any objections? Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly won't object, go ahead. Crum375 (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up this leftover... MastCell ^Talk 23:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Good catch! I have deleted the redirect from the flight number, mostly to get rid of the previous revisions. A new redirect can be created in future if so decided. Crum375 (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the article (looking at its Google cache) is stupid and should have been deleted, I see absolutely no reason why it needs to have been revision deleted. It alleged unbecoming behavior on the part of one flight attendant, who was not uniquely identified (i.e., full name not given) Let's be a bit more sensible here, please: NOTHING in what I see in the Google cache demands pseudo-oversighting. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Blumenthal

Richard Blumenthal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a U.S. politician in upcoming elections. It appears the subject has one or two problems, but surely headings like "Lied That He Did Not Accept PAC Money" are not compatible with WP:BLP? If someone would care to make an edit with a summary referencing BLP I will try to join in, but I suspect that articles like this should either be left to the two warring camps, or protected. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sant Singh Chatwal

Further to Ticket:2010051310049011, can someone take a power hose to this article? Looks like someone who doesn't like him very much has stuffed it full of scandal. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned. I don't see anything good ever coming from the Biography myself, it was an awful POV attack piece, personally I support deletion.Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple of IP 74.210.40.55 and and 74.210.48.142 added all the attack content, one editor same location different IP addresses, same POV. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fred Singer

Fred Singer, 85 years old and Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia, is currently described in the lead sentence of his BLP as a "retired atmospheric physicist". The statement is unsourced, and appears to be factually incorrect.

• Mr Singer is the founder and current president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project.
• Recent reliable sources, without exception, describe Mr Singer as an "atmospheric physicist", some even as a "leading", "renowned", etc. atmospheric physicist. [5] [6]. New York Times, Dec. 2009. News sources from this year describing him as such.
• There is not a single google news google scholar or google books source that calls Singer a "retired atmospheric physicist".

Singer continues to play an active part in the scientific community:

• He published his book "Climate Change Reconsidered" in June last year.
• He attended The Fourth International Conference on Climate Change this week, holding a session there on Monday.

In my view, this unsourced descriptor as "a retired atmospheric physicist" is a BLP violation, and the word "retired" should be deleted at the earliest convenience (the article is currently locked). Singer may well have retired from his University of Virginia faculty position as Professor of Environmental Sciences at some point in the past, but we have no basis to describe him as a "retired atmospheric physicist" when there is not a single source describing him as such, when he clearly continues to be professionally active in the field, and when his activities as a scientist continue to be the subject of coverage in top-quality sources like the New York Times.

Related discussions:

• Singer BLP talk page,
• The editors insisting on describing Singer as a "retired atmospheric physicist" include User:William_M._Connolley, currently the subject of this request for arbitration enforcement under Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation. --JN466 19:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: the user filing this request is well aware of this [7], which states "But one prominent critic of mainstream climate science, S. Fred Singer, a retired physicist, is...", and of this source [8] from the U Virginia which lists him amongst the retired faculty William M. Connolley (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The first one of these sources I was not actually aware of, thank you. The other one I linked myself, above. Your source predates this December 2009 article, also in the New York Times, describing him as "an atmospheric physicist", by more than two years. It is undue weight to argue that we should follow the only press source you have been able to find that describes him as "retired", when there are literally dozens describing him as an active atmospheric physicist over the past two years. --JN466 20:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is someone "dismissing the work of physicist Fred Singer as 'fraudulent nonsense" in 2008. I don't mind anyone dismissing his work as nonsense, just don't claim he isn't doing any. ;) --JN466 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

NYT has been calling Singer a retired physicist since 2001 at least, as well as the above link here is another earlier one: [9]. Personally I have no view on including the word retired but I do have a view that it is not sensible to pretend this is a BLP issue. --BozMo talk 20:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just remove the retired bit then, looking at the citations he is a busy man, the misrepresentation of living people is a clear BLP issue. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at a few of these recent citations and reports he doesn't appear to be retired at all, appears to be quite an active octarian. Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I protected the page because of an edit war on the inclusion of the word retired in a different location. As it happens I protected the version with the word out in that version. First you tried to claim twice that a consensus existed to remove the word retired in a second location to get a change under protection when there was clearly no consensus was process abuse. Coming to this page and now trying to present this edit war as a BLP issue is forum shopping. Since I take BLPs seriously I have had to go and check and took trouble to find both academic papers (on google scholar) and repeated RSs to support "retired physicist" when you claimed there were none. If you think that is going to get more sympathy to your particular point of view you are wrong. I have wasted enough time checking your claim that there is a genuine BLP issue here and there is not. It is a normal content dispute. Settle in on talk in the normal way. --BozMo talk 20:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• He is a retired professor; this is uncontroversial
• His contributions to physics were decades ago; his last position was professor of environmental science
• "Scientist" is a job, not a lifelong title; when people retire, they are called "retired x", even if they are in related professions (Colin Powell is called a "retired general", even though his opinion remains widely sought by the press on military matters. Ditto Barry McCaffrey and Wesley Clark).
• If you look at his last 20 years of contributions in ISI-indexed publications (70+, mostly opinion pieces and letters to the editor), the only publications in a physics journals is an opinion piece about climate change
• While he has published opinion pieces on climate change, UV B and skin cancer, CFCs and ozone depletion, oil production, and the origins of Martian moons, there's nothing that appears to be physics
• His current activity does not appear to the in a subfield of physics; analysis of the temperature record does not appear to be physics; speculation on the origins of Martian moons does not appear to be physics; arguing that UV B does not cause melanoma does not appear to be physics. The only thing that might arguably fall into "physics" is the role of CFCs in ozone depletion, and publications related to that issue are opinion pieces in the early 90s, at the far end of the 20-year window I looked at.

Calling Singer a "retired atmospheric physicist" appears to be accurate. How germane it is to his notability is another issue - his last academic positions were not in physics at all. Guettarda (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• First of all, this isn't a WP:BLP issue. It does not reflect negatively on Singer to say that he is "retired", since that is essentially the meaning of emeritus status. Nor is it unsourced: Singer's own university describes him as "retired" and "emeritus" faculty, so while it is possible to debate whether this is the ideal description, it is not possible to claim that this is a BLP violation. Finally, "atmospheric physicist" and "retired atmospheric physicist" are not mutually exclusive categories (rather, the former is a prerequisite for the latter). Just because a source describes him as an "atmospheric physicist", that source does not contradict the idea that he's currently retired. This dispute is picayune to the point of absurdity, but whatever else it may be, it isn't a BLP violation. MastCell ^Talk 20:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that multiple uninvolved editors are just getting totally fed up to the back teeth of the constant never ending disruption from the climate change articles and the climate change editors, It is time to sort this out and stop the constant disruption. Every BLP the group of editors moves to is disrupted and locked, no living person is safe from their attention, all of which results in protection of the BLP and again and again, it is a clear and repeated BLP problem and it needs sorting out. Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it reflects negatively on Singer to call him "retired". We are all well aware that WMC, as a scientist, holds the diametrically opposite point of view to Singer. If you call someone an "atmospheric physicist", that sounds like someone you take seriously. If you call him a "retired atmospheric physicist", that implies you can write him off as an old crank. Please. --JN466 21:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

With respect, you are reading way too much into "retired". It is not an inherently insulting adjective. There's an unhealthy fixation on the personalities involved here, rather than the actual content/policy issue. You can't possibly believe that UVa or the Times are insulting Singer by labeling him "retired". So presumably your objection is that William is applying the descriptor, rather than that the descriptor is inherently offensive. MastCell ^Talk 22:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

When I originally looked into this, I found not a single source calling Singer "a retired atmospheric physicist", the phrase the article's lead sentence has, and hundreds and hundreds of sources calling him "an atmospheric physicist"; among them a few, even of very recent date, calling him a "world renowned atmospheric physicist" or "highly respected atmospheric physicist" (newsmax), or similar terms. There are, I see now, indeed all of 4 sources that have described him as a "retired physicist". Yet he clearly is still very active, and is routinely described as an active scientist, with a voice that commands worldwide attention.

