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.

The majority of the article up to the Critical Reception section was written prior to user:Dpyb's involvement. These are the changes between user:Dpyb's first edit of the article in February of this year through to March of this year. I simply see the need for citations as there doe snot appear to be any additional POV. All that is required is citations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Shoaib Akhtar

• Shoaib Akhtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - see the very last sentence of the article. It says that he has genital warts. That sounds like a BLP violation. However, there is a reliable source. Officially, WP is not censored but it is very undignified to say someone has herpes. // Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Genital warts are not always the same as Herpes genitalis. Wikipedia is not about ascribing dignity to anyone but of dealing with verifiability. It's not a personal attack, but a statement of verifiable fact. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Episkopon

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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)

Off2riorob alleged "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." But Off2riorob did not respond directly to the concerns about the clarification or the unreliable source.

Off2riorob has made comments on other threads on this board but has continued to ignore there is an unreliable reference added and the clarification is missing from the text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 31 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)

You can read the references and you can read where there is consensus for the clarification at Criticism of Wikipedia#Sexual content. This was repeatedly ignored by Wikipedians at this talk page and at the Larry Sanger page. The entire event is of such small importance to a person's life, it is not sensible to include it at all. It's just recentism to include a new paragraph everytime the media gets excited about something Larry Sanger did. Frankly, filing a complaint to the FBI seems exciting but is not notable to a person's life. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 31 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

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)

Sorry to come in late here, but I want to agree with Off2riorob on the philosophical point here. "Contentionus claims require exceptional citations" is a concise statement, beautifully put. Now, as to this particular issue, and whether that burden of proof has been met, I don't think so, but I am not certain. I read enough of the discussion which follows to think that is almost certainly has not been met, but I applaud that people do seem to agree that in order to claim that Jenson "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites" we need it from his own words, not the synthesis and conclusion-drawing of his critics.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy, multiple academic sources has interpreted Jensen's article as an argument in favour of differentiating education based on race. It is correct that this conclusion is not given in exactly those words - but the first half of the paper he argues that blacks have lower IQs than whites and in the second he argues that education should be suited to the ididvidual. True it is synthesis to draw the conclusion that Jensen favoured segregation in the classroom but nonetheless many scholars have made that synthesis when describing Jensens viewsin reliable peerreviewed sources. Now my problem is that if we cannot report on how his views have been interpreted in a certain way without committing a blp violation - then there are simply too many articles that can't give basic information - It seems that you suggest that whenever there is a conflict between what a living individual says and what others say about him we cannot include what others have said even with the most reliable of sources. That would lay waste to any kind of objectivity in wikipedia and convert articles into personal soapboxes for all kinds of controversial people - who wouldn't be contradicted because of supposed blp issues. Rather: The way I understand NPOV it requires that we include all significant views that can be sourced to reliable sources - in this case interpreting Jensens statements as advocating racial segregation in education is a common view sourceable to multiple reliable sources - there is no way not to include it. The question is of course that it should be attributed not as Jensens viewpoint but as X's interpretation of Jensens viewpoint. ·Maunus·ƛ· 06:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Alland Jr. "Race in Mind""His highly controversial article “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?,” published in the Harvard Educational Review in 1969, made a case for the preponderance of heredity in the production of intelligence as measured by IQ tests, and an average genetic deficit in IQ among people of black ancestry when compared to whites. Although the argument had been made before, Jensen’s article drew a vast amount of positive attention from the press and among some educators and strongcriticisms from many, but by no means all, professional psychologists and anthropologists. It is important to note that the “Jensen Report” came shortly after the Supreme Court decision banning segregation in public schools and the successes of the civil rights movement to desegregate schools in the South. Therefore, it should come at no surprise that Jensen’s conclusions were seized upon immediately by those who opposed remedial educational programs, such as Project Head Start, for young poor children and, in particular, poor black children. In a nutshell their argument was: If, as Jensen has proved, IQ is largely hereditary, it is a waste of money and time to develop and pursue programs for children in order to enhance their intelligence. Because even today this article stands as a model for those who continue to believe the IQ argument concerning race, this chapter will focus on its major shortcomings. ... Then, in 1969 a media bombshell struck. It was an article by Arthur Jensen, “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?,” published in what the press referred to as the “prestigious” Harvard Educational Review. By this time a new administration had taken over the White House. The country was in the midst of the Vietnam War, begun under Johnson, and priorities had shifted from domestic programs to foreign relations. Jensen’s article, soon to be known as the “Jensen Report,” argued that Head Start and programs like it were bound to fail. IQ was, he claimed, primarily hereditary, and African Americans were genetically inferior in IQ to whites. ... The main thrust of Jensen’s paper, which has been somewhat buried by popular accounts, is that there is a wide diversity of mental abilities in humans and that educational programs should be tailored to meet the needs of all children. It is difficult to disagree. It is most unfortunate, however, that Jensen pleads this case in the context of a report centered on a flawed discussion of genetics and IQ. In his report Jensen took a fairly safe, if as yet unproved hypotheses—that intelligence is heritable (that it varies among individuals by genetics and environment)—and forced it to carry the burden of a second argument for which there is no acceptable evidence at all."·Maunus·ƛ· 06:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

He did not in fact suggest separate curricula: he suggested different ways of teaching (see the exact quotes from Jensen in the second section below started by David.Kane). He distinguished two levels of learning: level I, learning by association and memorization (or rote); level II, learning by abstract concepts and problem solving. Proficiency in Level II learning was exactly what was measured by general intelligence (i.e. IQ tests). He suggested that the black-white IQ gap of 15 points had a genetic component. He then suggested that, for cultural and genetic reasons, that some children had no aptitude to learn by level II methods and so it might be more reasonable and fairer to teach them using only level I methods. Commentators, not necessarily critics, summarised this as the suggestion that it might be better and fairer if black children of lower average IQ were taught by rote. Mathsci (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the same kind of description by Joan Freeman, a psychologist specializing in gifted education from her book "Gifted Children: Their Identification and Development in a Social Context" (1980) Springer (page 101) [1]:

Jensen matched black and white chidren for socio-economic level and measured their IQs. He found that the black children's IQs covered the whole range, but that their average IQ was about 15 points lower than that of the matched white children. He interpreted this as meaning that black intelligence was different from white intelligence and so could not be measured on the same tests. He proposed that different forms of education, more appropriate to their kind of intelligence, should be given to black children. There would be less conceptual flights of fancy and more rote learning for them.

This shows that there was no BLP violation and puts paid to the idea that Tucker or Campbell might have been misreoresenting Jensen. I'm sure there are lots of other books containing similar kinds of statements. Mathsci (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

One more from page 52 of "Intelligence, an introduction" (1979) by David Pyle [2]:

Jensen argued on the strength of these conclusions 'compensatory education has been tried and has apparently failed' and mostly because the young negro supposedly has a lower genetic potential to benefit from any compensatory help given. In Chapter 1, Jensen's ideas on the nature of intelligence were discussed - Level I being held to be 'associative' ability common to all social classes, and Level II being 'cognitive' ability which is based on Level I, buto not equally available to all. He sees the main implications of this line of reasoning to be that children of allegedly low genetic potential should have an educational curriculum based on Level I material (mechanical memory and rote learning) and those better endowed should have a more conceptually demanding education, in line with Level II.

I might try to find one more just for fun. Mathsci (talk) 06:14, 29 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.[3] He changed his mind when he read that Jensen had confirmed Campbell's statement some year's later about rote learning.[4]. 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 [5] 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. [6] 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)

Donald T. Campbell is not just any academic psychologist. He had been president of the American Psychological Association, a great sign of recognition. He has also won prestigious prizes for his research. He was one the best placed scientitsts to comment. There is no basis whatsoever to disregard his comments. He was one of the most eminent academic psychologists in the US. The meaning of the above passage is that whereas both blacks and whites have the same capacity for Level I learning (by rote), whites are genetically better adapted in Level II learning (abstract thought

and conceptual problem solving). Mathsci (talk) 19:24, 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)

For the record, I was never particularly satisfied with this sentence in the “history” article. Even before this thread, I suspected that it was a BLP violation. The reason I didn’t continue to dispute it on the article talk page is because it used to be even worse than this (it used to claim that Jensen wanted to reduce the overall number of blacks), and changing it to the current sentence was the most I was able to get Mathsci to agree to. I’m glad that it’s finally been removed completely now. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Err, speaking as an uninvolved editor who's looking at the way this discussion is going, I think there is a consensus developing here that this isn't a BLP vio. If that is the case, the content is unlikely to remain completely removed from the article for too much longer, pending any further sources and appropriate minor copyedits that become necessary prior to putting the content back in. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thus far, the only editors other than Mathsci saying that they think it’s definitely not a BLP violation are Professor marginalia and RegentsPark. Both of them have been following Mathsci around and supporting him on most the race-related articles that he edits, and I could have predicted both that they would show up in this thread and that they would express support for Mathsci even before they posted anything here. Mathsci probably thinks the same thing about my support of David.Kane’s viewpoint, so the people whose opinions should really make a difference in determining whether or not this is a BLP violation are those of them who don’t have any sort of stake in this dispute: you, Rvcx, Off2riorob, and Slp1. So far, all of these people who’ve expressed opinions here have agreed that the sentence shouldn’t be in the article. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a surprise to me. Actually I don't see any reason why it would be a BLP violation. The Tucker book is an excellent source and verifies the disputed content, though as I said, based on that source "teaching methods" would be preferred rather than "curricula".--Slp1 (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Both of them have been following Mathsci around and supporting him on most the race-related articles that he edits, and I could have predicted both that they would show up in this thread and that they would express support for Mathsci even before they posted anything here." OKAY-well. I'm going to take a deep breath and allow you some opening to save some face by letting you explain or retract this bold-faced mischaracterization of my role in your two disputes before tearing into you. Ten-nine-eight... Professor marginalia (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

“Actually I don't see any reason why it would be a BLP violation.”

All right, but you hadn’t specifically expressed that opinion before now.

Professor Marginalia: I don’t think you can argue with the fact that at least 90% of the time, you’ve taken Mathsci’s side whenever we’ve been involved in disputes over these articles. There isn’t anything inherently wrong with that: as I said, the same is probably also true of myself and David.Kane. However, I think the question of whether or not this is a BLP violation should be decided primarily by editors who are uninvolved in this dispute. Otherwise, we might as well just be debating on the article talk page the same as usual.

If the uninvolved editors here reach a consensus that this sentence is not a BLP violation, though, I’ll accept it not being removed from the article. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You are way out of line. My involvement extends to two disputes in a single article-both resolved until one of them was re-raised here with this claim that Tucker isn't adequate for a BLP. And this sent me here to discuss it. You are way, way out of line. Stop trying to poison the well. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you not agree that it’s best for the answers to disputes like this to be determined by uninvolved editors, rather than by the editors who are having the dispute? When I refer to the editors who are having the dispute, I’m including myself and David.Kane, not just you, Mathsci and RegentsPark. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry-you're not getting away with this. You've accused me of following Mathsci around "in race related articles" to throw my support behind his edits "90% of the time." (What exactly is 90% of a total of 2 times?) Frankly, my involvement in even that one article is very scant and results directly from my periodic help to resolve disputes on a noticeboard like this one, Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, where someone posted a request for help from uninvolved editors. That's what I brought me into the picture. The disputes keep being rolled over to other boards--how many WP noticeboards have been solicited to step in now? At some point it starts to smack of editors' forum shopping. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

All right, if what you’re saying about becoming involved in the article as a result of a request at the NOR noticeboard is correct, I admit that I was wrong to assume you’ve been following Mathsci around in order to support him. Mathsci has several users who do this (RegentsPark is a more obvious example), and when I saw you suddenly showing up and agreeing him when he needed someone else’s support in his disputes, I assumed you were another example of the same thing. But it looks like that may have been an overly hasty assumption in your case.

Ah, my integrity is being impugned! While I do believe that long-term Single Purpose Accounts, such as yours, should be topic banned from articles of your single interest, beyond that I have little interest in following mathsci around. It would appear that one of the dangers of being an SPA with a particular POV is that you see the world in terms of 'us' vs 'them'. I assure you that if the sources were not so reliable, I would not support mathsci in this case. Perhaps it would be more useful if you would focus on the question at hand rather than on the motivations of the editors commenting on the matter. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I know I’ve said this before, but this has nothing to do with motives or integrity. All it has to do with is who can be considered uninvolved, whereas who has a personal stake in this dispute. You were one of the two main admins supporting Mathsci in his most recent AN/I thread about me, you supported him in the history of the race and intelligence controversy article, and as soon as he became involved in the Snyderman and Rothman (study) article, you showed up to support him there also. I’m not suggesting that this involves anything other than good faith on your part; perhaps you just happen to be interested in all of the same articles that he is, and have the same viewpoint about all of them as he does. But when a dispute is being brought to a noticeboard like this one, the purpose of discussing it here is to listen to input from uninvolved editors, not from the editors who are long-term participants in the dispute. (And this applies to me as well as you.)

Do you understand what I’m saying about this? Based on the way you’re describing my comment as being about motives, it sounds like you don’t, but I don’t know how to explain it any more clearly than this. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are misrepresenting my position. I have no personal stake in this issue. I have a general interest in understanding the nature of long-term SPAs on wikipedia articles but, other than that, I have no other interest in mathsci or in you and I am perfectly capable of approaching any micro question dispassionately. The rest of what you say makes very little sense to me. Are you suggesting that the moment an editor has commented on a matter, in whatever capacity, he or she cannot comment on any other related issue or that these comments should be ignored? That makes no sense. Now, let us focus on the matter at hand rather than on each others motivations. --RegentsPark (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What I’m saying is that when a dispute gets brought to a noticeboard, the entire purpose of bringing it there is to get the opinions of editors who aren’t involved in the dispute. Some of the times that I’ve been involved in disputes over these articles, when they were posted about at a noticeboard (usually the NPOV noticeboard), all of the same people who were arguing on the article talk page began arguing in the noticeboard thread instead, and there were no comments in the thread from anyone else. When that happens, the noticeboard thread becomes nothing but an extension of the article talk page, and posting about the dispute at this noticeboard accomplished nothing at all.