I have never edited the climate topic. If anything, my personal views on it are the opposite of Singer's, but I believe dissent should be heard. I saw SlimVirgin's arbitration enforcement request, and looking through WMC's edits to this BLP, readily came across edits that were exactly consistent with what SlimVirgin (who found WMC made it impossible for her to work on the article) was saying. There was addition of original research, insertion of a self-published source, gratuitous insertion of realclimate.org, a site WMC himself contributes to ("A more detailed discussion of the lack of evidence of a link between the sun and the earth's climate can be found at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Solar RealClimate "), and general evidence of a profound need to control this BLP, not least over the matter of the unsourced "retired" label. Insisting on labelling a man who regularly speaks at international climate conferences, including one this week, and who last year published a widely-reported 880-page book, as "retired", against the weight of sources and outside editor opinion, is simply irrational. This has nothing to do with WMC personally, or his views, only his apparent need to have the Fred Singer BLP say exactly what he wants it to say, and the sources be damned. And you are correct in that I do not now have a very high opinion of WMC's work on this BLP. --JN466 23:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully we aren't all aware that I'm a scientist, since I'm not. I'm a former scientist. I retain a scientific worldview; I retain an interest in the subject; but I'm not a scientist William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you implying the Singer should be referred to as a former atmospheric physicist? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no point in describing Singer as "retired". It seems unhelpful. It's kind of like saying that, "Albert Einstein is a dead physicist who is known for relativity". Also, JN makes an excellent point in his last two sentences above. That's my $0.02 Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that calling someone "retired" is derogatory, akin to calling him a "has been", and should not be done unless there is excellent agreement about it among all reliable sources. I think the title "emeritus" is fine, since it refers to a specific institution, and one can be emeritus from A, while working actively in B. In general in BLP cases, we should aim for the least amount of possible harm, and in this case removing this adjective would accomplish that. Crum375 (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Emeritus" means "retired". One can be retired from a formal position while still remaining intellectually active. It is literally incomprehensible to me that people perceive the word "retired" as a derogatory epithet, or that a retired professor would be "harmed" by being labeled retired. I can only attribute it to the collective insanity that seems to afflict anything related to our climate-change articles. MastCell ^Talk 23:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain to me where the harm is in describing him as "an atmospheric physicist and Professor Emeritus ...", the way the vast majority of sources do? And if there is no harm, then why am I having to type my fingers off here? --JN466 23:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no harm in that description. It's fine. I think either formulation is acceptable, and I don't really care which one is chosen. I do feel strongly that this is a garden-variety minor content dispute, and not a matter of WP:BLP violations. If I were you, I'd probably just let it go, since there's no way that describing a retired faculty member as "retired" is derogatory. Of course, if I were William, I'd also probably let it go, since there's really no reason to fight to include the word "retired" over other equally reasonable formulations. I think you both need to chill. In general, the entire topic area suffers from an unwillingness to concede, a lack of perspective, and an inability to separate important matters from inconsequential ones. This seems like it would be a good place for someone to set an example, but that's just me. MastCell ^Talk 00:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just some of Singer's recent activities

• [10] "... distinguished skeptical scientists, economists, and policymakers from around the world – Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, Fred Singer.. you name them, they’re here", Daily Telegraph blog, today
• [11] "I was impressed by the presentation of Dr Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist and founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service, who challenged the IPCC findings with his research data.", China Daily, 28 January 2010, reporting on the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in Dec. 2009
• [12] In 2007, Professors David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearson, and Fred Singer wrote a scientific paper in the International Journal of Climatology ..., American Thinker, 18 January 2010
• [13] "The scientists said they were on Capitol Hill to challenge the president’s claims and show that Mother Nature controls climate around the world and that CO2 in the atmosphere benefits people, plants and animals. “Nature, not human activity rules the planet,” said Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist and research professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia." CNS News, October 2009

Some recent publications authored or co-authored by Singer found in google scholar

• "Climate Change Reconsidered. 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)", Craig Idso, Fred Singer et al. 880 pages, 2009
• "Petitioning for a revised statement on climate change" SF Singer, H Lewis, W Happer, L Gould, R Cohen, RH … - Nature, 23 July 2009 - nature.com
• "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate", SF Singer, International Panel on Climate Change 2008 12 citations in google scholar
• "Climate Distorting US Energy Policies", SF Singer, The American Oil & Gas Reporter, 2008
• "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions", arizona.edu DH Douglass, JR Christy, BD Pearson, SF Singer, Int'l Journal of Climatology 2007, 30 citations in google scholar
• December 14, 2007 “Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?”, S Fred Singer, Buckeye Institute
• "Unstoppable global warming: every 1,500 years" SF Singer, DT Avery - 2007 (book) 40 citations in google scholar.

If this is retirement, I'd rather work. --JN466 22:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The only thing of any scientific standing is the paper with Douglas, Christie, et al in J. Climatology. The rest is self-published and/or opinion. The ref you give for "Nature, Not Human Activity..." is wrong. The IPCC is not involved. Please be more careful about this. GScholar claims 5 references to it, but only shows 4. Being named as a co-author of one (bad) scientific paper is entirely compatible with a a status as retired scientist. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we are getting to the main point here: Is he a scientist, or is he a political activist on a science-related topic who used to be a scientist? That's an important distinction which, unfortunately, is apparently not being made by most of the press. This asks for compromise language that neither says directly that he is retired or no longer doing research, but also does not suggest that he is still doing research. It may be necessary to write the lead in more clumsy language than we would otherwise do. Hans Adler 22:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you need to be doing active research to be a physicist, any more than you have to write books to be a philosopher, or see patients daily to be a physician. The only way one could be described as a "retired" professional, is if he no longer does work related to his profession, and the reliable sources have a clear consensus that he is retired. Otherwise, we give them the benefit of the doubt, which is compatible with the principle of least harm in BLPs. Crum375 (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, Nature (journal) is "the world's most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal". The piece in question may have been a letter to the editor, but even so, you need to have some standing to get your letter printed in Nature. Hans, I found coverage of Singer in books just the same as in the press: google books. I agree press sources do often have problems, and I wish we relied less on them, but I see no difference on this specific point, and no reason to "correct" sources by substituting editors' original research. --JN466 23:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And Stephan, here are the 12 (not 4) citations for "Nature, hot human activity rules the climate". --JN466 23:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he is a retired (emeritus) professor. However if his training is in physics then he will presumably be a physicist for the rest of his life.   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Spot on. --FormerIPOnlyEditor (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the prevailing opinions of uninvolved editors here (and I myself am not uninvolved) is that it is ok to describe Singer as a retired professor, but not as a retired atmospheric physicist, since that is a title he will carry with him until he passes away. Agreed? Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. MastCell ^Talk 00:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the use of the word "retired" should only be used in the body of the article (i.e., not in the lead) and then only under a "personal life" kind of section. Unless, of course, it can be shown that "retired" is the typical way a retired scientist Wikipedia articles are described as. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• So, does that mean we're agreed here that we can change the lead sentence from
  • Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924 in Vienna) is a retired American atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia.
• to
  • Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924 in Vienna) is an American atmospheric physicist, and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia.
• per all of these sources? --JN466 00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. Crum375 (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Me three. :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --FormerIPOnlyEditor (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Support this alteration. Off2riorob (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Support this change mark nutley (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm on board with it, too (although I'd replace "professor emeritus" with "retired professor" because I prefer simpler wording, but that's just nitpicky) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

How is "atmospheric physicist" a title of any sort? It's a job description. And no, you don't carry your job description for the rest of your life. You carry your PhD (if you were awarded one) for the rest of your life. But you don't carry your job title. You don't carry the title "bus driver" after you stop driving buses, because it's not a title. Nor is "heavy welder". Nor is "physicist". It's a job description. Guettarda (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. When it comes to biographies, we do label people by their life's work. Atmospheric phsyicist isn't necessarily a job title, it's what a person is as a cumulative result of their education, experience, research, formal titles, activities, and, most importantly, how they're described in reliable sources, which are our guide. Cla68 (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree. Professional people carry their training to their deathbed, and may work part time, in various capacities, relying on their professional expertise as long as they live. They don't have to work for a formal employer, nor be producing output at some prolific rate. This applies to physicians, lawyers, artists, philosophers, authors, scientists, and many others. Some of them serve on boards, some provide consulting, sometimes for pay and sometimes pro bono, often till they can no longer function. Some may just publish things on their own website. You can retire from a formal position with a company or institution; you can't retire from your profession. Crum375 (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't follow sources when they are wrong. Despite the fact that many sources simply call him "General Powell" the Colin Powell article quite correctly refers to him as a retired general. If atmospheric physicist isn't a job title, what is it? "Scientist" is not a title, it's a job description. "Atmospheric physicist" is simply the field of science in which you work. Physicians and lawyers, for example, are certified by professional bodies. You have to meet some set of special requirements for professional certification. You don't need an advanced degree in a field to be a scientist. You need to do science. Guettarda (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Professor, on the other hand, is a professional title, much like lawyer. And yet no one has a problem with calling him a retired professor. Guettarda (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources, period. That's what Wikipedia is all about. And you may retire from a position with a company or institution, but you don't retire from your training as an intellectual professional. A "scientist" is someone trained in science. He may work for some company or institution, and then leave those positions and go freelance, to serve on boards, to provide consulting, or just publish his latest ideas somewhere. There is no magical point where a professional like that becomes "retired", only dead, when the time comes. Crum375 (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources, period ... A "scientist" is someone trained in science. - It's pretty amusing you see you say "we follow reliable sources" and then come up with a novel definition of "scientist" which contradicts most sources (and the scientist article). You really need to get the basic facts straight. Guettarda (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is what your wiki link says: "A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method." Can you show me where it says (or implies) that a scientist has to engage in active research? Or where it says (or implies) that if he doesn't work for a university or other large employer he is "retired"? Or where it says (or implies) that he can't be a consultant? Or manage a think thank? Or serve on a board? Or publish his ideas on his website? Or that a scientist is not someone trained in science (are you saying it's enough to self-declare as such, like a Christian Scientist?) Crum375 (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And per the dictdef I also linked below, a scientist is someone with "expert knowledge". You may retire from your job, but not from your knowledge. Crum375 (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I agree with Crum375 - we ONLY follow reliable sources, especially and specifically when it comes to contentious subjects. To do otherwise is to engage in original research. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Crum375 isn't following reliable sources. He is asserting that a "scientist" is someone with a degree in science. This assertion is made without sourcing. It's not just unsourced - it contradicts reliable sources. It's a popular misconception about science and scientists. It's also one that has been used by the people who claim evolution isn't happening, cigarettes don't cause cancer and humans aren't causing climate change. Wikipedia isn't about propagating misconceptions, no matter how popular. Guettarda (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The concept of "scientist" is a linguistic and philosophical term. What counts is the common usage of the term, just like any English word. And as I noted above, scientist does not say a scientist must be engaged in active research to qualify, nor does it say you can become a scientist by self-declaring as one. Crum375 (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And here is a dictdef: "sci·en·tist (sī'ən-tĭst) n. A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science."[14] You train to get expertise, maintain it over your lifetime, and you don't "retire" from it. You may retire from your position at the institution or company, but not from your knowledge. Crum375 (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The situation at Fred Singer is worrying; wanting to insist in the first sentence that he is retired is only a tiny part of it. There has been editing there for a long time that seems to have the aim of undermining Singer, rather than just telling his story, good and bad. I've started a new draft of the article at User:SlimVirgin/Fred Singer. Anyone willing to help build that up with good sources is welcome to join me. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thre is no BLP issue here. How to describe Singer should be done on t:FS; forum-shopping here is unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think trying to disparage a scientist with an opposing point of view by forcing "retired" into his professional description, when he appears to be active, and the sources don't use that qualifier, is akin to calling him a "has been", and is in fact a BLP violation. Crum375 (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would expect that the normal cycle for the biography of a physicist is as follows:

1. "X is a physicist [...]."
2. "X is a retired physicist [...]." or other language that avoids any explicit claims that X still is a physicist. That's because most of us at some point simply stop doing science itself (because it gets too hard for an aging brain and we stop following the latest developments in detail because playing with our grandchildren is a lot more rewarding), even though we may still use our scientific reputations and take part in science-related debates.
3. "X was a physicist [...]."

I suggest that we concentrate on "or other language that avoids ...", because that's where compromise lies. Hans Adler 13:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

At least in my own experience, "physicists" are labeled as such even after they stop doing active academic research or teaching. Many such PhD physicists are still young (in their 30s and 40s), and work as managers, consultants, or board directors, long out of their academic research environment, and are always called "physicist" when referring to their professional background. To call someone "retired" you'd need good sourcing, which would normally reflect what they call themselves. It seems that in this particular case the majority of the sources call this apparently very active person "physicist" without "retired", and we should do the same. Crum375 (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously someone who didn't retire cannot be called retired. But someone who is no longer doing science isn't a scientist. And just because people use language imprecisely and incorrectly doesn't mean that we should. "Physicist by training" or "trained as a physicist", yes. "Physicist" (a scientist working in a subfield of physics), no. Not if it's plainly incorrect. Guettarda (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A good exemplar of this notion may be the Congressman Vernon Ehlers, who has a PhD in nuclear physics. Even though he's a politician now, very clearly not an active physicist anymore, he is routinely referred to as a physicist in media coverage about him. Nowhere in our own article do we refer to him as a "retired physicist," nor does the New York Times in this profile of him and two other physicists elected to Congress [15]. — e. ripley\^talk 14:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Our article says he "was the first..." It doesn't call him a physicist (although the language could be a lot tighter). Nor would it be appropriate to call him a retired physicist, since he didn't (AFAICT) make it to retirement (he was about 40 when he entered politics). He remains a physicist by training. But if he's not doing science, there's no way you can call him a scientist. A scientist is a person who does science. Sure, there are lots of other colloquial definitions. Sure journalists use imprecise (and often incorrect) language all the time. But we aren't supposed to make factual statements that are obviously incorrect. Attribute POV, attribute inaccuracies, but don't assert them as if they were true. Not when they are, quite obviously, not true. Guettarda (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, here's the thing - Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopaedia, so it's important to get things right. We don't assert that the American Bison is a buffalo because many people call it that (actually the article has nicely nuanced, though sadly unsourced, discussion of the term). It's especially true of BLPs. Our BLP policy is about getting it right, not about writing hagiography. Just because OJ says he's not a murderer doesn't mean that we assert his innocence. Just because lots of people say he is one doesn't mean that we can say that either. "Scientist" is a term that's frequently misused by the public, but that doesn't mean we should embrace that usage. "Evolution" is also misused and misunderstood. But just because most people think that individuals evolve doesn't mean that our article should say so. Same here. Incorrect usage should be documented, but it should not be embraced. Guettarda (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"it's important to get things right": Correct, where "right" means an "accurate representation of what reliable sources have written about those things". And not disparaging a man in his BLP by labeling him a professional "has been", when he is clearly doing work in areas related to his profession, is a basic requirement of WP:BLP. Just because you disagree with someone's political or academic views is no reason to trash their biography. If he is so wrong, prove it by showing that reliable sources contradict his views, not by calling him names or otherwise trying to ridicule him. Crum375 (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

But someone who is no longer doing science isn't a scientist. The concept of "doing science" is broad enough to encompass his current opining on controversial subjects involving science, since it's directly based on his career as a scientist. I'm not sure, but he might still be called a scientist if he developed alzheimers and became completely incapacitated. Bureaucrats who come from backgrounds in science and who run scientific organizations are "doing science" and are typically credited with being scientists. How much science is the chief science officer of the British government actually "doing"? Enough, I'm sure. Nobody demands a beaker and a lab coat throughout a scientists' career. The Surgeon General of the United States is still a medical doctor, for instance, even if he or she isn't seeing patients or writing prescriptions. There's also an honorary or honorific element to this, particularly with a public figure. Is this Dr. Smith? Are you a medical doctor? ... I'm a doctor, but I retired from my practice. You don't retire from being a published novelist or poet, either, and will still get called one unless you insist on saying you have stopped writing, and say it loud and long. It's a bit different with various professions and offices. Governors, senators and U.S. presidents and generals keep the honorific in retirement, mostly informally I think. And there are no "former Marines". It's not right to ignore the honorific implications of a desription. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? Who came up with the idea that "retired" == "has been"? My uninvolved, purely personal opinion: stating that he is a "physicist and retired professor" should suffice, because that's what he is. He still gives his own opinions and writes papers on physics, but he retired from being a professor. Why is that controversial? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

S. E. Cupp

S. E. Cupp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Repeated insertion on OR/POV non notable material. Edit warring and non use of talk page. A few more eyes would be appreciated. Thanks. --Tom (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied at the article talk page. — e. ripley\^talk 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hutaree

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

Hi, i'm kinda of on a wikibreak and limiting my time on here, but a user has recently added Ref to OKCupid and a bunch of other questionable sources that may constitute WP:OR on an individual within the movement. I dont have time to deal with it right now but is highly questionable at best. I considered posting on OR noticboard until i remembered that it fell under BLP, here is the restored material diff [16] I'm sorry i dont have time to bicker with this guy. thank you Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, i'm kinda of on a wikibreak and limiting my time on here, but a user has recently added Ref to OKCupid and a bunch of other questionable sources that may constitute WP:OR on an individual within the movement. I dont have time to deal with it right now but is highly questionable at best. I considered posting on OR noticboard until i remembered that it fell under BLP, here is the restored material diff [17] I'm sorry i dont have time to bicker with this guy. thank you Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Perry (politician)

Jeff Perry (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi. This is an edit dispute. An IP keeps adding an unreliable source, and refuses to discuss at the talk page. See here. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Some help with this would be much appreciated. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've just requested semi-protection.[18]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The semi-protection was rejected, the vandalism continues, and the vandalism includes criminal accusations. Is there something else I'm supposed to do here? If not, I'll just let the vandalism pile up. It's not my BLP after all, so it's no big deal as far as I'm concerned.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• That whole section is just a partisan slur, it take up as much space in his life story as large sections of his political career. His involvement was minimal and that whole section is valueless scandal mongering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Perry_%28politician%29#Wareham_police_controversy I recommend trimming it for weight. Trimmed. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thx.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, if the content is replaced we should direct the IP here for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Lisa Ling

Lisa Ling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

 – DOB corrected

I doubt that she was born in 1900! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriam Feldstein Case (talk • contribs) 05:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted by CaliforniaAliBaba (talk · contribs). Aditya Ex Machina 09:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Diane Abbott

Diane Abbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just wish to draw some attention that this article appears to be far from neutral in its description of Diane Abbott's career. There is undue attention given to minor issues as "Controversies" and repeated poorly sourced or unfounded accusations of racism. In addition the "Controversies" section makes little effort to present a balanced view on these issues and reads like a list of accusations. The piece does not have the tone of a balanced autobiography.