That’s the most severe way this can go. Obviously nothing of that caliber is happening here, but the same general principle still applies. Since the purpose of posting about something at a noticeboard is in order to get outside opinions about it, having participants in the article talk page repeat the same opinions that they’ve been repeating throughout the dispute does not work toward the goal that posting about it at the noticeboard was intended to accomplish. This is the reason why I haven’t gone into much detail here about why I think these sentences don’t belong in the articles—I’ve already made my opinion about these questions abundantly clear on the article talk page, so now that we’re specifically requesting outside opinions from uninvolved editors about this, what would it accomplish for everyone to hear my own opinion again?

The same question applies to you also. Based on your comments on the article talk pages, I think we all knew what your opinion about this was even before you posted anything about it here. And if this thread turns into just another argument between you, me, Mathsci and David.Kane, we’ll no longer be accomplishing anything by discussing it here rather than on the article talk page. This has nothing to do with motiviations; all it has to do with is making sure we’re using this noticeboard in a way that can provide the service that it’s intended to provide. Do you understand the point I’m making now? --Captain Occam (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, with due respect, you are going way beyond misrepresentation. I have barely commented on articles on race and intelligence and I certainly have no interest in pushing this viewpoint of that (hard to believe, but whole days go by without my giving any thought to race or to intelligence!). My opinion on this matter is limited to the following. Apparently Campbell is a 'famous psychologist (David Kane things so). A famous psychologist has something to say about Jensen. Therefore the matter is not a BLP issue. A different article says something about Jensen and attributes it to Tucker 2002 and Jensen 1968. The sources seem to bear out what is said. Therefore it is not a BLP issue. I won't be disingenuous and claim that I don't believe that mathsci is doing a fine job in trying to balance these articles but I certainly will not support any edits that are unsourced or are BLP violations for any reason whatsoever. I'm always willing to admit that I could be wrong, but attributing my positions to some blind adherence to this viewpoint is incorrect. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Where in my comment did I accuse you of blind adherence or POV-pushing? You’re arguing against claims about you that I’ve never made. All I said was that you were one of the users expressing your opinion in the debates over these issues on the article talk pages, no differently than everyone else who’s been debating there. We can debate how heavily involved you were, but it isn’t really important; the only thing that matters is that you can’t be considered a completely uninvolved editor here the way people like Rvcx can. (Just as I can’t.) --Captain Occam (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I'll let this pass. However, in general, it is not a good idea to accuse editors of 'following' other editors around and of having a predisposition to a certain point of view. As I say above, comment on the matter at hand rather than on other editors. Wikipedia is not a battleground and there is no reason to believe that we (you and I) will take the opposite view on whatever argument shows up. Neither is Wikipedia consensus built around the number of editors supporting a view, but rather on the quality of the arguments presented. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, now that Jimbo Wales has stated his opinion in this thread that articles here can’t accuse Jensen of advocating this idea unless Jensen has said that he advocates it in his own words (and I agree with Jimbo about this), I’m not really sure what there is left to discuss about whether or not the article can say this about Jensen. Based on my understanding of Wikipedia’s decision-making hierarchy, Jimbo’s opinion about this carries more weight than all the rest of ours combined. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you please answer my own question now? --Captain Occam (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Several administrators are watching things. Recently you left 4 messages on user talk pages requesting Varoon Arya, Victor Chmara, Mikemikev and David.Kane to "help" you in editing race-related articles. MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just left you a message on my talk page which you might want to read. Mathsci (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Tucker text (which I happen to have in front of me, I just happen to be in the library!), and the Jensen 1969 paper available online, I think that the statement in the History of the race and intelligence controversy is well cited and should be restored. There is nothing controversial about this. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the Tucker and Jensen cited claim reverted in the "History of " article, this is a "non-issue". Perusing the LIFE profile linked above, Jensen even further emphasizes the effect of high birth rates in the black population 'in particular, essentially complaining that this was the most "explosive" finding in his 1969 paper yet one too often overlooked by those remarking about it! This is why I'm bewildered what the fuss is about--Jensen does not dispute the view represented in Tucker! Instead there's been overzealousness here to reshape the debate in a more "balanced" way by describing the actual controversy as something else than what really took place, one much less explosively framed than the first time round. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've read the LIFE profile and I still don't see support for the wording being proposed. It's clear that Jensen believes there is a strong genetic effect on intelligence; he thus theorizes that eugenics could increase intelligence. What's more, he observes that if you buy into the genetic effect, then current reproductive trends are making racial intelligence disparities larger. These contentions could be used to support the theory "we should breed black people to make them smarter"—and some people have—but there's no evidence that Jensen used them to support that view. You can blame a theoretical physicist for helping to build the atomic bomb, but you can't claim that he wanted to drop it. Rvcx (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You know I think the disputes are becoming too muddled and the issues are that much more difficult to sort out. There were two claims in the revert-and the first, "with the suggestion that eugenics was more likely to increase the average intelligence in the US than remedial education for blacks" separate from the second, "He also concluded that some kind of eugenic intervention was needed to reduce the birthrate of those with low IQs, and third, "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." Is there a secondary source for the first one? Clearly Jensen does say the first statement applied to increasing intelligence overall, but believing that a "positive eugenics" program has no popular support, he doesn't focus on it at all. It would be untrue to say he advocated it for blacks or anyone else, and without a secondary source I agree there isn't enough to for WP to associate him making such a prediction for blacks in particular either. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hard to imagine, but I think we agree! The first statement seems fine to me; the second at the very least should be rephrased to eliminate the implication that Jensen was advocating for eugenics among the black population. It's fair to say that he saw a disparity in intelligence between blacks and whites that he thought would grow without eugenic intervention (which I think is all the article really wanted to get across in the first place). I'm happy with the LIFE profile and his 1969 paper as sources for that contention. Rvcx (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, to clarify, he did advocate a "negative eugenics" approach for the black population (this is sourced in Tucker who I think phrased it as "some kind of eugenics"). My concern is find a secondary source for the first claim, that he suggested "eugenics was more likely to increase the average intelligence in the US than remedial education." It's not a stretch, by any means, to say he did. It's practically the inevitable logical conclusion one would attribute to Jensen based on the case he presented in this paper - I'm asking what secondary sources were used to back it up. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

About the Campbell issue, am I to believe that we, at wikipedia, are supposed to parse the comments of 'famous psychologists' to determine which statements are motivated by their personal likes and dislikes? If the statements need to be so parsed, I suggest that we look for reliable secondary sources that state which statements of these psychologists can be relied upon and which cannot. Lacking such secondary sources, I suggest we report these statements in the context of the subject matter being discussed. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, Tucker's book also says what Campbell says, with a minor distinction: 'teaching methods' instead of 'curricula'. ("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...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.") Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

<=Here is a longer passage from page 148 of Tucker(2002), preceding the one I gave above. This is what RegentsPark is talking about

In 1969, Jensen produce the article that would become the centerpiece of Shockley's campaign to impose his views on the NAS and the public. In this lengthy and inflammatory work - the longest publication in the history of Harvard Educational Review, taking up almost the entire winter issue - Jensen argued that the minority schoolchildren were hampered by neither discrimination nor deprivation; their poor educational performance was a consequence of of teaching methods thats 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 by relying on their ability for association rather than understanding [] 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

Mathsci (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This really is going in circles. My point is that Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence is an article about a statement published in the Wall Street Journal. It's entirely appropriate to mention criticism that statement received, and Campbell's criticism is worth including, but it's not appropriate to give wp:undue weight to particular bits of that criticism. Campbell offers some very solid criticism, but out of a six-page rebuttal littered with citations, Wikipedia quotes one tiny unsourced ad-hominem attack that Campbell includes at the end. It's not mentioned in either the abstract or the summary at the end. It is in no way a major part of his criticism. Even if it's a reliable source for the statement about Jensen's beliefs (which may be relevant in another article), it is wp:undue for the Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence article to take a detour specifically for the purpose of rubishing Jensen along the way. For the record, here is Campbell's summary:

For reasons of convenience and familiarity, this discussion of validity issues in psychological measures has taken the form of an autobiography of a half century of concern, but it nonetheless calls attention to many of unresolved issues needing the attention of methodologists of tests and measurement now that the psychometric issues internal to fixed-alternative, multiple-item tests have been for the most part solved. The unresolved validity issues includeresponse sets, content-irrelevant methods variance, reactive measurement effects, population and content sampling restrictions, the validity-degrading effect of use in organization control, the correction for error and irrelevant reliable variance in measures, and the shifting concepts of validity in the interpretation of racial differences in achievement and ability measures.

I admit that wading through the academic language is tough, but it's crazy to suggest that Jensen's biases are a major component of this critique. Rvcx (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that we're no longer talking about a BLP violation. Now you're writing as if you're an editor on both articles and sharing your editing experience. [7] I hope that you remember that the paer here was put together after Donald T. Campbell had expired in 1996. In Mainstream Science on Intelligence, all the sources that were found (not written by consignatories of course) were summarised in their entirety. That applies equally to this, so there is no argument at all for WP:UNDUE, in fact exactly the contrary. Campbell discusses the WSJ page in great detail mentioning particular points (it is in fact a reworking of a draft letter to the WSJ - I haven't been able to determine what happened to the draft letter). You have decided on a whim that his discussion of point 25 should be omitted. Nut you are arguments are singularly unconvincing and not based on any ocre wikipedia ediitng policy, just you own whimsy. If you have now dropped the possibility that this is a BLP violation, then presumably this thread will be archived and your edits reverted. That seems to be the consensus so far. Mathsci (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In your preferred version of Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence the critique is not accurately summarized; instead one minor point is picked out and given prominence. I simply don't see how devoting fully half of the space given to the Campbell paper to a tiny addendum of his argument—an addendum that is not mentioned in either the abstract or summary—could be seen as anything other than wp:undue. Rvcx (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not WP:UNDUE as RegentsPark has mentioned, since all the other points mentioned by Campbell are summarised. At present you are misrepresenting Campbell's article. This page is normally for BLPs and you have now apparently dropped the BLP claim. RegentsPark and other experienced editors have explained that the arguments for removing the dicussion of point 25 are unjustified by WP policy.

If there's no BLP violation please could you now self-revert both of the last edits you made to History of the race and intelligence controversy and Mainstream Science on Intelligence. If you still feel strongly about WP:UNDUE, you can bring that up afterwards on the article talk page[s] as an editor, but not here. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Are we seriously debating whether we can say that Jensen wrote pieces advocating different education based on race without bothering to find the place where he said it? 212.183.140.36 (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No; that's not what we're debating. We're debating the relevance of Jensen's views to Campbell's critique of the WSJ statement, and we're debating whether Jensen's advocacy for eugenics can be asserted without attribution. Rvcx (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

<Special plea>-I can't even tell how many disputed claims are involved in the above discussion. They're almost impossibly tangled. Each one either should be broken out and dealt with individually, or they should return to the appropriate articles be ironed out there. Here can we get some understanding of what constitutes a "biased" source? Volumes have been written about Arthur Jensen and his various claims about race and intelligence. Nearly everything he has written or said on the topic is controversial--so by what criteria are the sources to be judged as to this "bias" issue? Because I keep seeing challenges to this or that claim because it "sounds bad" but that I very strongly doubt Jensen himself disagrees with. Jensen tends to be one to admit he said this or that but frequently views his critics as being irrational or unscientific to take emotional or personal offense to it. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, the original question is this. Smith said X, and we have references where he says it. Jones, Robinson, etc said that Smith said Y and we have references where Jones, Robinson etc say that. Statement Y is more controversial than statement X and might be held to reflect badly on Smith. No-one can point to a reference where Smith actually says Y, although it might be implicit in the way he said X. Should we write "Smith said Y" and cite Jones, Robinson etc? Should we write "Jones said that Smith said Y" and cite Jones? Should we write nothing? And finally, the question relevant to this board: does it make a difference that Smith is still alive and the subject of a BLP? Zarboublian (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

We have four sources now that summarise the paper of Jensen in the same way about differential teaching. The two new ones can be seen in bold at the top of this thread. However all make it clear that the paper of Jensen was speculative - a set of "what ifs" and other conditionals. Sources 3 and 4 are Freeman and Pyle, who are authors of textbooks. There is also a 5th source - the book of James R. Flynn on Jensen, Race and IQ. It also summarises Jensen's paper in exactly the same way: Jensen's theory of 2 kinds of intelligence (level I, level II), Jensen's statements that African Americans genetically seem to have less of Level II, which is connected with cognitive rather than associative ability. he then makes his suggestions of learning methods based round level I, learning by assoication and memorization. Maunus gives other sources above, also at the top of thread. For exmaple the book of Alland.