I have made some effort to remove what is clearly unsourced or unfounded, but the whole piece is, in my view in need of significant, urgent overhaul, particularly in light of her now raised profile as candidate for Labour leader. Particularly as I have already witnessed erroneous information being quoted from Wikipedia on blog comments etc.

143.117.45.114 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have only found two refs which looked suspect, one was to answers.com the other to a blog. I have removed them an tagged If you have a reliable source for her candidacy for the labour party leadership fire it in man mark nutley (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Article has been tweaked a bit since its higher prominence since Abbot announced she would stand for leadership election of the labour party. Article is now semi protected for one month by the Administrator User:HJ Mitchell . Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Abhisit Vejjajiva

Abhisit Vejjajiva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some of the most contentious information on here is very poorly sourced. For example, the line "Among the dead protesters were soldiers dressed in red shirts - the Army did not clarify what they were doing among the protesters" in the last introductory paragraph cites four different sources, three of which mention nothing of the kind, and the one which does (the first) does so in a bit-piece article on a different subject, and states only that soldiers were in disguise, not that they were wearing red shirts (an important distinction given the background to this issue--wearing red shirts implies specific attempts to infiltrate the protesters, whereas if they had been wearing black disguises, they are likely disaffected elements of the Thai military not controlled by the government led by the subject of this article).

In the same paragraph, the line "Members of Abhisit's government were implicated in the 2009 attempted assassination of PAD leader Sondhi Limthongkul, although the government blamed Thaksin" is possibly libelous, and again is not supported by any of the three sources cited. The third source supports the second contention of the sentence (that members of government accused Thaksin Shinawatra of masterminding the assassination attempt) but none of the sources support the libellous contention that "member of Abhisit's government were implicated" in the assassination attempt.

Much later in the article, under the section "Thaksin asset seizure court case", the line "Twenty-three people were killed in the conflict, including a Japanese cameraman, a number of uniformed soldiers, and an unknown number of soldiers dressed in red shirts" is included, again citing multiple sources, none of which confirm any soldiers dressed in red shirts, or indeed any information other than that a given number of people (ranging from nineteen to twenty-four, depending on source) were killed, and one was a Japanese cameraman.

These issues are present throughout the (unusually long) article, even including the final section, titled "Unusual wealth" which claims "The result of the government's investigation into Abhisit's alleged unusual wealth was not revealed" while citing a source that never mentions any such investigation.

71.57.71.46 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• I removed all mentioned. The article is excessively long with multiple issues. Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Sol Hoopii

Sol Hoopii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

 – Changed talk page to reflect non BLP

The talk page has erroneously been tagged re bio of living persons. Sol Hoopii died 1953. I am unable to remove tag. Maile66 (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I just changed the talk page template, hopefully thats ok now? Thank you. --Tom (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Ubiles

Edwin Ubiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

 – Not a BLP issue, OP advised to take elsewhere

Why does wikipedia waste space on an unknown college basketball player? Unless he does something that is of importance, he should not have an entry on this site. If that is the case, then perhaps someone should create a wikipedia entry for EVERY NCAA college basketball player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.75.56 (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue. If you feel this person isn't notable enough for an article go to WP:AFD and nominate it for deletion. Exxolon (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Sent to AFD for deletion discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edwin_Ubiles Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert Amsterdam

Robert Amsterdam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It may be worth a few eyes on the Robert Amsterdam article for a while. Amsterdam is exiled Former Prime Minister of Thailand Thaksin Shinawatra's lawyer and spokesperson. He's been in the media recently arguing the Red Shirt's side during the recent demonstrations/army actions in Bangkok. I noticed that a Bangkok based IP made this potentially contentious edit. There may be more in the post. There's also this entertaining BLP violation from January. There are also things like 'The firm's unique niche of handling politically difficult cases in some of the most challenging investment environments'.... Sean.hoyland - talk 11:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Article has multiple issues. Uncited claims, inline links, all citations unformatted, excessive promo fluff and so on. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Rick Scott (businessman)

Rick Scott (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, earlier today I put a comment on the Discussion page for Rick Scott (businessman) because I am very concerned that it is unfair to him. It is a matter of great concern to me because I work with him. However, I understand that if I make changes directly that may cause additional trouble, and I wish to avoid this. Mr. Scott is now running for Florida governor, and it is a very serious problem that this article seems to be written by his political opponents and does not present information neutrally.

There is too much hostile language to deal with it all now, but I did make 3 suggestions to the article today. I hope that someone will recognize these points are a serious issue and take care of them. If there is a better way to go about this, I would appreciate information about that as well. Thank you. --Thirteenth Florida (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is just about the correct place. American political candidate with heaalthcare issues, could any neutral USA editors have a look? Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Debi Nova

Debi Nova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

 – removed large copy and paste addition Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The article has a good summary at the beginning, with a couple of sources. After that, it goes completely downhill into something that seems to be written exclusively by her label's P.R. team. It's in urgent need of attention and citations. I'd do it myself, but I'm a new user and it's not a question of deleting the article, it's about trying to improve it. If the whole thing is simply deleted, no one benefits. Wholeheartedly wishing you fix this soon, --Conoceymedio (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this notification. The large addition from an IP account was a copyright violation from http://www.hitlab.com/83362/interviews/blog/33454 I have reverted the article back to pre-the addition and notified the IP about our policies and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nastassja Kinski

Resolved

Nastassja Kinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) removed a sourced rumor in this edit. I reverted him, and he reverted me back. I have no problem either way, I would just like to know what is correct according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, both in general, and in this specific case (with its specific sources) in particular. Debresser (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw that edit of yours (not wherever it first came from), and thought it quite inappropriate, as Hullaballoo's edit summary states. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That paragraph was a very selective and distorting reporting of what was actually in the interview. IMO that was a BLP violation. Hans Adler 12:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to be weakly claimed/cited and the fact that you have to add "rumored" and "denied by the subject" is reflective of the value of the actual content, cited to that opinionated video and a autobigraphy, doesn't also seem well known either, titillating content. I would also remove it for discussion and consensus., which in this case seems to be to exclude. Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions. I got the point. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Damishi Sango

Damishi Sango (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject of this article is objecting to it, with some justification. See User talk:Aymatth2#Damishi Sango I created the article by patching together material from newspaper stories, which gives a rough, unbalanced and incomplete result. The subject replaced that version with a copy of his biography from http://damishisango.com/the-man/, much more complete but decidedly fluffy and dropping information from reliable independent sources. Not sure how to proceed... Aymatth2 (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It is just a cut and copy copyright violation from http://damishisango.com/the-man I reverted back to your version and I have left him a note on his talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with your research been replaced, I am quite happy to leave the information you posted there in. But what I cannot do is to leave your rough picture which paints a wrong image of the subject. The information on www.damishisango.com is a much more complete biography of the subject. I will do another edit of the article, ignoring your own edit and sources, but adding to it my own edit and sources in order to provide a much more balanced and complete picture of Damishi Sango. Samejohnton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samejohnton (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, please take a little time to read the links I placed on your talkpage, as I pointed out there "your contributions are welcomed but as you have commented that you are the subject of the article here you are discouraged from editing the actual article" .. your contributions are welcome please present your desired alterations, improvements and supporting citations here or on the article talkpage for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Article has been semi protected for a week, repeated insertion of cut and copy copyright violations. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Art LaFleur

Art LaFleur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be some editing that continually tries to add some information about a nonexistent nephew. This ip is public and continually makes the fake changes. It needs to be blocked from editing as it continually defaces the article. Possibly, this article just needs to be locked, and definitely closely monitored. 16:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.13.115 (talk • contribs)

Hi, seems to be an IP66 that has also added similar false additions at onther articles and has mostly done silly edits and slipped under the radar. He hasn't edited for a couple of weeks and never may come back again, if he returns and continues to add false details to article we can look at blocking him then. We can't lock an article I am afraid. I have also added it and the IP address to my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Michael Pousti

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

This article should be combined with SMS.ac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - cf. Wikipedia:BLP1E (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:BLP1E|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mr. Pousti is really only well known for being President of SMS.ac. The article needs some serious editing the last paragraph as well.

Agreed, he does not look to be individually notable, any comments? Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Mordechai Vanunu - editor adding sources from her own websites

Mordechai Vanunu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Concerns about sourcing, I just remove a load of links to a blog, and I have also seen, & left, links to another site eg[19] owned by the blog owner who is also heavily editing the article, Eileen fleming. Dougweller (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think those citations are reliable and have removed them and left the editor a note on her talkpage with links explaining the issue and asking her not to replace them without support at the WP:RSN. Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC). Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A few more eyes needed at News.admin.net-abuse.email

A few attempts have been made to add the name of an unpopular but otherwise non-notable living person to this article. Further note, I've also removed my own name from that article but I'm not the person in question. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is thoroughly inappropriate. I've removed another negative reference sourced to a googlesearch. [20]. The article is problematic as a whole actually. There's a heck of a lot of unsourced information, and a severe lack of secondary sourcing, needed to show that the topic is even notable. --Slp1 (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Akahi Nui

Akahi Nui: tone of article is unrelentingly hostile to its subject. In particular, it is utterly inappropriate use the expression "a lifelong criminal" to refer to someone whose convictions all relate to what are essentially acts of civil disobedience (asserting his sovereignty as king of Hawaii). Would we call civil rights protesters "criminals" on a similar basis? But clearly there are other problems with the article as well.

I have no expertise on the topic. A friend interested in Hawaiian sovereignty issues pointed me at the article. - Jmabel | Talk 16:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Should this article even exist? A Google Books search only came up with about half a dozen hits, some of which appeared to be on unrelated subjects. A regular Google search showed a lot of hits, but not much in the way of actual reliable sources. For a BLP, we need good sourcing, and if it doesn't exist, neither should the article. *** Crotalus *** 17:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• In any event, it looks like the hostile material is now removed. - Jmabel | Talk 00:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Gary Fitzgerald

Appears to be an autobiography of a non-notable person. A candidate for local elections in Ireland who failed to get elected and has tried to keep up a media profile since. User Account Dublinborn appears to have created this article and not much else Special:Contributions/Dublinborn, concern it may violate WP:Auto

There was a vote to keep after discussion 4-2 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Fitzgerald

Lloyd Banks and John Corso

There appears to be an orchestrated effort to slander John Corso by inserting repeated BLP violations into the Lloyd Banks article. I can't say that I understand the connection, but the Banks article is being repeatedly vandalized. It would be a good idea to keep track of both articles. I'm going to request protection for the Banks article, but I don't understand why the Corso article isn't the subject of the attacks. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong John Corso I think. One of the vandalism edits said it was an Australian male. So at a guess, the now blocked vandal who also appears to be from Australia either knows this John Corso or is this John Corso; and is also a Lloyd Banks fan. So that's your connection. Either way the vandal is now blocked, hopefully won't return Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

350.org

Resolved

 – Semi-protected. Peter 19:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

350.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) List of "messengers" is controversial (IMHO) and sourced only to the organization. Repeatedly re-added by the 99.* anon (who probably are all the same person) and other anons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A poor BLP under another's name

This article, Janice_Nicolich (deceased), appears to be of dubious notability, but worse, it contains significant content on a living person called Verma. This content appears appears sourced, but I don't think it sits well with WP:BLP. Can someone offer an opinion? This came up at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Family History. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Trimmed all mention of Verma. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Carl Levin

An editor insists on using questionable citations regarding U.S. Senator Carl Levin's lack of military service. I had requested that the editor use only bonafied journalistic citations to support the edit. But he instead started an edit war. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, discussion here also [21], where I've left an opinion. — e. ripley\^talk 01:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the bit as POV and said so on the article talk page. I also left a comment to this effect at the editor assistance request linked just above. I hope this helps. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Muriel Gray

Muriel Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have tried on several occasions to publish a purely factual piece of information to the biography of the living person Muriel Gray. It has been deleted. All I want to say is the following;-

Muriel Gray's High Court claim against Geoff Widders related to the date of his unpublished novel Flight of the Shaman and the date of her novel The Ancient.

It is an absolutely factually correct statement. Muriel Gray was successful in her claim. And yet people continue to delete it - why do they wish to hide the truth?

This is the link to the article;- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muriel_Gray&action=edit&undoafter=364477255&undo=364485431

thanks

Geoff Widders —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoff Widders (talk • contribs) 19:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? – ukexpat (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Self published non wikipedia reliable blog, the editor Geoff Widders here is of the same name as the person in dispute with the living subject, please do not insert this content again and take some time to read our policies. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This needs more eyes, lots of 'new' editors appearing at this article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Article is protected for a week while we discuss this. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Noah Kirkman

Noah Kirkman concerns over POV in new article, WP:BLP.  Chzz  ►  23:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

AFD...speedy. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of a good rational to delete it (I must be tired) its about a ten year old person whose mother sent him to Oregon to stay with his dad with a note and he ended up in care for a couple of years. I have trimmed the POV and the not reliable citations. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I realise that this child was not technically abducted but isn't this on a par with "cross border child abduction by parent" cases? Are they notable? Yes it has had some press coverage but it looks pretty close to a WP:BLP1E IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a one event also in my opinion, feel free to AFD Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Jensen: Do serious accusations from potentially biases sources require a higher standard of proof?

Arthur Jensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like some comments from more experienced editors about the interaction between WP:BLP and (potentially) false claims made in reliable sources. Full discussion is here. Summary: Don Campbell is a famous psychologist who does not like Arthur Jensen. He claims that Jensen "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites." This is, obviously, an extremely serious accusation. I also believe that the accusation is false. Neither Campbell (nor any Wikipedia editor involved in the dispute) has been able to provide a citation to any of Jensen's (voluminous) writings where Jensen actually says this. In fact, Jensen believes that separate curricula for low IQ and high IQ students may be a good idea. Needless to say (and even though Jensen believes that average IQs differ among blacks and whites), this is a very different claim. Question: Does WP:BLP require that extremely serious (and, possibly, libelous) claims made about a living person X meet a higher standard of proof than simply that person Y (with a documented bias against person X) makes the claim? Thanks for any opinions you have to offer. David.Kane (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A claim like that attributed to his opponent that has not been cited to any other location and is appearing to be an isolated opinion unsupported at any other reliable locations in independent reports, yes I would say without looking under those conditions it would be a WP:BLP violation, as in, contentious claims require exceptional citations. Off2riorob (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It is reported by Jensen himself (see below). Jensen's theory of Level I and Level II learning is reported in multiple sources (eg textbooks on intelligencewell as well as jensen's own writing). Nor is it correct to characterise an eminent scientist as his opponent. Jensen might pereive him as such but he is an expert commentator and apparently it's only these statement which David.Kane is objecting to. However he has let it appear in another article without a problem. Please could Off2riorob give a more carefully response when he has read the facts. Well really can't do very much if academics like Jensen think they have enemies. In this case, indeed, he and his coworker has described the academic mainstream etsablishment as being in the grips of a Marixt neo-Lysenkoist conspiracy.