As far as eugenics are concerned, there is a summary of Jensen's 1969 article in Adrian Wooldridge's book which quotes the whole of Jensen's phrase about "eugenic foresight" and "genetic enslavement". Those phrases are discussed in several other sources in context, e.g. Peter Schonemann's article in the 1987 of Mogdil² on Jensen, Consensus and Controversy mentioned above. Jensen's suggestion for "genetic foresight" concerning African Americans is repeated in several places, including by Jensen himself. For example in the Philosophy of Education by J. J. Chambliss (p 262). Mathsci (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is your repeated WP:SYNTH that takes any mention, whether in primary or secondary sources, of "eugenic foresight" and "genetic enslavement" as meaning that Jensen endorses eugenics "particularly for black people". The text we use in the Wikipedia article matters. Textbooks have already taken Jensen's work and removed some of the subtleties to summarize it, and now you're in danger of taking the next step and removing the nuances of those textbook summaries. I just can't understand why you're so adamant about defending the text instead of adapting it. Jensen's theories about the consequences of eugenics on black people are well-documented, as we all seem to agre? e. Stop trying to turn him into a politician on a crusade and write about him as a scientist. The story "Oppenheimer wanted to kill Japanese people" may be a simple way to justify his work on the atomic bomb, but it's not a reliably-sourced viewpoint. Rvcx (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by WP:SYNTH,since those phrases occur in the same sentence (see below). Here is the summary of the 123 page paper as it is now, designed so that as many direct quotes as possible from the original article are used (exactly as Jimbo mentioned) provided they have been cited in secondary source, the main source being the skilful and neutral work of the management editor of the Economist Adrian Wooldridge, a D.Phil. in history:

In his article, 123 pages long, Jensen insisted on the accuracy and lack of bias in intelligence tests, stating that the absolute quantity g that they measured, the general intelligence factor first introduced by the English psychologist Charles Spearman in 1904, "stood like a Rock of Gibraltar in psychometrics". He stressed the importance of biological considerations in intelligence, commenting that "the belief in the almost infinite plasticity of intellect, the ostrich-like denial of biological factors in individual differences, and the slighting of the role of genetics in the study of intelligence can only hinder investigation and understanding of the conditions, processes, and limits through which the social environment influences human behavior." He argued at length that, contrary to environmentalist orthodoxy, intelligence was partly dependent on the same genetic factors that influence other physical attributes. More controversially, he briefly speculated that the difference in performance at school between blacks and whites might have a partly genetic explanation, commenting that there were "various lines of evidence, no one of which is definitive alone, but which, viewed all together, make it a not unreasonable hypothesis that genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average Negro-white intelligence difference. The preponderance of the evidence is, in my opinion, less consistent with a strictly environmental hypothesis than with a genetic hypothesis, which, of course, does not exclude the influence of environment or its interaction with genetic factors."He advocated the allocation of educational resources according to merit and insisted on the close correlation between intelligence and occupational status, arguing that "in a society that values and rewards individual talent and merit, genetic factors inevitably take on considerable importance." Concerned that the average IQ in the USA was inadequate to answer the increasing needs of an industrialised society, he predicted that people with lower IQs would become unemployable while there would be an insufficient number with higher IQs to fill professional posts. He felt that the solution lay in eugenic reform rather compensatory education surmising that "the technique for raising intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological science than in psychology or education". He pointed out that intelligence and family size were inversely correlated, particularly amongst the black population, so that the current trend in average national intelligence was dysgenic rather than eugenic. As he wrote, "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? The fuller consequences of our failure seriously to study these questions may well be judged by future generations as our society's greatest injustice to Negro Americans." He concluded by emphasizing the importance of child-centered education. Although a tradition had developed for the exclusive use of cognitive learning in schools, Jensen argued that it was not suited to "these children's genetic and cultural heritage": although capable of associative learning and memorization ("Type I" learning), they had difficulties with abstract conceptual reasoning ("Type II" learning). He felt that it in these circumstances the success of education depended on exploiting the "the actual potential learning that is latent in these children's patterns of abilities". He suggested that, in order to ensure equality of opportunity, "schools and society must provide a range and diversity of educational methods, programs and goals, and of occupational opportunities, just as wide as the range of human abilities." Later, writing about how the article came into being, Jensen said that the editors of the Review had specifically asked him to include his view on the heritability of race differences, which he had not previously published. He also maintains that only five percent of the article touched on the topic of race difference in IQ.

Mathsci (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

MathSci: Kudos to you. This version is much better. Why not post it at the History of R&I talk page and seek feedback? That is probably the best place to continue the discussion. I only have two minor quibbles with the phrasing that you have above. David.Kane (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have started a conversation about MathSci's new version here. I would say that content discussions should continue there. David.Kane (talk) 12:32, 30 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)

The reason that only good stuff may appear on the article is because Chuck isn't that bad of a guy and CC may not be a bad place. There are certainly many criticisms of CC, but there are of many Christian movements and certainly of denominations. There are a great many bad things that could be said of Calvinists or Arminians, of Pentecostals or Presbyterians. The criticisms usually come from other camps trying to make their camp look like the best choice (or God's choice) and they emphasize what's wrong with it based on their world-view, philosophy, or theology. That doesn't mean it's bad, just that it's not theirs. Most of the criticisms you've had are misunderstandings. The one that comes to mind is that CC believes that the pastors should answer to God. You keep adding-in the phrase only which isn't the case. Scripture can be used to show that the pastor must answer to God for their leadership. They do have elders and others in the congregation to whom they are accountable as well as pastors of other churches. I think you're trying to find reasons to not go to a CC not to find out what's good about them. This doesn't address the current issue but is a concern nonetheless. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. SoM: I think it is also very likely that the criticisms and POV that you seem to have adopted are probably colored by the quality (or lack thereof) of the websites from which you have fished for such criticisms. If you only go fishing in the muck, it's pretty likely that you're only going to end up with mucky fish. (Okay that's a horrible analogy, but hopefully the point is clear.)

I see that now I am being accused of "ignorance of using the Talk page". However, we have been clear on the talk page that wiki's, blogs, etc. are not suitable references. If we say it once, we should not have to continually say it on the talk page.

CC is not without its legitimate criticisms and issues. The eschatology section that existed before your edits was a fabulous example of how to do it right. 66.177.182.247 (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Kind of liked the mucky fish analogy, cute. And thank you for participating.

1. On legitimate issues and criticisms -- Wiki's policy is that all points of view should be covered in the amount of the exposure of that point of view in literature. I started my research based on word of mouth, and then on googling for what other people believed. You are right, there is quite a bit of literature on negative issues associated with Calvary Chapel. Please add the information so the page is not an advertisement, but instead a legitimate encyclopedic entry.
2. Walter, if you research, CC pastors do not report in any way to the elders. The elders report to the pastor. Accountability at the local church level is extremely difficult. On the other hand, division does not happen because there is only one voice. Please research this, it is quite interesting.
3. Only good stuff appearing -- this is not a legitimate case. I think that a more reasonable explanation is that the people that are under the authority of chuck smith are more protective of him than the people that have left his organization are able to reason back. My personal experiences have been that it is difficult to reason with a person that has been immersed in any religion, and that includes Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel. Please do some research about people that have left the organization, who present a case (be it right or wrong) about why they left his care.
4. In terms of Chuck Smith's radio broadcast... I still do not see how a real Chuck Smith audio recording is invalid source material.

Sliceofmiami (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi SoM. Once again, I fear you have a misconception about the purpose of WP. What you've missed out in your description above of what WP is all about is that this the place where we report "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (emphasis added-see WP:NPOV) The key is starting with reliable sources, not personal websites, blogs, foras etc, and working from there. Where has it been published in a reliable source that Smith has changed his mind about the end of the world? Not evidence that he has, but someone making that exact observation in a reliable source. Unless someone has made this point, we can't include it. WP is actually a very boring place; you can't do your own investigations and research here, and can only to summarize what other people have said about the subject in reliable sources.

I am very confident that a snippet of a radio broadcast hosted on a Wiki would not be considered a reliable source for our purposed. But if you want to check, you can ask other editors at the WP:RSN. --Slp1 (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Followup: Talk pages?

I have a follow-up question related to this discussion, but I'm not sure if it belongs here. While reading WP:Burden, I came across a surprising nugget: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page", which also included a crystal clear quote by Mr. Wales, himself. The thing that shocked me is the part about the talk pages - I always thought they were (nearly) sacrosanct per talk page policy. But my quoted reference from WP:Burden seems to suggest that poor references and any material based on such references could potentially be stricken from talk pages, as well. Is this correct? Or am I misreading? Thanks in advance for your time. 66.177.182.247 (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages get a good bit more leeway to discuss borderline things, but things that are clearly not appropriate can be removed. In this case, where he's being accused of having changed his mind on a religious matter, yes, I can see this being appropriately discussed on the talk page. Were he being accused of a crime, (e.g., inappropriate sexual content with a minor under his care--seems more than a few clergy get accused of that) that accusation would be fair game to remove: we don't report accusations of crimes in most cases, only criminal convictions that have been noted in the press. That make sense? Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification! 66.177.182.247 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Eliseo Soriano

Eliseo Soriano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and
Shannon Rose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article is the victim of BLP dispute issues regarding the notability of the subject as an "international fugitive". The latter, libelous claim, is only backed by a web archive. People have diverse opinions on the true reason why the subject is notable: some users say he is notable for being a critic to other religions while others (i.e. the user reported below) firmly believes that the article is notable for being an "international fugitive and a televangelist" at the same time. In the eyes of the Filipinos, the first "notability reason" is the real reason.

The "POV pusher", being a critic of Soriano to the point she calls Soriano as a "cult leader", had a long history of edit wars and 3RR reverts. Shannon Rose had commented harshly against another similar article, Daniel Soriano Razon. She is extremely harsh against users who just wants to add referenced, good information about the subject. Soriano, having been charged with rape, has a "counter-affidavit" covered by the press. When a pro-Soriano editor adds the counter affidavit in defense of the article, the POV user immediately rejects it without giving a chance for someone to find sources. Someone finally found a reference but the POV-pusher immediately removed it without trying to trim it down. I, the IP, only tried to remove unnotable and libellous statements agaist the subject, which is Soriano. Shannon Rose, being a POV pusher and a critic to Soriano (see this talk page and also this this talk page) has tried to offensively destroy the credibility of the editors who tried to simply add more positive edits to the subject. Thanks! 120.28.114.16 (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I will be happy to respond on the allegation of bias and why the editors are vigilant and cautious about revisions by non-established users. The subject is a highly-controversial fugitive televangelist with a substantial cult following in the Philippines. All claims about the subject's criminal activities that appear in the article are reliably sourced from official web pages and broadsheet newspapers with national and international circulations. Attempts to sanitize the article by anons and single purpose IPs have a long and tainted history of socks and perma-blocks (please see Petersantos, Felix Natalo, and Dar book). The use of archived web pages as reference, like in the case of the Interpol wanted page for the subject, has been agreed through a clear consensus involving not only long-time editors but even administrators as yourselves. This response from an admin that has been recently lobbied in favor of the proposed alterations may summarize that consensus. A Google search for "Eli Soriano" fugitive returns almost 6,000 hits, while a search for "Eli Soriano" televangelist only returns 1,600 hits, clearly hinting what the subject is more notable of. Thank you and more power! – Shannon Rose ^Talk 14:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A Google search would bring recent-ism into the factor, he is notable as a evangelist not as a fugitive. Adding it to the lede like you have done is undue weight and I don't support it at all. There is no interpol arrest warrant, he is on the red list, which means that there is an extradition request for him from Manila and countries that have an extradition policy with the Philippines will or may hold him while they investigate the request in the same was as they have Polanski.Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Off2riorob, the subject is a televangelist but how did that make him notable? There are probably thousands of televangelists out there who are not notable enough to merit their own articles in WP. The subject became notable because of the anomalies that surround him, the biggest of which is running away from the country in the middle of various lawsuits with same-sex rape as the one who received the most media attention. If it is just for being an televangelist, then he is not notable at all. The bulk of RS supporting notability is about his crimes and current fugitive status. The Google search, though we are certainly not using it as a basis, returns almost 6,000 hits for "Eli Soriano" fugitive yet only returns 1,600 hits for "Eli Soriano" televangelist, clearly suggesting that the issue of being a fugitive carries more weight in terms of notability than his being a televangelist, or, at the very least, that he is also notable as a fugitive. I don't know where you got the Interpol arrest warrant bit, I clearly wrote "Interpol wanted page" above. Thank you for your input, much appreciated, but articles for international fugitives are notable especially when supported by a wanted page in the Interpol website, broadsheet articles, as well as documentaries complete with dramatizations from major Philippine TV networks such as can be seen in this YouTube upload. The lead is basically a notability clause, and that is why I, as well as other nonpartisan editors, feel inclined to include that information there. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 17:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you claim a consensus for this please direct me to it. I find the claim that this man is notable primarily as an international fugitive, well.. laughable and incredulous. Eliseo Soriano ihe notable international fugitive...right Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Off2riorob, I will be happy to provide proof of consensus on the use of the words international fugitive on the lead. On November 2, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by Rvr707 and reinstated by 4twenty42o. On October 27, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by 124.107.217.64 and reinstated by DanielRigal. On October 9, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by Felix Natalo and reinstated by DanielRigal. On October 5, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by Mangingisda99 and reinstated by Conrad940. On September 27, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by Electromagnetictop and reinstated by DanielRigal. Again on September 27, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by 76.95.181.51 and reinstated by DivineAlpha. On August 7, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by 121.54.2.85 and reinstated by Makeemlighter. And so on and so forth. These clearly illustrate a consensus that the words international fugitive should be in the lead. It should also be noted that most, if not all, of those who attempted to remove those words from there have been confirmed as socks and/or have been perma-blocked. Thank you! – Shannon Rose ^Talk 21:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the content has been removed and replaced is not a consensus of support for the content at all. You claim a consensus, has there been a discussion and a consensus for this that he is notable foremost as an international fugitive and can you point me to it.Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Off2riorob, the fact that the words international fugitive were repeatedly removed from the lead by anons and socks, yet vigilantly put back by established users and admins is clear consensus that we believe international fugitive should be there. If not then why reinstate it? The Merriam-Webster online dictionary has two definitions for consensus, one is in line with your understanding, and the other is "group solidarity in sentiment and belief." If reinstating the words international fugitive everytime they have been removed is not group solidarity that it should be there, then what would you call it? Random action? Nevertheless, if you want consensus in the context of messages in the discussions then let me supply some quotes and links:

• We should modify the article to reflect this distinction however there is no justification for removing the phrase "international fugitive" (unless the case really has been dropped) as Interpol lists the red notices under the category of "Fugitives" and the service handling them is called "Fugitive investigative services" – DanielRigal

• I agree with Shannon Rose. And I even think that "accused rapist" gives a more accurate description if what looking for is a "gist of why he's controversial." – Conrad940

• Fixed the issue. The "international fugitive" part cannot be removed because there is still one reference backing it.– IronBreww – Shannon Rose ^Talk 22:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I will look more tomorrow and ask some people that are experiances in MOS and issues such ass this. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Good night, Off2riorob! I'm off to bed in a few minutes as well:) – Shannon Rose ^Talk 22:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

@Off2riorob: The first rationale provided by Shannon Rose (Rationale 1:Interpol website, broadsheet articles, as well as documentaries complete with dramatizations from major Philippine TV networks such as can be seen in this YouTube upload.) cannot be used as a valid reason. Here are the reasons:

• The Interpol website stating that Soriano is wanted no longer exists (except for a web archive).
• The broadsheet articles are focused on his current rape charges not on his fugitive status. (BTW, Soriano is still innocent until proven guilty. By the way Shannon Rose talks, she thinks the latter is guilty and keeps on calling his organization a "cult". Is that good faith, SR?)
• The Youtube video uses the Tagalog language. Can Shannon Rose determine if it really covers his fugitive status?
• If you ask any Filipino (who has not read this WP article) regarding Soriano, it is obvious he will say that he is a televangelist. Was Soriano featured in international news programs like CNN? Was Soriano placed in the 10 Most Wanted Fugitives of the NBI (Philippines)? Of course not, Shannon Rose simply used her influence to make it appear that Soriano is a highly-controversial fugitive televangelist with a substantial cult following in the Philippines. She believes that Soriano is leading a cult, how can we trust her? Anyone critical of the subject such as Shannon Rose will try to place more negative coverage of the subject, thus giving it undue weight. Here is a recent valid RS praising the subject (this part must be placed in the article to counterbalance and make it more NPOV): The Philippine Star- "An Award for Bro. Eli". Thanks and God Bless! 180.191.65.41 (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Second Question: Why is the article notable? Take note that he is known for criticizing various other religious groups (even the influential Iglesia ni Cristo is one) for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible (Not a valid RS but this link shows the reactions of the Filipinos to his actions: like criticizing various other religious groups). Here is an edit done by a nonpartisan user: He removed the international fugitive part and tried to discuss it in the talk page. 180.191.65.41 (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi both, it would be my pleasure to address the Anon's concerns:

• The Interpol website stating that Soriano is wanted no longer exists (except for a web archive). – Using archived web pages is a standard practice in Wikipedia. I would have to point you to an admin's reply a few days ago when the same issue was put forth by IronBreww. In there he patiently explained why it is justified to use an archived web page as reference.
• The broadsheet articles are focused on his current rape charges not on his fugitive status. (BTW, Soriano is still innocent until proven guilty. By the way Shannon Rose talks, she thinks the latter is guilty and keeps on calling his organization a "cult". Is that good faith, SR?) – Let me gently correct you here, I do not "think" that the subject is guilty. We do not make personal conclusions in Wikipedia but simply improve on articles based on the information available from reliable sources. I have never said that subject is guilty. The broadsheet articles are focused on his fugitive status. Yet, of course, we cannot separate the rape charges from his fugitive status because that is the most notable criminal case he ran away from that made him a fugitive in the first place, and so the rape charges will always be mentioned to make sense of why he is in hiding. Every article that revolves around the current problem of him being in hiding automatically speaks about his fugitive status. Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines fugitive as 1 : running away or intending flight 2 : moving from place to place. For example: "An irate Superintendent Abad Osit, chief of the Pandacan police station, ordered Police Officer 3 Jun Gumaru to explain why he should not be held accountable for violating the standard operation procedure (SOP) for the custody of fugitives." (source http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleid=68908). We cannot deny that the statement attributed to Superintendent Abad Osit is directed to our subject and the circumstances surrounding him. After all, the entire article is about Eli Soriano. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty hardly applies to a fugitive. Flight is an admission of guilt. As the subject is constantly evading the law, and has been doing so for many years now, he has completely marred the presumption of his own innocence.
• The Youtube video uses the Tagalog language. Can Shannon Rose determine if it really covers his fugitive status? – Absolutely, ako po ay bihasa sa pag-unawa at pag-gamit ng wikang Filipino (I am fully capable of understanding and using the Filipino language).
• If you ask any Filipino (who has not read this WP article) regarding Soriano, it is obvious he will say that he is a televangelist. – This is mere conjecture.
• Was Soriano featured in international news programs like CNN? Was Soriano placed in the 10 Most Wanted Fugitives of the NBI (Philippines)? – CNN is not a news program but a cable network. Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines do not require that a subject notable for breaking the law be featured in a CNN program or be placed in the 10 Most Wanted list. One requirement is that The perpetrator is notable for something beyond the crime itself. The subject is a notable televangelist, and that makes his crime notable as well. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event. As far as we are aware, a same-sex rape charge has never been filed against any founder of an international church such as the subject's, in fact it is so unusual and noteworthy that even giant television networks in the Philippines devote entire programmings to dramatize the commission of the crime, tackle the issues surrounding it, and interview victims... such as the link I provided showing the TV special "Case Unclosed" where the very reason for the case being unclosed is because the subject ran away from the law. In the program the victim said that the subject is currently hiding in Brazil, a country that has no extradition treaty with the Philippines. The Soriano rape case, apart from being mentioned in Eli Soriano, actually merits its own article. But then it will just be redundant and a waste of space, so it is best to just integrate it in the current one.
• Here is an edit done by a nonpartisan user: He removed the international fugitive part and tried to discuss it in the talk page. – Thank you for pointing out that revision, which was done in March 16, 2009. Please be aware of a more recent revision by the same editor in May 14, 2009, wherein he reinstated the words international fugitive in the lead after they were removed by an anon like yourself.

I hope I have now addressed all your points. If you have any more issues against the edits, then please don't hesitate to bring them up. Be well! – Shannon Rose ^Talk 16:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Good Answer! I still see some "holes" in your statements: Let me gently state to you SR, that WikiLeon only reinstated the words "international fugitive" because an anon removed it without stating the reasons. Of course you will revert the edit done since it (anon) did not discuss the reason why he removed the international fugitive part. Naniniwala ka na kulto ang pinamumunuan ni Soriano, bakit, anong relihiyon ka ba? Ikaw ba ay inimpluwensyahan ng pastor/lider mo na maniwala na ganyan ang kalagayan ni Soriano? (You believe that Soriano is leading a cult. Why!? Of what religion did you come from?) Take note: Anyone critical of the subject such as Shannon Rose will try to place more negative coverage of the subject, thus giving it undue weight. Can Shannon Rose, who is most probably a Filipino also, decide why the subject is notable? (TO the Undecided here are reason why "NO" should be the answer:) First, she is critical to Soriano, second, many influencial religions in the Philippines (#1 - Iglesia ni Cristo) were affected by the flaying of Soriano towards them.

• Here is one issue: A recent valid RS praising the subject (this part must be placed in the article to counterbalance and make it more NPOV): The Philippine Star- "An Award for Bro. Eli". Take note that Soriano is not known as a fugitive by many people, please see and answer my :::*"2nd Rational:" - Why is the article notable? It is because he is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible (See this. This may not be a valid RS but this link shows the reactions of the Filipinos to his actions, namely, criticizing various other religious groups)..
• By the way SR talks, she is implying that Soriano is guilty: The presumption of innocence until proven guilty hardly applies to a fugitive. Flight is an admission of guilt. As the subject is constantly evading the law, and has been doing so for many years now, he has completely marred the presumption of his own innocence. . What if I tell you, SR, that the subject ran away due to the threats bombarded against him by influential, POWERFUL, religious sector(s) in the Philippines. Of course no journalist will expose that since he (the journalist) will become the enemy of the influential, POWERFUL, religious sector(s) bombarding Soriano with charges and threats. Take note that the Philippines is the 2nd most deadly area for journalists.

Well Done, Shannon Rose, you stand firm in your beliefs. Who/What influenced you beliefs (besides those RS) is still a mystery to me. 180.191.57.92 (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anon, your claim that "WikiLeon only reinstated the words "international fugitive" because an anon removed it without stating the reasons" is, again, pure conjecture. Editors, specially admins, don't just revert edits because they were done without explanation. Editors compare the difference of present edits to the previous and examine them, then act from there. You are rationalizing against being openly proven wrong. You confidently cited this edit as an example of what you perceive as a non-partisan editor removing "international fugitive" from the lead, yet the same editor in a more recent edit reinstated "international fugitive" after it has been removed by an anon like yourself. I am sorry, but that edit obviously reflects a more current disposition of the editor.

Regarding the Mashable award for the subject's blog that was mentioned in the entertainment column of the Philippine Star, please know that we do not just mention any award in an encyclopedia. The award must be notable. Kindly see Awards and Prizes to at least have an idea of what sort of awards deserve mention in an encyclopedia article. Also, please realize that the BLP Noticeboard is not a place to ask personal questions to editors nor is it a forum for religious apologetics, and other self-serving subjective issues including your personal theories, conjectures, heartaches, and grudges. If you find it challenging to communicate in an unattached manner and with civility, you are gently encouraged to move away and contribute on articles where you hold no emotional involvement. Thanks! – Shannon Rose ^Talk 14:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me gently correct you there, the Award is notable. We must include that part to the article. Slightly mentioning it in the "Biography" section is good enough for me, SR. Your suggested 2nd paragraph simply represents your point of view on the subject, and I disagree to it. Making the article more NPOV must be the concern of everyone. You gave it undue weight, then I suggest that the award be briefly mentioned to counterbalance the article's situation. If you keep up your POV edits, then the article is nothing more than an impartial coverage on the subject (specifically, focused on his negative issues). If you continue flaying the subject, less users and anons will trust your perspective on the article. Thanks! 180.191.61.141 (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Anon. You may need to brush up on your understanding of what is a notable award fit to be mentioned in a biographical entry here at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; haven't you read an encyclopedia before? The link you gave is to Mashable, an Internet news blog who also began giving out awards in January 10, 2008. If you will look closely, you will see that the Wikipedia article is about Mashable, the news blog, which is deemed notable due to its popularity as that and not as a reputable or prestigious award giving body. There exists other notable entities who also give out awards, but it does not necessarily follow that just because the entity is notable then the awards they give are automatically notable. For example, an award that was previously mentioned was one given by a radio program called “Dis is Manolo and his Genius Family.” That program gave Soriano the award of "Most Outstanding Preacher." Is the radio program notable? Of course it is! But is the award notable? No. There is absolutely no need to "counterbalance the article's situation." As objective and impartial editors, we should simply provide information based on reliably-sourced facts in line with Wikipedia policies regardless of whether they are seen as positive or negative by anyone. Thanks! – Shannon Rose ^Talk 13:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi SR! Please consider the fact that organizations (that included award-giving ones) are generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability. I have given you a valid RS, Shannon Rose. There are other valid RS praising the subject even before he was charged with rape, making him notable long before he was bombarded with legal issues. Please stop making the article impartial and negative, SR. Your criticism towards the subject (Soriano) is reflected in your edits. Take a look what you have done here. I'm not saying that your edit was bad, but since you immediately added the "negative" coverage, you again gave it undue weight. Here is quote from another nonpartisan editor (you quoted some opinions from users too):

• • [Eli Soriano talk page- Awards and Recognition section] I am not 100% against them being mentioned in the article, if it serves some genuine encyclopaedic purpose, but spamming the article with a load of YouTube videos is unacceptable. from DanielRigal (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • From the same user: Other awards, that are genuinely independent, can be mentioned (but preferably not in an "Awards" section) and only if they are awards for him personally, not for his organisations. For example, the awards for the popularity of his personal website are best mentioned in the context of demonstrating his continued popular support despite his legal troubles.

I hope this clears your mind and please, be more open-minded. 180.191.61.132 (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anon, you are obviously confusing the general notability guidelines, the notability guidelines for organizations, and what constitutes a notable award. There is no question that the subject is notable, and there is also no question that Mashable as a news blog is notable, it is the notability of the award that is being questioned. You may want to ask for assistance in understanding this issue as you seem to be "mashing" (no pun intended) everything with the aim of dissolving them into a single brew:)

Regarding DanielRigal's reply to your lobbying, let me paste the entire thing here so that you are always reminded:

• Use of Archive.org is legitimate to demonstrate what Interpol published in the past. Nobody has ever suggested that Archive.org alter or falsify their archive and it is considered reliable even though they are not official archivers for Interpol. Using Archive.org is a bit like going to a library to consult old editions of newspapers or public records. That said, it is possible to misuse Archive.org. If somebody were to pick a past version of a website which contains claims that the publisher later repudiated or amended then it could give a false impression. Do we have any proof that Interpol is still after Soriano? If they are then the description as a fugitive can stay. If they have definitely dropped the matter then references to him being a fugitive should be put into the past tense and probably removed from the lead section but kept elsewhere. If they have simply chosen not to mention him following a reorganisation of their website, that is inconclusive. That could indicate that he is no longer seen as a priority for Interpol but may still be wanted.
• The "Awards" section has, in the past, contained a big list of awards that Soriano's own organisations had given him. If we mention those at all then we have to explain the context. This is likely to make him look ridiculous. I would be inclined to leave those out entirely, unless there is so much RS coverage of them that we can't ignore them. Other awards, that are genuinely independent, can be mentioned (but preferably not in an "Awards" section) and only if they are awards for him personally, not for his organisations. For example, the awards for the popularity of his personal website are best mentioned in the context of demonstrating his continued popular support despite his legal troubles. An "Awards" section can give the impression of a self-aggrandising "trophy cabinet". In the case of a man who gives himself awards, you have to expect people to be suspicious but that should not prevent a brief mention of any genuine and notable awards.
• Aggressive warning of newbies is not a good thing but I don't see how it would encourage people to engage in sockpuppetry. Genuine, definite sockpuppets and puppeteers need to be dealt with quickly but there are bound to be genuine newbies as well. Rather than diving straight in with the warning templates when a newbie makes a bad edit that might be COI (or whatever) it is better to start with one of the Welcome templates aimed at potentially problematic users. This lets the user know that they did something wrong in a much more gentle way and helps them to get it right in future. Watching how they respond to that will often give a clue as to whether they are a genuine newbie or a sockpuppet. I appreciate that the user you mentioned can be a little "spikey" but it is a general issue with articles where sockpuppetry is rife that it becomes easy for an editor to get trigger-happy with the reverts and warnings. I have found myself doing it from time to time. Editors need to take care to avoid this but the blame lies with the sockpuppeteers because they create the toxic editing environment where every anonymous or newbie edit seems suspect.