• A while back David.Kane tried to WP:CPUSH the same unfounded point at History of the race and intelligence controversy. It refers to the a suggested recommendation by Arthur Jensen in 1969 and later that two types of learning were appropriate for blacks and whites in the US; Level I learning (by rote) and Level II learning (abstact reasoning with concpets). On the first occasion he accepted eventually that the statements in the secondary source by William H. Tucker were in his 2002 book Scientific Racism (University of Illinois Press) were accurate and not a BLP violation (the first boxed quote below). Now he is having the identical argument abouttthe same material referred to in a quote from a paper of Donald T. Campbell, a very distinguished psychologist. Campbell's statement again refers to level I and level II learning. Now another editor with the same point of view had made exactly the same atgument and conceded he was wrong. He had not editied the other history article, but had been summoned to this article by another editor who often edits in tandem with David.Kane.[22] He changed his mind when he read that Jensen had confirmed Campbell's statement some year's later about rote learning.[23]. Jensen because of an article he wrote in 1969 containing these statements became of the most controversial figures in the US: this is a well documented episode in the history of psychology. His 1969 paper is usually referred to in textbooks on psychology as controversial or notorious. Here David.Kane is objecting to the use of an article by the eminent psychologist who was president of the American Psychological Association at the time of the huge uproar in the 1970s, when individuals were firing claim and counterclaim against each other. here however he was writing just before the edn of his life - the publication is posthumous. The publication is here:
• Campbell, Donald T. (1996), "Unresolved Issues in Measurement Validity : An Autobiographical Overview", Psychological Assessment, 8: 1040–3590

and the commentary was also described here:

• Laosa, Luis M. (1996), "Intelligence testing and social policy", Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17: 155–173

The identical statement appears with verifiable resliable secondary sources in History of the race and intelligence controversy#1960-1980. The relevant passage which David.Kane accepted there was:

He also concluded [50] that some kind of eugenic intervention was needed to reduce the birthrate of those with low IQs, particularly in the black population, and that as students they should be taught by relying on their ability to associate rather than understand, i.e. learning by rote, not through conceptual explanation.[51]

The passage he is now objecting to is:

On the final point 25 that "research findings neither dictate nor preclude any particular social policy", Donald T. Campbell wrote:

On the contrary, the policy implications are clearly to discontinue compensatory educational effects. Arthur R. Jensen, one of the cosigners of the article, has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites: Rote learning for one, conceptual problem solving for the other. The quality of the schools Blacks go to are generally greatly inferior to those of Whites and would become more so with separate curricula of this type.

The objections seem spurious and, since there is no doubt that Jensen did make these recommendations in published papers (and later a book), I cannot see what possible grounds there is for a BLP violation, I have no reason to believe that Donald T. Campbell bore any grudge against Jensen and I believe that, as a very highly regarded academicm he was writing dispassionately. Jensen and his closer associates, in particular Linda Gottfredson, on the other hand have made outpsoken remarks about presidents of the American Psychological Association, including both Donald T. Campbell and Robert Sternberg, both of whom are or were extremely eminent in their field. So I would assume that interchanges like this are fairly common amongst some psychiatrists. Certainly in the uproar of the 1970s, Jensen came into conflict with many academics, some of whom were very eminent. I don't think either Sternberg or Campbell have been unduly outspoken in print. Mathsci (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Bit confusing, the issue was simple.. the claim by this person that the subject "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites." could you show me where this is independently verifyable. Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. The google book link I gave above [http://books.google.com/books?id=LQEOPOZiaAYC&pg=PA356&lpg=PA356&dq=rote+learning+jensen&source=bl&ots=e8BhlWIko3&sig=_N1FwuyexISBgmWQp

Honestly I think the issue is mainly one of notability to Mainstream Science on Intelligence. I have access to Campbell's publication in full, and this ad hominem attack on Jensen is one unreferenced sentence in a six-page double-column paper which addresses all the other points directly and with extensive citations to published research. Picking out that one attack as a major point is agenda-pushing. Seems like an obvious no for this article unless there are plenty of other reliable sources that pick out one (possible) view of one of the 52 signatories far more prominently. Rvcx (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why this is an "ad hominem attack" on Jensen. In the longer article by Luis Laosa, referring to a letter by Campbell in the WSJ, there is a reference to a 1972 book of Jensen, Genetics and education. Besides - if you hadn't realised it - Donald T. Campbell died between submitting the paper and its publication. The ideas of Level I and Level II learning are hardly a secret and well known to psychiatrtists. For example page 178-179 of

• Mackintosh, Nicholas, IQ and Human Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, ISBN019852367X {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |Year= ignored (|year= suggested) (help)

discusses this theory of Jensen explicitly. This is an undergraduate textbook - so it has become common knowledge in the subject. But just look at what Jensen himself says before claiming BLP violations. How would we report Jensen's papers, vene secondary sources, on wikipedia in these circumstances. Anyway the article Mainstream Science on Intelligence is just a one page statement in the WSJ. which probably was quite controversial. Nicholas Mackintosh comments exactly on black-white differences on page 179 of his undergraduate textbook. There's no indication whatsoever that Donald T. Campbell was malicious. Accroding to the obituary at Lehigh University [24] he was, "Above all, Don was a marvelous human being, and a great friend. We shall all miss him deeply." We wikipedians at all that Campbell was writing in a hostile way. he was giving his opinion as one of the great academic psychologists of the 20th century. But again this is not an "ad hominem attack". In their WSJ article - a sort of OpEd that would not nomrally warrant a wikipedia article - the writeres claimed that their statements had no impact on social policy in the US. Campbell was merely giving an example of a piece of research of that nature which did involve recommendations for social policy. That's hardly an "ad hominem attack". It is a comment on point 25, the last of their 25 point. You can see a low resolution version of the page from the WSJ in the article. Mathsci (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

An ad hominem attack doesn't need to be malicious; it just means it addresses the person instead of the argument. This one sentence just doesn't rise to the level of notability in that context.

More importantly, you are trying to conflate Jensen's ideas of different learning styles for different IQs with support for different learning styles for different races. It's the racial angle that I'm having trouble verifying. Rvcx (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Digging into this more, I'm having a very hard time verifying the text "He also concluded that some kind of eugenic intervention was needed to reduce the birthrate of those with low IQs, particularly in the black population," pointed out in the History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy article. I haven't yet read all of Jensen's 80-page piece that is used as a source, but I haven't yet seen anything suggestion that eugenic intervention is "needed"; only his hypothesis that such intervention would have a greater effect on IQ than remedial education (which is a very different contention). What's more, you need a really strong source for the "particularly in the black population" part, and I just don't see it. In fact, despite his claims that there are statistical differences in IQs between races, Jensen appears to argue against using race as a proxy for anything:

Whenever we select a person for some special educational purpose, whether for special instruction in a grade-school class for children with learning problems, or for a "gifted" class with an advanced curriculum, or for college attendance, or for admission to graduate training or a professional school, we are selecting an individual, and we are selecting him and dealing with him for reasons of his individuality. Similarly, when we employ someone, or promote someone in his occupation, or give some special award or honor to someone for his accomplishments, we are doing this to an individual. The variables of social class, race, and national origin are correlated so imperfectly with any of the valid criteria on which the above decisions should depend, or, for that matter, with any behavioral characteristic, that these background factors are irrelevant as a basis for dealing with individuals—as students, as employees, as neighbors. Furthermore, since, as far as we know, the full range of human talents is represented in all the major races of man and in all socioeconomic levels, it is unjust to allow the mere fact of an individual's racial or social background to affect the treatment accorded to him.

We need to be very careful about recasting libelous mischaracterization of his work as fact. Rvcx (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Rvcx for pointing out the issue at History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy. Following WP:BLP, I have deleted it as well. David.Kane (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• (refactored) Did you look in the secondary source (Tucker 2002)? The page numbers there are 95 and 115 in the original 123 page document. These are the page numbers given by Tucker. The quote from the paper on eugenics, given in Wooldridge (1995), is:

Is there a danger that current welfare policies, unaided by eugenic foresight, could lead to the genetic enslavement of a substantial segment of our population?

This requires looking at 2 or more secondary sources and the primary source, which I don't believe is available in paginated form on the web. Finding things like this takes time. In this case this quote is cited in a 1995 Cambridge University Press book by Adrian Wooldridge. No need for wikipedians to start bandying round mention of libel in this silly way. Mathsci (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2010 (U

We are all amateurs here, the whole wikipedia is written for ordinary people. These claims are doing nothing for me, can you just keep it simple and show us a strong quality citation for this contentious claim about a living person? Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is the libel and where is the problem with level I and level II learning? Both of you are making remarks off the tops of your head without any lengthy attempt to look at the sources or the article[s] - you haven't had enough time to do that. At the moment Rcvx is suggesting that a book published by Cambridge University Press and University of Illinois Press contain libellous content, by quoting Jensen's 1969 or 1968 papers. that is an absurd statement to make. No reputable academic publisher would do that. Jensen's article does indeed contain that quote and secondary sources comment on it. Likewise it contains a discussion of rote learning. Campbell's claim is not contentious at all: other commentators made similar remarks about point 25 and social policy. Jensen did recommend this in his article. It's also explained in Tucker's book; and if you look at the the statements by Jensen I just gave you (on google books), Jensen himself says it. May I suggest that, instead of rapid fire postings her, you take a little time yourself to look at the google books reference, Mackintosh, Wooldridge, Tiucker and the primary source. Otherwise you're not really in a position to comment, are you? Mathsci (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That quote absolutely does not express a "need" for eugenics, merely the entirely mainstream notion that the better we are at accommodating genetic differences the greater those differences will become. Asking whether antibiotics might result in a human subpopulation with terrible immune systems (because several generations in increasingly-worse natural condition can survive) is not the same as declaring a need to ban antibiotics.