If you find it difficult to understand any of these points then please feel free to ask and I will do all I can to help you. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 13:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is questioning the award-giving body except you, SR. You, being a critic of Soriano are just trying to deny the obvious truth: even after being charged with same-sex rape, Soriano is still an active preacher-blogger and can still get awards. Who can prove that Soriano gives himself awards, he's not that foolish to do that. Even DanielRigal knows that there are some awards (from notable and independent award giving bodies) given to Soriano. Mashable as you said, is a notable news blog. After it creates its own award giving body, now you say it (referring to its new award-giving body) is not notable. Oh, c'mon! Who decides the notability, a critic of the subject? NO! a COI? NO. or a third-party reliable sources complete with information on how that award works? YES!. Slightly mentioning it, even just one sentence long (or two), is good enough for me. :-) Now, about the Itanong mo kay Soriano part, it is obvious you have never heard of it. Everyone knows that it is where Soriano preaches using the question-and-answer type. Even his critics make fun of it (I'm not saying you should believe the questions in this site since it is only a critic's way of maligning him): (1) - here is one, here is another one, here's another one but wait, there's more (humor) last (4). Remember, Soriano claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible. Using those for non-official RS, we can conclude that he claims (remember - CLAIM only, not PROVEN) that he can answer any question using the Bible. Please SR, I am again asking you in a gentle manner, be more open-minded. Are you a Filipino? If yes, then probably you know Soriano years before the rape case was charged against him. 180.191.66.131 (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Anon. I can see that you are still struggling to distinguish between a notable individual like Soriano, a notable organization or company like Mashable, and . An organization can be notable, but their notability is not a guarantee that the awards they give, if ever they decide to do so like Mashable, is also notable. Here is a list of notable Philippine awards, and here is a list of notable American awards. I am sorry, but the subject is yet to receive any notable award fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 20:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

@Shannon Rose:Hi SR. The category about the notable Philippine awards is incomplete. But why talk about that, Mashable is internationally NOTABLE (I'm not shouting...). I have seen many articles about website listing the award given by Mashable. here's one. Why are you questioning it, SR? Your the only user I've encountered who denied the notability of an international/internet-wide award-giving body (they awarded Wikipedia itself). Please do not whitewash the reality: - that Soriano can still receive good awards even if there are legal issues surrounding him. I was even unaware that Soriano was given awards by some radio-station/show (don't know) called "genius family". I'm only interested in getting the Mashable award be mentioned, very briefly, at the end of the Biography section because it serves one encyclopedic truth, that Soriano is still an active preacher and can still be awarded by these organizations.

Please answer my reaction (above) about the "uncited" Itanong mo Kay Soriano part. You can watch it in the internet if you want to prove that the sentence in the article is true: This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.. 180.191.71.169 (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Anon! How are you today? While Mashable is, without question, a notable news blog, it is not notable as an award giving body (i.e. which makes its awards unnotable). Encyclopedia Dramatica, like most Wikipedia articles, is still in the process of development to at least a near-decent state. Errors in articles would, of course, tend to remain unless certain editors take notice and become inclined to correct them. For all you know, one of these days the entire award section for that article may come-off. At the moment I am only able to concentrate on one entry at a time. Let other editors sort that one out. Established users are here to brainstorm on the Eli Soriano article in particular, not on Encyclopedia Dramatica... unless you wish to edit that one too. I do not. If you are unable to find the Mashable award in either the current list of notable Philippine awards or the current list of notable American awards, then I would have to perpetually disagree with your rabid insistence regarding the addition of that information to the article. Here is a friendly advice, which you are free to accept or discard: why don't you register, edit for at least a year, then come back here with a little bit more knowledge and understanding? Until then, I believe I am already finished in dealing with you. As you just keep on going on and on about your personal sentiments, conjectures, original research, and personal interpretation of Wikipedia policies and procedures. I only came here due to the promptings of a well-meaning, more senior, and admittedly more knowledgeable editor. But I find myself devoting more time in extending help to you and Dar boo... I mean, IronBreww, than discussing improvements with editors who truly know what they are doing. All issues have already been answered. DanielRigal already explained why archived web pages can be used as reference and why the awards section went, the majority of established users have agreed to retain international fugitive in the lead—and I have also agreed to compromise my previous position regarding its precedence in the notability clause, the wholly-unsourced paragraph was deleted with the express agreement of a mediating admin—and none of the established users (who obviously know what they are doing better than the unverifiable anons that just popped-out from nowhere) opposed it, and every issue has been clearly and patiently addressed and explained. That's it! Job done! Otherwise, going back and forth with anons like you will not only be pointless and a complete waste of everyone's time, it will also be never ending. Wikipedia is not a place to lament about the present state of one's religion as reflected by reputable newspapers, websites, and TV specials. Some sort of therapeutic facility is probably required for that. Editors here just go by policies, procedures, commonsense, and reliable sources. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Shannon Rose, I'm the anon you've been talking to for these days. I've registered following you advice. How long does it take to be considered an "established user"?

Going back to the issues. Mashable's award giving body is not notable, do you have proof? Why do you keep questioning that part even though it is placed in other articles unquestioned? Don't you trust the award-giving body just because it is new in the line (2008)? Is there suspicious "scandals" or scams that happened that maligned the integrity of the award-giving body? (So now I ask you, does an award have to be just to be notable, of course not! I know that you've gave that category as a simple example.) How about other awards? Is it okay for me to include them provided it is popular in the Philippines and I have valid RS to back them? Of course they should.

I don't know your motive on questioning the notability of the award or who you are working for, but I suspect you're either in one of those organizations that are against Soriano, or is heavily influenced by it. (Sounds familiar?) To be honest (please don't take offense), SR has been this close in making me believe that the award is unnotable but your constant criticism and anti-Soriano-ness (you talk in a way that implies that Soriano is guilty) has made me more persistent and doubtful. Let as wait for the mediating admin to return and I will try to invite more users (including the pro-Soriano camp and some admins that were previously involved). Trust me, it's notable (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Ledes

the current lede

Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), an international fugitive and a controversial Filipino televangelist, is the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).

Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.

the anon's suggested lede

Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), a Filipino televangelist and the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).

Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible. (legal issues part)
Soriano is currently facing charges of rape in his home country, the Philippines.

Shannon Rose's suggested revision in place of the second paragraph in the current lead

Soriano fled his home country after being indicted for same-sex rape, this, along with other lawsuits and issues, have been widely-publicized thereby compromising his reputation as clergy.

The reason for suggesting this is because the present contents of the second paragraph i.e. being "known" for criticizing other religious groups, believed to be a Pantas by his followers according to a certain verse in the Bible, and being able to answer any question using the Bible, are wholly unsourced. My position is either we replace the second paragraph or we scrap it altogether. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 14:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

off2riorob's suggested lede

from Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), a Filipino televangelist and the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).

He is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.

In 2009 Soriano failed to attend his bail hearing in regards to allegations of male rape and there is a Philippine warrant out for his arrest. Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Off2riorob. Please read the article and follow the references. The subject was indicted for rape in May 2006 and a corresponding warrant of arrest was issued by Judge Siyangco. Soriano was then allowed to post bail, which he did. Then the case got dismissed... for a while. Because in November of the same year (2006) the case was revived, and another warrant was issued by Judge Dayaon. It was then that Soriano went on hiding. Then, in June 21, 2008, news came out that Soriano showed up and posted bail again. This was later confirmed as a hoax, because it turned out that the arresting officer, PO3 June Gumaru, and Soriano's secretary, Belen Talentado, conspired in faking the certificate of detention to permit his release by posting bail for his rape case as opposed to Soriano actually surrendering and posting the bail himself. Because of that he was again indicted for a second crime in relation to that particular case: falsification of public documents. Clearly, he has been a fugitive since 2006. These are all sourced information available for your reading pleasure on the article under Rape case. Why would we then say that there is currently a warrant out for his arrest due to failure to attend a 2009 bail hearing?

Also, why should we retain the second paragraph saying that the subject is "known" for criticizing other religious groups, believed to be a Pantas by his followers according to a certain verse in the Bible, and being able to answer any question using the Bible, when they are wholly unsourced? – Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The uncited can clearly go. So he has failed to answer bail, that is simple and exactly as my comment.

Firstly, it's 2006 not 2009, so it cannot be exactly as your comment:) Secondly, he is a fugitive not because he failed to attend a bail hearing. There was no bail hearing set for him. The Philippine judiciary does not work that way. I know that you are a conscientious editor, but we cannot make light of his legal problems the way you want it. Especially so since they, particularly his same-sex rape case, are notable enough to have their own article. There is absolutely no POV on the lead. The guy is a fugitive and people generally know him as such. In fact, there exists at least six times more web pages on "Eli Soriano" fugitive than on "Eli Soriano" televangelist. The solid consensus among established and long-time users in keeping that information on the lead is crystal clear, while opposition only comes from single-purpose anons like this one as well as previous users who have been perma-blocked for abusing their accounts. The POV would come in only if we remove the fugitive part there, because we would fail to attribute almost half of the article. Thanks! – Shannon Rose ^Talk 19:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice your recent SPI was closed as no issue, you are perhaps seeing anyone who wants to remove dispputed content as a sock puppet but they are not. The thing I have found is that if an article BLP is POV then what happens every time is that people, good faith people, come along and try to rectify the problem and that is what I see here. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Off2riorob. Sadly, it was. But I am going to request another checkuser replete with evidences, hopefully, at the end of the week, when I have more time. The no issue is, I believe, justified, because I was truly lax on providing further information. But since no checkuser was performed, we cannot really make a conclusion whether they are "good faith people," as you are inclined to believe, or mere reincarnations of permablocked troublemakers like Petersantos and Felix Natalo. I will, however, remove the unsourced second paragraph as has been clearly agreed. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 13:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Soriano is already popular even before the rape allegations came up in 2005. There were even parodies of him in the the late 90's to early 2000 because his religious program was so popular during that time.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ang_Dating_Doon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZK7mjqYXR4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG3zXLfanko

The second paragraph should not be removed. Oh, Come On! Is there a requirement that every sentence, every information in Wikipedia needs to be backed by references. It will only be questioned by critics of the subject that has terribly lost good faith due to the past issues of the problem. The Eliseo Soriano is currently blocked by editing because of an anon removing and inserting unsourced information? Purely a deceptive allegation, kindly review the edit and you will see that 120.x.x.x added a sentence backed by an RS. The other sentence need not a reference, since it came from a section of the Daniel Razon article that was added by Shannon Rose. 180.191.61.132 (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll

I have a concern the the adding of international fugitive as the primary comment in the lede and the primary reason for this persons notability is a BLP violation as this is beng given undue weight. Shannon Rose thinks that is the most notable thing about him and supports the present lede. Would users comment as to their preference within policy.

Rewrite

Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), a Filipino televangelist and the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).

Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible. In 2006 Soriano failed to attend his bail hearing in regards to allegations of male rape and there is a Philippine warrant out for his arrest.

Present lede

Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), an international fugitive and a controversial Filipino televangelist, is the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).

Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.

comments

Please post your preference here. Thanks.

• FlipI'd pick present but flip the order of televangelist and fugitive. After all, being a fugitive is not a career. Yworo (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Yworo. I am willing to compromise my current position about the subject being more notable as a fugitive than as a televangelist to this new rationale and am fully amenable to flipping their order. Thank you for your input! – Shannon Rose ^Talk 12:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Take note, Yworo, that the official website of the Interpol does not include Soriano in the fugitive list. Shannon, however, added this part in the article, again giving it undue weight and more POV coverage PO3 Gumaru admitted in a sworn affidavit that he had never seen the church group leader, that Soriano did not really surrender to him, and that he is, (THIS IS THE PART THAT WAS NOT STATED BY THE POLICEMAN:)in fact, still a fugitive. Why did Shannon Rose add it, probably just to reflect her current beliefs in the article.

2nd evidence: Here is another part Shannon inserted which was absent from the reference. After more than a year and a half of living as a fugitive,.

• Technically speaking, he may still be a fugitive but since he is not notable as such, why not place that part in the Legal Issues section.

Be vigilant, Wikipedians, as members of Soriano's group (removing the rape case part) and critics of Soriano's group (rejecting the duly-sourced awards) are tilting the article to extreme levels of POV: (whitewashing). I'm voting for the rewrite. Shannon Rose I am gently advising you to please, (pretty please) be more open-minded and please accept the fact the prior to his legal troubles, Soriano was already notable for being a televangelist and a critic to many religions. 180.191.61.132 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Rewrite-Agree to the suggested rewrite. It does not necessarily mean that Soriano is no longer an international fugitive but for the sake of neutrality, let it be placed in the 2nd lead paragraph. IronBreww (chat) 07:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Current-I completely disagree. Neutrality has nothing to do with being prejudiced to reliably-sourced facts. That is whitewashing. We are encyclopedia editors, not diplomats. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 13:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Rewrite-I also vote for off2riorob's suggested version. 92.63.105.66 (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Hi, Anon. The "vote" of another anon, who only began editing two months ago, may not necessarily amplify the voice or add weight to the obviously-COI opinion of the SPA Anon. Nevertheless, thank you for dropping by! – Shannon Rose ^Talk 12:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Current-Keep as is: "an international fugitive and a controversial Filipino televangelist". "international" bear more weight than "filipino" given this is wikipedia. Conrad940 (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia Manual of Style, specifically WP:MOSBIO, indicate that one of the first things that should be presented is the subject's nationality or citizenship. This is normally followed by their career, then why they are notable. Being a fugitive is not a career, and being an international fugitive not make one a citizen of the world. Yworo (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, Yworo. Following this, it should then read "A Filipino televangelist and international fugitive." This actually flows much better. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 20:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Rumors are he's already a Brazilian citizen. It'll come out in the papers sooner or later. I guess we can then change the lede to "a Brazilian of Filipino descent" :) Conrad940 (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Rewrite-Vote for off2riorob's version of the lead. 120.28.64.72 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My own Suggestion:Eli Soriano (born...), a Filipino televangelist, is the presiding minister of thePhilippines-based Members Church of God International. Currently an international fugitive, he is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio.... 120.28.64.72 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Rewrite - the current lead is biased. (I expect someone will criticize me)... Dar book (Complains?) 11:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

William Foley - Whitefish Mountain Resort

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

William Foley conducted a hostile takeover of a regional ski resort in Whitefish Montana. The resort had been built and maintained by local stockholders. After 2 stock splits, one conducted in secret in order to deny stockholders their rights of transferal, the community was growing weary of this conduct. William Foley is now an important part of the Big Mountain history and should not be constantly reverted in order to sanitise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.60.2 (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for sanitization. However, pushing the POV that this was a hostile takeover is a problem. Introducing silliness like the reason one of the shareholder selling being due to his kinky sex and drugs bit is not good either. It may well be that mentioning him is a good idea... but it would need balance, and would need to actually say what the sources say.- Sinneed 15:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the takeover is a minor issue, unless your one of the embittered shareholders..a minor comment could be agreed on. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It is widly believed that Foley received notice that the Dasen's stock would be available through Judge Stadler who handled the case and often drank in Foley's Whitefish bar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.89.38 (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

...and that statement alone breaks wp:BLP. Stop.- Sinneed 15:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Laurawelker

Resolved

 – violator indefinitely blocked Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Violating BLP on the following (both in the articles and the talk pages):

• Timothy Ferriss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The 4-Hour Workweek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yworo (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Heurelho Gomes

The correct name of the goalkeeper is HEURÉLIO DA SILVA GOMES and not "HEURELHO". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizarromg (talk • contribs) 00:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are both to be found, the tottenhan player page and you think they would know his name have Heurelho http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/players/player_profiles.html Off2riorob (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Larkhall

Resolved

 – Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nakamura89 (talk · contribs) has posted comments about a named person on Larkhall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see DIFF I have reverted, but wp:REVDEL or even wp:OVERSIGHT may be required. Regards --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

REVDEL'ed. Oversighting not necessary, IMHO, but other admins are free to submit if desired. Account blocked indef as VOA. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Issue with Arthur Jensen

I had thought that our previous two discussions about this ([8] and [9]) had made some progress. That is sort of true in that the absurd claim about Jensen seeking separate curriculum for blacks and whites has been removed and, so far, stayed removed. But the issue has come up again. (Thanks MathSci!) So, we both need to discuss this one specifically and brainstorm about ways to solve this more permanently. (This discussion I started [10] at WP:BLP has not gone very far.)

I deleted [11] the second sentence of this section from History of the race and intelligence controversy.

Joan Freeman, a psychologist specialising in gifted education, wrote that Jensen found that after matching up black and white children according to socioeconomic level, although the IQ scores of black children were distributed over the whole range, their average score was 15 points less than that of the white children. As she wrote, "He proposed that different forms of education, more appropriate to their kind of intelligence, should be given to black children. There should be less conceptual flights of fancy and more rote learning for them."

1) I have no problem with the first sentence. That is, in fact, what Jensen (1969) [12] reports. 2) I deleted the second sentence, not because I doubt that Freeman herself wrote it (MathSci is very reliable when it comes to these details) but because Jensen (1969) does not, in fact, propose "different forms of education" for "black children." Doesn't WP:BLP require that we delete false claims about living people even if those claims are made in reliable sources? David.Kane (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not interested in truth, only verifiability. In short, if you're capable of digging up enough sources displaying the same bias, you are free to paste that bias with reckless abandon into every article even tangentially relevant to the topic, and as long as it is politically correct, you can present it as fact and in Wikipedia's voice. It doesn't matter if someone can demonstrate the bias for what it is, s/he will be found in violation of WP:OR or some such policy if s/he contests the neutrality of the material, and possibly blocked for disruptive behaviour. Double-plus good, I say.

Apparently, David, you forgot to check your ability to think critically at the door. Tsk, tsk. --Aryaman (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not interested in truth, only verifiability."

This is one of the worst fallacies abroad on WP at present. WP doesn't work in this way, merely some blinkered editors. WP:V can be useful to elucidate truth, but the moment any of us start to see verifiability as a substitute for truth, it's time to stop writing. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see why the race and intelligence articles are so problematic on Wikipedia. Secondary sources in the field of psychology tend to marginalize the hereditary intelligence hypothesis through consequentialism: "if you accept X, then the natural result is Y". I expect a part of this is a defense of psychology itself (which is under threat to cede some of its historical territory to biology and statistics), and another part is an understandable societal reluctance to acknowledge racial differences (fearing that small differences in the means of two distributions will be misinterpreted as evidence that the distributions are largely disjoint). As a BLP problem, it's similar to attributing consequentialist arguments about evolution to Darwin, e.g. "Darwin thought it was all right to kill the poor and weak and to breed a master race, and so does anyone who believes evolution", and consequentialist arguments about free markets to Adam Smith, e.g. "Smith thought that people should be greedy and exploit others". The trouble is, both Darwin and Smith were merely scientists observing and documenting a phenomenon, not political activists trying to implement the societal changes attributed to their theories—in Wikipedia terms I suppose the relevant policy would be assigning undue weight to the "advocacy" side of their lives, combined with a tendency to synthesize theory with the social policy supported by that theory. Unfortunately, it's the secondary sources that are placing the weight and performing the synthesis here. If it's acceptable for Wikipedia to echo the cultural zeitgeist, even when that zeitgeist misinterprets people and their work, then most of the material about Jensen should remain—only those few cases where Wikipedia performs additional synthesis and adds additional undue weight (which has occurred as editors have tried to "summarize" sources by removing caveats, context, and nuance) need be fixed (usually with a minor rewording). If that's not acceptable, then I suppose we'd need to attribute every synthesis that isn't directly supported by primary sources (which is a huge pain in the ass, and very hard to reconcile with WP:OR). My one piece of advice is that the interpretation of race and intelligence primary sources may be different in secondary sources devoted to biology, genetics, and statistics (of which there are fewer—most of the non-specialist literature on intelligence is written by psychologists), so looking these out may be valuable. Rvcx (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant personal musings that are also erroneous. The hereditarian hypothesis is mostly supported by (a small group) of psychologists, it is mostly rejected by anthropologists, biologists and geneticists. Jensen, Rushton and other hereditarians often try to paint themselves as victims of "political correctness" who are stigmatized for their relentlessness in their search for scientific truth. Secondary sources usually do not fall for that martyr trick, but rather expose their actual arguments and the faulty analyses on which they build. Arthur Jensen is not simply looking for scientific truth, but is actively advocating policy changes within education. To deny that is simply counterfactual. (The very fact that Jensen found it relevant to describe race differences in IQ in the Harvard Educational Review speaks clearly to the fact that Jensen means to base educational policies on race) Secondary sources place more emphasis on those arguments because they are both largely unethical and based on faulty science.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Maunus has adequately demonstrated that the POV-pushers are not confined to the hereditarian side of this field. Rvcx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

I would ask you to back up that accusation with diffs of me working towards a less neutral coverage of this or any other topic or alternatively apologize and strike your remark.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I base my comment purely on the above. Whether you consider something "unethical" is irrelevant, and I find your eagerness to dismiss all intelligence research as "faulty science" worrying. Frankly, the "hereditarian hypothesis"—the notion that some part of the variance in intelligence (at least as measured by IQ tests; no need to dwell on whether the term is well-defined) is heritable—is pretty well universally accepted in academia. The disagreement is mainly over how much of that variance is heritable, how much is due to biological environment, how much is due to social environment, how much is due to educational environment, etc, as well as what (if any) policy implications this should have. I do, however, agree that a "strong hereditarian hypothesis"—that intelligence is determined solely by genetics—has very limited support. In fact, I'm not familiar with any researcher (Jensen included) who has proposed it. Rvcx (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Rvcx, I think you’re confusing two different things here. You’re correct that academia almost universally accepts the idea that variance in intelligence between individuals within the same ethnic group is strongly heritable, but within the context of race and intelligence, the term “hereditarian hypothesis” generally refers to more than this. This term usually refers to the theory that genetics also contribute to the differences in average IQ between ethnic groups, which is much more controversial. For variance in intelligence within ethnic groups to be strongly heritable does not guarantee that within-group variation is heritable also; see Race_and_intelligence#Heritability_within_and_between_groups for an explanation of this.

Incidentally, I don’t think Maunus is POV-pushing. Even though there have been plenty of situations in which he and I have disagreed, I think his overall pattern of contributions to these articles shows that he cares about legitimately improving them rather than just inserting his point of view into them. And he sometimes makes mistakes, just like the rest of us, but that on its own doesn’t justify not assuming good faith about him. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right that I was addressing the hereditarian hypothesis with respect to intelligence in general, not specifically between races; I apologize for the confusion. Hereditary racial differences are not as universally accepted, although I still find it quite tendencious to suggest that they are widely rejected. Regardless, my intent was not to debate the "truth", but rather to try to identify the sourcing problems causing so much controversy in the editing process, and to highlight to danger in editors using "ethics" as an excuse for undue weight. There's no question that ethical concerns have driven much of the secondary-source coverage of (or reaction to) intelligence research; that's not an excuse to misrepresent the views of the scientists doing that research. Rvcx (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Escort Ireland - more eyes needed

A new user initially posted on a different forum, but I thought I would cross post here as a more appropriate forum to bring more eyes to watch for the insertion of names of living people without proper sourcing. Active Banana (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Troublesome, valueless little not notable stub, better off deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this edit on the talk page may need oversight. I'll go ahead and report it for removal. Yworo (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Yworo. I have sent it for discussion at Articles for deletion here Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Melissa Kirsch

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

I am the subject of this entry. It seems to have been cobbled together from various biographical materials on me, some of which is correct, much of which is incorrect, and all of which seems to be written in a style inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards. Please advise. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.171.102 (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you be specific about which information is inaccurate? As nothing is cited, anything can be removed at this point if you let us know where the problems are. Yworo (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Tim Macindoe

Resolved

 – Subject ceased editing after coi notice

Just wanting a second opinion on this page which is currently being edited by a User:TimMacindoe. Edits are mostly fine although s/he is removing any "citation needed" tags I place. I don't want to have an edit war so am asking for opinions/advice/help. Mattlore (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When you see a user with the same name as the article, it's a good time to use the {{uw-coi}} template. Yworo (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that Yworo, hadn't seen that template before and don't usually deal with these conflicts so thought I'd just refer it to here for some extra sets of eyeballs. Mattlore (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yworo (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Summary of Issues Related to Arthur Jensen, with reference to handling controversial claims from reliable sources about living figures

I have been involved in a series of disputes about contentious claims made about Arthur Jensen, a living person. Although the details differ in each one (see the box for background), the most common pattern seems to involve:

1. A claim made about Jensen, often about his famous 1969 paper entitled "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?". Full paper is available here.
2. The claim appears in a reliable source. The latest example [13] involves a quote from Ornstein (1982), an academic paper.
3. In the view of some editors (at least me), the claim made in the reliable source is contradicted by examining Jensen (1969) directly. Some of these have been egregious [14] but others, like Ornstein, are much closer calls.
4. The view attributed to Jensen is "contentious" (to quote WP:BLP) is two senses. First, some editors disagree that Jensen held those views. Second, the view is extreme, generally some version of "Jensen argued that blacks should be treated differently than whites" rather than his (in my opinion) actual view of low IQ students should be treated differently than high IQ students.
5. I delete the edit, noting that it is "contentious" and asking for discussion and, I hope, consensus at the Talk page.
6. Others insist that I am wrong to delete any material which is correctly attributed to a reliable source. The fact (if true) that it contradicts Jensen's own words or that it is extreme is, other editors claim, irrelevant.