It's also worth reviewing WP:SYNTH. Putting together bits and pieces from different sources to form conclusions is a job for historians and biographers, not Wikipedians. Rvcx (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, contentious claims require quality citations. We have a duty of care to represent our subjects in a balanced way, asserting a plus b makes him a fan of c is not what we are here to do at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is absurd. You haven't read the article. You're two amateurs trying to make your own commentar y and judgement on a 123 page paper in educational psychology and psychometrics from 1969. A primary source, What you're doing at the moment is just WP:OR. You two know very well that's why we use secondary sources. I have no idea what makes you think that your own amateur commentaries on papers in psychology, where you have no expertise, has any value at all. How are you in a position to judge. In 30 minutes neither has the expertise to make these judgements. But you're also commenting apparently on all the scecondary mentioned above which you abviously haven't had time to look. This is very unscholarly and certainly you seem to be playing wikipedia like some kind of teenage video game. Neither of you is in a position to evaluate primary sources like the 1969 article of Jensen.

Again where is the contentious statement, where is the evidence that an academic article of Donald T. Campbell was malicious and why is it that you are claiming that mention of eugenics and contolling birth control is libellous? At the moment there has just been a lot of hot air. Certainly none of the content of the two books published by Cambridge University Press and University of Illinois Press is libellous. Summarising that content on wikipedia similarly is not libellous. Please can both of you try to get some grip on reality (unless of course you want ArbCom to be involved)? Mathsci (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like a blp issue to me, here it is...He claims that Jensen "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites." please provide a reliable quality citation that supports this claim. Where does the subject claim it himself in his work, please link me to the content from the subject ? 17:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Tucker, William H. (2002), The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund, University of Illinois Press, pp. 148, 255, ISBN 0252027620 (book won three prizes)
• Wooldridge, Adrian (1995), Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England c.1860-c.1990, Cambridge University Press, pp. 363–373, ISBN 0521395151
• Mackintosh, N.J. (1998), IQ and Human Intelligence, Oxford University Press, pp. 178–179, ISBN 019852367X
• Jensen, A.R. (1969), "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?", Harvard Educational Review, 39: 1–123 (primary, pages 85 and 115, pagination of article in original journal as referenced in Tucker)
• Jensen, A.R. (1972), Genetics and Education, Harper and Rowe (primary)
• Modgil, Sohan; Modgil, Celia (1987), Arthur Jensen, consensus and controversy, Routledge, pp. 355–357, ISBN 185000093X {{citation}}: horizontal tab character in |id= at position 5 (help) (Jensen's own commentary in 1987)

As requested. The first two are the main secondary sources from books in the history of psychology. The third of Level I (rote learning) a Level II learning (abstract conceptual reasoning). There are many other sources but these are the two that cover the history from 1960-1990. Mathsci (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This thread is almost in need of archiving. Please just link me to a simple quality citation that supports that the subject of this BLP said that he "recommends separate curricula for Blacks and Whites". Please quote me the exact comments and the exact location of the comments. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) It is on page 148 of Tucker (2002). There Tucker writes, "The conclusions of Jensen's article were thus both educational and social: rote memorization to improve the skills of low IQ black children unable to appreciate abstract principles and some sort of eugenic intervention designed to reduce their numbers". It can be viewed on amazon.com (if you've purchased there recently). Mathsci (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming circular. I think if anything is going to beresolved, we need to change the format of this discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "separate curricula" but the Tucker book from the University of Illinois clearly indicates he recommended different teaching methods. "Jensen argued that minority schoolchildren were hampered neither by discrimination nor deprivation; their poor educational performance was a consequence of teaching methods that had been appropriate for white middle-class students but not for minorities, who did not respond to conceptual explanations because of the genetic limitations in their intelligence but who could nevertheless be taught be relying on their ability for association rather than understanding. Obviously reflecting the influence of his discussions with Shockley, Jensen also expressed concern that "misguided and ineffective attempts to improve [the] lot" of blacks through social programs would only lead- in the physicist's favorite phrase- to their "genetic enslavement" unless accompanied by "eugenic foresight". The conclusions of Jensen's article thus were both educational and social: rote memorization to improve the skills of low-IQ black children unable to appreciate abstract principles and some sort of eugenic intervention designed to reduce their numbers." --Slp1 (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have lost sight of what we're trying to verify. So far I've highlighted two issues:

• Campell's claim, quoted in the Mainstream Science on Intelligence article, that Jensen "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites". No doubt that Campbell claimed this, but I just don't see how it's notable in Mainstream Science on Intelligence. Campbell said a lot of things much more relevant and important in his response; cherry picking this one quote seems like going out of your way to attack Jensen. To achieve notability, we'd need Jensen's (claimed) view to be highlighted as a major factor (not a single sentence buried at the end) by other reliable sources reporting on the "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" article as well.
• The statement "He also concluded that some kind of eugenic intervention was needed to reduce the birthrate of those with low IQs, particularly in the black population," in the History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy article. Jensen definitely mentioned eugenics, but I haven't found anything saying that he thought it was needed, and I certainly haven't seen anything saying that eugenics should be applied particularly to blacks. Note that we're not allowed to put the the pieces "I support eugenics for people with low IQs" and "black people have lower IQs" together ourselves, even if the logic were sound (which it's not—statistical comparisons are not categorical comparisons).

Also, the 1969 paper you link to is a PDF. Just say which page in that PDF the quote is on. Rvcx (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's on page 95 of the original article. I have no idea of the correlation with the web copy. The original 123 page article can be found in a university library for example, but is not available on the web. Mathsci (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well you're linking to a PDF on the web. If you have a different version in front of you just match the two up and point at a page number. It's not that complicated. Rvcx (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty weak tea; you need to stretch the quote in all kinds of directions to turn it into a "need" for eugenics, "particularly in the black population". Among other things, as noted above a conclusion that eugenics would increase IQ is not an endorsement of eugenics and more than a conclusion that the extinction of humanity would stop global warming is an endorsement of genocide. Any other sources provide anything clearer? Rvcx (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

See above for information from the Tucker book that provides some of the sourcing you are looking for. --Slp1 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally it looks to me as an outsider from what has been presented here that the subject is not actually citable as this position and someone has claimed he believes this, and as it is a big issue , I support the opener of this thread, Please why not just represent the subject as closely as possible to the quality independant reports , that is our work. Off2riorob (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed regarding the "eugenics" thing: just attribute it ("Tucker interprets Jensen's position as..."). Even if the paraphrase of Tucker's interpretation is less than perfect, at least then it's not a BLP violation against Jensen. I still don't see any reason for include that particular paragraph from Campbell, however. Rvcx (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

<= (ec) You can also look in this book by Tucker which has a much longer discussion of this point in Jensen:

• Tucker, William H. (1996), The Science and Politics of Racial Research, University of Illinois Press, ISBN 9780252065606

You can also look at the 1987 link above (the article written by Jensen). It's also referred to by Nicholas Mackintosh, FRS, in the 1998 book cited above:

Jensen (e.g. Educability and group differences, 1973) proposed a distinction between Level I and Level II: abilities blacks and whites he suggested, differed only in Level II abilities, which are those measured by IQ tests. They do not necessarily differ in Level I abilities, which involve simple encoding, storage, and retrieval of sensory input. According to Jensen: "Level I ability involves the accurate registration abd recall of information without the need for elaboration, or other mental manipulation. It is most easily measures by forward digit span memory and serial rote learning of verbal material with minimal meaningful meaningful organization ... Level II ability involves ... reasoning, problem-solving, semantic generalization, conceptual categorization and the like. Level II is virtually the same as Spearman's construct of g." [Page 337, Mogdil & Mogdil above]

Mathsci (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is an interview Jensen gave to LIFE magazinve, published June 12, 1970. [25] The statements are fairly unambiguous there. Mathsci (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, please clarify what piece of text you're trying to support. My point is that the Campbell quote simply isn't notable as commentary on the WSJ article. The above doesn't support the (unattributed) assertion about eugenics, either. Rvcx (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't WP:SYN-and I don't understand why it's disputed. Tucker was used to source the claim. The claim here was carefully worded here to alleviate any potentially misleading inference in Tucker's more simply stated quote (Tucker didn't misrepresent, but the concern was that we don't mislead given that it is being used here removed from the larger narrative Tucker surrounded it with). There was a somewhat lengthy discussion surrounding this issue on the talk page. That' it's being revisited now here, removed completely from the discussion that went into the edit on the talk page, is difficult to justify--because I don't know who, except a handful of wikipedians, dispute the summary. It's more like some wikipedians are backing away from statements not because they're insufficiently sourced but because they might "sound bad". Jensen not only emphasized the situation and implications for the black population in this paper (he was pitched to address the race and intelligence issue for it) but he's since written extensively on the topic of black/white disparities in IQ. So who disputes Tucker's summary? Professor marginalia (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel

• Calvary Chapel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel&diff=364664027&oldid=364651388

There is a dispute at this article concerning the adequacy of sources being used to support a section on one of the leading members of this organization. I would be grateful if other editors could take a look and offer their opinions. CIreland (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it this content....

During a radio broadcast in 1996, Smith was asked, "[at] some point there was a prediction of Christ's return through Calvary Chapel. Is that real? ... Did that happen?" Notwithstanding the published books, Smith responded, "No! Never, we all, we do believe he is going to return soon, never any date, no, never any date, because no man knows the day or the hour.http://calvarychapel.pbwiki.com/f/Smith%20-%20Date%20setting%20denial%20-%20TEMAA.ram

with these hidden references to the broadcast

• http://www.seekgod.ca/raptured.htm
• http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/1981
• *[http://www.finaldaysproject.org/newsletter/archives/letters/2005/letters.html
• *[http://www.cgalliance.org/forums/archive/index.php?t-6223.html
• http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/06/apocalypse_soon.html

If it is, I see what looks like the primary interview (which I have not clicked on) we are not here to report primary content, and a bunch of not reliable citations, so ..no, imo there are not adequate. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the material. The "interview" is a short (30 sec) audio clip hosted on a this wiki; the hidden refs are blogs, forums etc. CIreland (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also a clear case of original research: the radio show quote is being combined with an unsourced "Notwithstanding the published books" editorial comment in order to make the point critical of Smith. Not appropriate content, most especially in a BLP, as currently presented --Slp1 (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, content as presented has multiple issues. Even if we reported primary reports (which we don't), we could not do it in a balanced way with a thirty second cherry picked snippet of a lengthy interview. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am of two minds on the subject. I am an editor on the article and have never heard these claims before so I don't think they're reliable. I have not had the opportunity to verify the source. There are several conflicting policies on Wikipedia here. The first is the one the anonymous editor has been claiming that wikis are not acceptable sources, but this is a broadcast and there is the {{cite episode}} template so it seems that first-hand material is acceptable under some circumstances, and the policy states that it is valid when the subject of the article, in this case the lead pastor of the church, is speaking about themselves. If the clip states what it claims to it is clearly not WP:OR. The second is using using an external source that requires a plug-in, and real media is such a plug-in. Third is, whether this church is a biography of a living person or if it's a theological issue, in other words, should this really be discussed here. My final point is that the author who originally added the material has a marked bias against this church. The author has been asked several times why they have this POV but refuses to discuss it. The anonymous editor has the opposite POV and has reverted a lot of apparently valid material several times. The anonymous editor has also reverted much dubious material. I have prolonged this edit war based on my understanding of policies around media clips. I'm more neutral on the topic and my relationship to the church is explained in the article's talk page, but I will summarize it here: I have an interest in the church for its place in the history of Christian music and an old friend of mine is a pastor of a church. (comment was added by User:Walter_Görlitz)

Hello Walter. Thanks for your comments. Here's a few clarifications.

• I agree that primary sources such as a radio broadcast can be used on Wikipedia, but only with great care and caution (especially in BLPs) "because it is easy to misuse them" (see WP:PSTS; WP:BLP). This primary source has been misused because of evaluative commentary "Notwithstanding the published books" which has been added to lead the reader to believe that Smith is a liar, not to put to fine a point about it. It's a very clear BLP issue.
• The radio interview is also not "reliably published" as required by our no original research policy. While the interview cited may well be Smith speaking, it could also be a fake, made up by an opponent. The wiki on which the clip is hosted is a self-published (and incidentally anti-Smith) website and per WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:SPS cannot be used, even as a host. If the interview was hosted on a news site (say) or Smith/Calvary Church's own website, then you are correct that, with great care to avoid cherry-picked quote farms, Smith's own words could potentially be used, as long as no interpretation/evaluation/analysis is made. Secondary sources (in part to show that the information is actually significant enough to include in WP) would be strongly preferred.
• I don't think the plug-in issue would be considered an obstacle to inclusion.
• Dealing with editors with biases is difficult, I agree. More neutral editors need work together to find the neutral middle way. In this case, I believe the IP editor was correct about the inappropriateness of the material. --Slp1 (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks to everyone involved with this. You have each voiced your objections to the material more eloquently and completely than I have been able to and it is gratifying to see that the apparent motives behind the material addition is transparent to others besides myself.

I should also note that this material has attempted to be added directly to Smith's wiki page Chuck_Smith_(pastor) and I reverted that this morning, as well.

To respond to Walter: hopefully I have been very clear about my POV on the issue while also trying (it's hard) to retain an even keel on edits. As for any thoughts that I have "reverted a lot of apparently valid material several times", I absolutely agree that I carefully watch the content and understand how this perception could result (fairly or unfairly.) I've probably watched this article for 4 years now and definitely try to enforce quality reference standards; removing unsourced or poorly sourced content until it can be vetted and sourced, especially if it casts a negative light. My personal take is that an editor who wants to add material should do the groundwork to source it properly rather than adding material and then demanding that others do the dirty work. As you have seen, that philosophy sometimes results in conflict. I can only hope the article is the better for it.

Finally, I apologize for the edit warring. Given the nature of previous communications with the other editor regarding quality research and sources and and the fact that these communications seemed to be ignored in adding the disputed content, it appeared to be the only option. In all of these years of wiki editing, I've had very little experience with the noticeboards. This has been an education for me, as well. 66.177.182.247 (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a few considerations:

• In terms of Calvary Chapel, I think it is important to recognize that he changed his mind on eschatology, and on his belief system. He preaches considerably on end time prophecy and eschatology. His books are definitely verifiable (he had them published).
• The radio broadcasts -- come on, guys, is anyone really suggesting that someone went to the chore of finding someone that sounded like Chuck Smith just to create the radio broadcast? Although that is a possible explanation, I don't think that is a reasonable assumption. There are innumerable commentaries on his radio broadcast, and I added a couple as hidden <refs> so anyone that had questions could easily find the information (because of the IP user's constant reverts and ignorance of using the Talk page; and so the casual reader didn't have to look at them; and to reduce any bias).
• In terms of Calvary Chapel & Chuck Smith, this is not a "living person," this is a company -- that is, an Inc. It is the same as looking at something that came from BP regarding the oil spill in the Gulf. As far as I know, no one is criticizing the person Chuck Smith. All the references should be considered in terms of the company Chuck Smith, Inc., the owner of Calvary Chapel, Inc.
• I tried to quote as much as practical, without just putting his whole books up there, and attempted to do so without leading the reader any way in particular. I selected "notwithstanding" because it was a lot less heavy than phrases like "in spite of" or "despite." Notwithstanding appeared to be the most neutral.
• Questioning the user with the comment "we are not here to report primary content," I don't think that is correct. Most of the Calvary Chapel wiki is primary content from Calvary Chapel, and from what I recall, that is allowed.
• Since Walter asked again, here is my position: I am interested in Christianity. Recently, Calvary Chapelites I have known have asked me to come to hear their speakers talk, which started me searching on what is a Calvary Chapelite, which brought me to Chuck Smith. From what I've read, Chuck Smith's organization has grown very large and claims a christian bent -- and from what I've read, it appears that Chuck Smith's organization has grown largely without any checks and balances from outside his own organization. The more I searched on the internet about the organization, and the man that started and currently runs the organization, the more I found that only "good stuff" was discussed on Wiki -- certainly from a biased point of view. As other users have posited (please visit the talk page), the Wiki articles appear to be marketing propaganda. Sliceofmiami (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

None of your citations are reliable. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sliceofmiami. There seems multiple misconceptions here. You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of WP. It is not to publish the observations you have made about how he may have changed his mind about eschatology. By all means get your own blog or website if you want to publicise this kind of original research. We only use reliable sources here, and an anti-Smith wiki (and the self-published blogs, websites and fora) simply aren't acceptable as sources. This is not a question of preference but of policy, and is non-negotiable. And yes, Chuck Smith is a living person, and any material about him, in any article, is covered by our WP:BLP policy. Once again, this is not open to debate. If you find the articles about Calvary Chapel and Chuck Smith unbalanced then by all means balance them with material published in books, newspapers, magazines, scholarly journals etc. Those would be appropriate sources of comment and criticism where self-published sources and your own research is not. --Slp1 (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)