For now, I am not seeking opinions about the content dispute. Indeed, I think that Ornstein is much more reasonable than some of the previous deletions that I have made. In fact, after discussion, I could imagine keeping it. Instead, I am seeking opinions from uninvolved editors about the generic way I should handle contentious claims made about a living person. Specifically, is my current practice of immediate deletion (following WP:BLP, followed by an attempt to engage in discussion at the appropriate Talk page justified? Thanks. David.Kane (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You should probably realize that given you have a strong POV in this area, your attempts to allege you are merely following BLP are likley to be disregarded, and given close scruitiny. As such, unless the BLP violation is flagrant and obvious, you should stop reverting content you don't like. Hipocrite (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, while re-adding this material for the second time, you’ve stated in your edit summary “BLPN has come to a conclusion that this is acceptable material”. How is that possible when nobody other than you has commented in this thread, and your own comment is just saying that David.Kane’s policy-based arguments should be disregarded because he has a point of view about this topic? Do you seriously think that a single comment which refuses to address David.Kane’s points should be considered “consensus”? --Captain Occam (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because the long and detailed discussion of your last post on the very same topic is still above on this page and hasn't even been archived yet? Yworo (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean “my last post”? My only comment in the previous thread about this was explaining to Rvcx what the “hereditarian hypothesis” means in this context.

If what you mean is David.Kane’s last post, I don’t see how anyone could be assuming that discussion has reached a consensus, especially not a consensus that this material is acceptable. Of the five people who’ve commented, the only person who thought it was acceptable was Maunus. Varoon Arya’s comment about this was sarcasm, in case you can’t tell. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The non SPA editors have agreed every time on every one of the BLPN postings. Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And so have non-SPAs such as Rvcx, Off2riorob, Ncmvocalist, Varoon Arya, Andy Dignley, and Jimbo Wales. What’s your point? Does your lack of respect for the editors who disagree with you automatically create a consensus for the opposite of whatever they say? --Captain Occam (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the fact that you are a fringe POV pusher makes me disregard everything you say. You misrepresent what the various indiviudals you list above said. Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I agree that there is a BLP concern here: there are cases where secondary sources are performing unjustified synthesis of the primary sources, and I'm not quite sure how Wikipedia should handle that. Further, there are some cases (including the one on this noticeboard that initially attracted my attention) where it's actually Wikipedia perform additional synthesis of these secondary sources, which is clearly against policy (although usually quite easy to fix—my concern was addressed by changing just a couple of words). I should also point out that the above comment is clearly a personal attack and ignores content issues. I suggest you strike it out. Rvcx (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources when written by respected scholoars are allowed to make all the syntheses they want. What we are not allowed to do is second-guess them and say which scholars have correct and which have faulty interpretations of what Jensen's opinions are.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a personal attack. Does Captain Occam deny he is a SPA? A POV pusher? Further, I echo Maunus here - Secondary sources are supposed to synthesize primary sources - please read Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources - "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their material on primary sources, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. ... Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source." Hipocrite (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I also have to agree with this. WP:BLP is intended to prevent the addition of unvetted opinions about the subject that might expose Wikipedia to lawsuits. Reporting what a third-party published secondary source says, which has already been vetted by the publisher of the material, does not so expose Wikipedia. The published third-party opinions have already been vetted. As an encyclopdia, Wikipedia would not be the target of any suit, the author and publisher of the secondary material would be. Wikipedia is protected when accurately reporting cited third-party opinions. This seems to me to be a misuse of WP:BLP in a content dispute. Yworo (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My point (which I think Jimbo supported much more strongly) is that this isn't always the case: even otherwise excellent secondary sources can make unjustified interpretations of other people's work. Normally minor errors in secondary sources are addressed because other sources correct them, but in this case there are two problems with that. First, when one or two sources perform a particular unjustified synthesis but others don't, the omission in all the other sources is hard to cite as a "conflict" between the two. Second, there is a tendency for secondary sources (particularly when produced by the same community with the same biases) will make the same unjustified inferences. The notion that Adam Smith, for example, discounted the value of altruism is incredibly common in popular secondary (or, in truth, tertiary) sources, but it is blatantly and demonstrably false. There have been a few essays on the fact that it's false, but they're tough to find and not difficult to dismiss as WP:FRINGE because they're so much less popular than the "Smith liked greed" sources. So (for Smith at least—let's leave the Jensen debate out of it for a moment) we're in a quandry: lots of secondary sources say that Smith said something, but even a cursory reading of his actual work demonstrates that this is a mischaracterization. A potentially libelous mischaracterization. Repeating such mischaracterizations as fact would be a BLP issue if Smith were still alive. As I've said, I'm not entirely sure what the answer is, but I am sure the issue isn't quite as simple as we all wish it were. Rvcx (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You alledge, then, that Orenstein mischaracterizes Jensen. However, I was able to find primary sources (from the Jensen peice) for all of Orensteins secondary sourced quotes. As such, I have to ask - where is the mischaracterization, except in the minds of people who wish Jensen didn't say what he said? Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) If you read the above you will find that I allege nothing of the sort; I haven't dug into that particular bit of text—only the ones about which I commented in the very first thread. My one day digging through the sources, however, suggested that Jensen's work had been widely over-interpreted and that he had become a tar baby for race and intelligence politics: his work definitely supports a lot of political advocacy that he himself doesn't seem to have directly endorsed. This isn't at all uncommon for academics whose work draws political attention. I'm trying not to wade into the content debate, but rather to point out that one of the reasons the content debate is not progressing is that some editors think anything they find in a secondary source is fine to include, and others (Jimbo included) think that where BLP is concerned primary sources are (also?) necessary. It might be worth separating the policy debate from the content debate. Rvcx (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are not responding to content on this noticeboard, please go to a relevent policy page - you might consider WP:OR. I should note that above you have been identified as agreeing that this material should note be included. Seemingly, you take no position on the material. Please clarify. Hipocrite (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: your claim that "The non SPA editors have agreed every time on every one of the BLPN postings." is false; I have agreed that there have been BLP violations related to Jensen, and I have supported removing and/or rewording them. You base much of your argument on the assumption that anything appearing in a reliable secondary source is not a BLP violation; I disagree with that argument (as does Jimbo, who is about as far from an SPA as you can get). Rvcx (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This should be handled simply by making it clear whose opinion it is and where it is presented. Unless the source is self-published, fringe, or otherwise systemically unreliable, we should not be doing what is essentially orginal research in revetting sources. Yworo (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be easiest to view this issue in terms of neutrality. (And neutrality is of paramount importance in articles involving living people.) We have some (otherwise reliable) sources, such as Tucker, which claim that Jensen advocated treating people differently on the basis of race rather than on the basis of IQ. And there are other reliable sources, such as some of Linda Gottfredson’s writings, which state that authors such as Tucker are systematically misrepresenting Jensen’s opinion about these topics. Mathsci has claimed that we can’t use Gottfredson as a source for most parts of the article, because she clearly has a favorable view of Jensen and therefore isn’t neutral in what she says about topics like this one. David.Kane and I think the same is true of Tucker, except that in this case the problem is how obviously unfavorable Tucker’s view of Jensen is. (What do you expect of an author who refers to Jensen’s work as “scientific racism”?) Fortunately, we also have a third option for writing articles about people like Jensen, which is to use sources such as Loehlin that everyone can agree are neutral. Loehlin doesn’t make what people like Gottfredson consider to be unsupported assertions about Jensen’s views, but he also doesn’t attempt to whitewash Jensen the way Mathsci thinks authors like Gottfredson do. Since sources such as Loehlin aren’t contentious in either direction, aren’t they our best option for describing living people neutrally? --Captain Occam (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So your opinion of me makes it unnecessary for you to support your claim that there’s a consensus for this material, and gives you the right to revert the article four times within the space of two hours in order to keep inserting it? Do you seriously not see what’s wrong with your behavior here? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see 4 reverts from me (in fact, I see 2, an attempt to add a tag, and an attempt to rewrite the content to meet the talk page objection), but if you do, please report me. Further, the fact of your fringe POVpusherness makes your comments carry no weight. If the users you listed above actually said what you say they said, you'll point to diffs of them saying what you say they said, or they'll show up to say it again. Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it’s three reverts: [15] [16] [17]. The third one is definitely a revert, because it’s adding most of the same material that’s already been removed by four different users, even if it’s been slightly reworded. You haven’t violated 3RR on this article yet, but you will if you revert it again.

If I quote the comments where the users I mentioned expressed agreement with David.Kane about this, do you agree to let this drop? After you’ve already stated that you intend to disregard everything I say, it’s hard for me to be convinced that providing a detailed explanation of the lack of consensus is a good use of my time, particularly when it should be blatantly obvious to most people in this situation. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And the mayhem spills into section after section on this page too? So many weighing in here who profess to hold the "proper" interpretation of Jensen, but I don't see many giving much feedback on the "proper" application of the WP:BLP policy. Unfortunately, our own brilliant expertise on the subject of Arthur Jensen is the one thing that counts for nothing at wikipedia. And this board is certainly not the proper venue to share it. Here, explain how the policy relates to the use of reliably sourced material, primary sources, and the proper framing of controversial claims. Otherwise, detailed discussions about the topic itself properly belongs on the article's talk page. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The discussion should centre on the use of properly ascribed commentary from reliable secondary sources, not on WP:OR ("Jensen was used as a tar baby"). Mathsci (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Max Yong - more eyes needed

Resolved

 – Deleted

Article history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Yong&action=history

The article is well written, but:

• References provided are just generic links to club sites and I couldn't actually find Max Yong there.
• Fails google check.
• Questionable notability.
• Same user who made major contributions to the article had just inserted:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=365358460&oldid=365348726 - (very likely misinformation)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=365344920&oldid=363552310 - (deliberate misinformation)

User contributions:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.250.5.245
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.250.5.246

Note that it is a shared IP and more recent contributions seems to be Ok.

--Dc987 (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me, without making me click on a link, why this is a BLP problem. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it is a BLP and the article is likely to be a student prank (considering that the user using the same IP address on the same day wrote: "Maximillian Yong - awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1963 "for describing the electric transmission of impulses along nerves". And that's obviously incorrect.) --Dc987 (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, so do you really need "more eyes", or should you instead just be AfD'ing this? Jclemens (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No idea. I'm not really into all that BLP/AfD stuff nor I'm planning to go into it. --Dc987 (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

AFL lists (St Kilda Football Club) are very tightly controlled - there is only the draft mechanism to be listed, and noone by that name has ever been drafted. I've CSD#G3'd it as a blatant hoax.The-Pope (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Melissa Francis

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

Thedubaipost (talk · contribs) has twice inserted a section on Francis's recent pregnancy sourced to Blogspot.com, plus speculation on the Talk page, which I removed. Input on whether this content is appropriate for the article – even if improved sourcing could be found – would be appreciated. Also, I'm not sure if the reference to the fictional character Avery Jessup should be included, especially considering the character's pregnancy. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted the pregnancy bit and warned the user. Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Biography Name Incorrect For "Sammy Hagar"

Main heading of commonly used name of "Sammy Hagar" is correct. The incorrect birthname of "Samuel" is used in bold type at the beginning of the article. Birthname is "Sam Roy Hagar" Could not edit that portion of article. Please correct. Thank you. RedJeanette —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedJeanette (talk • contribs) 05:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Consider using {{editsemiprotected}} on the article talk page. Be sure to include evidence that the name as currently sourced is incorrect. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I see no technical reason why you can't edit that directly yourself. The article is not currently protected. Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It was reverted, that is why the change did not appear to work. I have reinstated the edit here. Unfortunately, it would appear the user has given up on Wikipedia :-( See their talk.  Chzz  ►  09:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris Kelly (entrepreneur)

Can I request a quick review of this? There has been some recent issues relating to a political campaign and we got an OTRS message (OTRS:4954309) complaining about it. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's fair bad, the article is written in such a way to coatrack his time at Facebook. Needs a scrub, i've made a start. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Don King

I'd like to request input at Talk:Don King (boxing promoter) regarding an IP who has repeatedly changed the lead from:

"Donald "Don" King (born August 20, 1931) is an American boxing promoter particularly known for his hairstyle and flamboyant personality."

to

"Donald "Don" King (born August 20, 1931) is an American boxing promoter and convicted murderer particularly known for his hairstyle and flamboyant personality."

This seems a bit much for the lead sentence, especially given the details of the case. The IP has violated 3RR, but I think they may be operating in good faith. I've temporarily semi-protected the page, and am acting as an admin here, so additional opinions are required. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bill Phillips (author)

The Revision History of the Bill Phillips (author) page on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Phillips_(author)&action=history, shows more than four years of persistent misuse by “Yankees76.”

In that time, Yankees76 has displayed extreme bias against Bill Phillips. As the Revision History clearly shows, Yankees76 promptly deletes/undoes any good faith additions to the page that would make it more balanced and compliant with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy.

Yankees76 insists on being the primary contributor to the page, and the majority of what he contributes is defamatory and irrelevant except to him, as it supports his extreme bias/personal resentment toward Bill Phillips.

The sources Yankees76 often cites refer to http://tmuscle.com/tmuscle.com, an online newsletter published by TC Luoma, a former employee of Bill Phillips who was dismissed from one of his companies 15 years ago. These citations are biased and not reliable.

TC Luoma has made defamatory claims about Bill Phillips for many years in his newsletter, which Yankees76 then adds to the Bill Phillips (author) page. (TC Luoma also sells nutrition products that compete with those sold by Phillips.) Whether or not TC Luoma and Yankees76 are the same person, they share the same agenda, which is to control the Bill Phillips (author) page on Wikipedia.

Throughout the past four years, Yankees76 has bullied many contributors with insults and accusations that they are vandalizing his work on the page. This behavior goes directly against Wikipedia’s founding intention of providing objective, unbiased, and fair information. As it stands now, the Bill Phillips (author) page is defamatory, biased, and based on unreliable sources.

The bottom line is that Yankees76 has persistently misused his position as an admin with improper deletions and unreliable sources.

Getfit1980 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ludicrous accusations. First off, please review WP:AFG and WP:NPA. Second - I'm not an admin, nor have I ever claimed I was. You can't come to Wikipedia and make defamatory statements about other editors - especially garbage like what you've posted above. - especially when you have spent ZERO effort in doing anything with regards to coming to a consensus on any material. Also please familiarize yourself with what a reliable source is. Information that you don't agree with doesn't make the source unreliable. TC Luoma was the editor in chief of Muscle Media and is the owner of Testosterone Magazine which makes him "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." But beyond that, your edits include more than simply the material sourced using articles published by Luoma - you've deleted material published by Outside Magazine, Coloradorunnermag.com, an interview will Bill by Fitness Atlantic.com and a press release by the Make-a-Wish Foundation. [18], replacing it press release material including material cut and pasted material from Transformation.com - Phillips latest website. What is your rationale behind that? There are 24 references in the article - not even a quarter reference T-Nation. Giving due weight to all aspects of the subjects life doesn't make the article defamatory and irrelevant. Wikipedia isn't another avenue for Bill to do a press release.

Admins, User:Getfit1980 is one of many sockpuppets who come to the article every few months without any previous Wikipedia edits and rewrite the article to remove any statements (sourced or not) that are related to Bill's well documented past as a steroids dealer/bodybuilder and supplement company owner or any negative statements in general. Any attempts to get these sockpuppets to discuss edits are usually met with silence. At one point (September 2008) the article was fully protected to avoid nearly the entire removal of content by a sockpuppet using the name User:BillEditor[19]. How I've "bullied" any editors is beyond me, considering these editors refuse to discuss their changes and usually disapear only to be replaced by yet another sockpuppet that proceeds to do the same thing without any attempts to form a consensus on any of the informatio. The last one, the now blocked User:Chloe81375, attempted to intimidate both myself and another editor by threatening to expose our alleged addresses. Clearly there is an agenda being pushed by an individual or group of individuals who have a conflict of interest.

The article as it stands now does not give any undue weight to any side of Bill's career/personal life - both his successes and failures. The main article was written in March of 2006 by User:Glen and I've simply expanded on it with talk page discussions dating back to February 2006. A look through the edit history will show that I've spent considerable time carefully sourcing the info, especially info that is likely to be challenged. I've also attempted to explain why sources such at TC Luoma and magazines such as Mucle Insider and Testosterone Magazine are reliable sources. There is not much additional information I can add to this article at this time, however I'm not about to let an individual posting under numerous accounts remove sourced info in order to satisfy their own agenda. Yes, I'm aware of WP:OWN however watching an article and removing content blanking and vandalism does not fall under that guideline.--Yankees76 (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just so Yankees76 isn't accused of canvassing - he did post on my talk page a few days back when the "outing" occured, but I think I should follow up now.

1) In that time, Yankees76 has displayed extreme bias against Bill Phillips. As the Revision History clearly shows, Yankees76 promptly deletes/undoes any good faith additions to the page that would make it more balanced and compliant with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy.

• he's probably done it twice in 4 years - and I've done it once too. When I did it - the article was butchered by a name/number user name/sockpuppet and was re-written to read like a press release - complete with copied and pasted material from Transformation.com's forums. I had a conversation with that "user" and we seemed to come some sort of working relationship until they disapeared and have not edited since.

2) Yankees76 insists on being the primary contributor to the page, and the majority of what he contributes is defamatory and irrelevant except to him, as it supports his extreme bias/personal resentment toward Bill Phillips.

• Wikipedia should probably count itself lucky that anyone edits this guys page. Other than the constant sockpuppetry, he's the only preson consistantly adding verifiable material to the article - and the material he's is hardly "defamatory". Where do you get "extreme bias" from any of that? Clearly you're not assuming good faith yourself.

3) The sources Yankees76 often cites refer to http://tmuscle.com/tmuscle.com, an online newsletter published by TC Luoma, a former employee of Bill Phillips who was dismissed from one of his companies 15 years ago. These citations are biased and not reliable.

• Don't trivialize the source. TC Luoma was once the editor-in-chief of the most popular bodybuilding magazine in the US (Muscle Media), and is the current editor of one most respected online fitness/training sources in Testosterone Nation (which is also a print magazine). Due to his many years working closely with Phillips on MM2K he would therefore have accurate insight and information about Bill Phillips' life during that time. And he posts new material about his experiences semi-regularly. This isn't some random internet blogger's opinion that Yankees76 is quoting, but a published author. Also note that some of the references that use T-Nation quote articles that were not written by TC.

4) TC Luoma has made defamatory claims about Bill Phillips for many years in his newsletter, which Yankees76 then adds to the Bill Phillips (author) page. (TC Luoma also sells nutrition products that compete with those sold by Phillips.) Whether or not TC Luoma and Yankees76 are the same person, they share the same agenda, which is to control the Bill Phillips (author) page on Wikipedia.

• Hardly "defamatory". Potentially embarassing to Bill now that he's 10 years or so removed from it and trying to bury the information, but truthful nonetheless. Bill Phillips is no angel. [ Redacted per WP:BLP }

5) Throughout the past four years, Yankees76 has bullied many contributors with insults and accusations that they are vandalizing his work on the page. This behavior goes directly against Wikipedia’s founding intention of providing objective, unbiased, and fair information. As it stands now, the Bill Phillips (author) page is defamatory, biased, and based on unreliable sources.

• This statement clinches it for me that you're indeed the same "BillEditor" who despite a WP:COI- see diff[20] - continues to delete any information on Bill that is related to steroids or his past as a supplement company owner. You've been constantly deleting sourced content on and off for at least 2 years - half the time without a valid explanation - which is indeed vandalism and would be reverted as such. Yankees76 isn't "bullying" anyone (and he's never insinuated that it's "his work" that I've seen - please post diffs if you're going to make personal attacks on other editors. Bullying editors is making fake threats to post their addresses - a power which you don't have. Nobody has been bullied on this article except the editors who are trying to prevent those with a conflict of interest from turning it into an ad. If your intention is to provide objective, unbiased, and fair information, why do you delete the fact that Bill used steroids or that he ran a magazine that employed Dan Duchaine and liberally discussed how to take and even smuggle steroids? Why the need to remove Bill's association with Jose Canseco, when there are plenty of sources that talk about it? That's not being very objective. The "press releases" you've inserted in place of the article aren't very objective either.

6) The bottom line is that Yankees76 has persistently misused his position as an admin with improper deletions and unreliable sources.

• The bottom line is if you had taken time to discuss your edits and build a consensus you might find you'd have a better experience here. This complaint is frivolous and reeks of self promotion and agenda pushing - and is a weak attempt to silence someone. It's pathetic. --Quartet 21:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Because TC Luoma is a competitor of Bill Phillips, his sources are not reliable enough for negative information from them to be used. If they continue to be used for that, I'd be inclined to disallow their use as sources at all. In fact, we certainly should not allow linking to any articles written by him that contain such information, because WP:BLP say we can't link to potentially defamatory pages. Yworo (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Competitor" can only be used loosely to describe the relationship between these two - try to disregard weasel words like "competitor" to describe their releationship and "newsletter" to describe TMuscle.com. Bill Phillips sells his books/transformation products to a completely different target market at completely different retailers than Biotest sells their bodybuilding supplements. In fact Phillips does not even have any sports nutrition or bodybuilding supplements available for sale on his website at all. Since TMuscle is free and therefore not a publishing competitor - how are Bill and TC competitors? Becasue they used to work together? If I used to work at McDonald's - does that mean I can't write an article for a magazine that talks about my experiences there and have it used as a source here? And how is disclosing that Phillips had a benign tumor removed from his jaw negative material? --Yankees76 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits to biography of Raul Grijalva

I'm Rep. Raul M. Grijalva's communications director, posting as Owen Ruagh McCarthy, and I recently made several updates and changes to his page that I wanted to bring to Wikipedia management's attention out of an abundance of caution. I did not make these changes to slant or burnish his reputation -- much of the policy information dated from 2005 or earlier and was in need of updating. I have posted a similar notice on his talk page and do not want there to be any confusion about what happened. I am new to Wikipedia and would be grateful for any quick pointers if I've done anything wrong or violated the conflict of interest policy. From what I've seen, I don't believe I have, and the content is strictly neutral and well-sourced. If there are any problems, please let me know.

Update: I made several rounds of edits, but then immediately reverted them to allow Wikipedia officials to make the final call. A Wikipedia editor has been made aware of this situation on the Raul Grijalva talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen Ruagh McCarthy (talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Owen Ruagh McCarthy (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits seem fine to me. -Atmoz (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Craig_McKenzie Edit War, Continued Deletions of AfD tags, Notability Issues -- Would Like More Eyes

• Craig McKenzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Notability tags get deleted. I do not think this meets Wikipedia standards of notability. Sources are over 10 years old, do not support the facts in the entry, and the entry appears to be public-relations driven. Though it has been trimmed, there are still issues. An agent does not automatically make one notable. There is a lack of supporting evidence (quality, third-party) that shows this subject meets notability criteria. Choowiki (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I see you attempted to open an AfD but did not properly format it or complete it. I've reinstated the AfD and fixed the formatting. The other user may not remove the tags. I've put the article on my watchlist to help enforce this. Yworo (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for editing the AfD. There are continuing issues with this page. Please see [[21]] to see talk page Choowiki (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Helena Guergis

• Helena Guergis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyes are needed here, as two editors have been reverting one another over some contentious (but sourced) negative material. A third opinion was sought regarding one specific section (see Talk:Helena Guergis#Phony letter writing campaign) but the reverting has now encompassed more of the material in this BLP. Helena Guergis is a Canadian politician who was forced by the prime minister to resign from Cabinet this year, after a series of controversies. My impression, without having weighed into this too heavily, is that is it challenging to document all the controversies in a neutral way, as there are many unproven allegations. Any help is appreciated. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Jason Donald and Jason Donald (baseball)

Both of these articles are getting BLP violating edits due to tonight's game. They need watching. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Since being a fugitive is not a career and to balance out the undue weight, that version must be used. 124.105.21.3 (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What?! Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the IP intended to post this in the #Eliseo Soriano section above. Yworo (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

David Eppstein

A new user, User:Luke18:2-8, attempted to add some negative information[22] to the David Eppstein article. I saw several problems with it. First, the information added did not really correspond to the source: the letter referenced actually states that the complaint against Eppstein was found to be groundless, while the edit of User:Luke18:2-8 appears to indicate otherwise. Second, it looks doubtful to me that the source cited[23] satisfies WP:V. The cite meami.org appears to be some kind of a search engine and somebody seems to have posted a privately addressed letter there. I don't think this qualifies as "published" material (such as, say, an article in a newspaper would have been). I have reverted the edits of User:Luke18:2-8, but I'd like someone else, experienced in BLP matters, to take a look. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't even see any source, I get a bunch of pop-up windows from that link. However, anybody can make a complaint. We normally do not even link to verifiable legal complaints, because until a ruling of some sort is made, there is no way to determine whether there is any merit to them at all or whether they are malicious. The same would apply here. If the subject were verifiably sanctioned due to a serious complaint, that might be something which could be added to the article. But the complaint itself is not noteworthy.

I've added the article to my watchlist. Yworo (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

When I follow the link, I get a pdf file with a letter from an interim Provost for Academic Affairs to a Mr Musatov. I also found that there is an indef-blocked user User:Martin.musatov and even an indef-blicked IP, User:76.91.204.240. This might be related. Nsk92 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - William Lane Craig is a popular Christian apologist and philosopher, or, depending on your persepctive, a popular philosopher and Christian apologist. Most people who know of him - such as his students - are very much in his pocket. And it's difficult to explain that while one might have the perspective of Dr. Craig as a great philospher and thinker, most people - which is to say the far more objective persecptive - find him to be far from a philosopher first and apologist second. His page is currently riddled with extraneous information and has, I feel, a celebratory tone about it. I have begun to isolate these in the discussion page and asking for commentary. Two examples, the biography contains bibliographic statements (like recounting a specific article that Dr. Craig wrote) without explain why it noteworthy among the hundreds of articles that he's written. Or, the article simply listes a few books that are mentioned in the actual bibliography without any clarification. I will be cleaning up this sort of clutter.

There are more specific and controversial edits which I would like some advice from other Wikipedia editors. For example, Dr. Craig is an advisor of the Center for Science and Culture which is a program of the Discovery Institute and, some people would say, is indistinguishable from the Discovery Institute. I believe that this is a rich and salient detail that the uninitiated needs to know when reading about Dr. Craig. Therefore, I would place it early in his biogrpahy. Others want to bury deep within the article or omit it entirely.

More to come! And thanks! Theowarner2 (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Flo Rida

The user Rihanna Knowles repeatedly is changing the birthdate of Flo Rida from December 16 to September 17, both in 1979, even though there are two sources cited in the article supporting the December birthdate (Reuters and Allmusic). RK has never cited a source that directly supports the alternatively claimed birthdate. Recently User:HipHopStan also followed RK's lead. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Maximum age of living persons

The BLP policy was recently changed to establish 123 years as the age at which we assume that an individual is dead. Please join in discussion on what the cutoff age for BLPs should be on the BLP talk page. Thanks  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 20:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced negative information in Paul Daley

[24]

I have insisted that a source be provided that backs up the assertions I removed in the above link. Until the source is provided, the paragraph remains out of the article.--Father Goose (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained the matter to you, but obviously you've not listened. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It ends up being more complex, to my eyes - a source has been added, from ESPN, but later, less reliable sources have raised doubt on the claims [25][26]. Either way, the inserted wording displays an overly strong POV not contained in the source. - Bilby (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the information again. Some was clearly unsourced, and the rest was not fully supported by the espn story, as Bilby pointed out. Paralympiakos has reverted Bilby's attempt to bring it closer to the source. I've now issued him a 3RR warning, since he has reverted other editors multiple times. Other editors and administrators are encouraged to keep an eye on the situation.--Slp1 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No idea why you keep removing it. It was sourced and the sources stating there was another knee were purely speculative. I remember some of them asking a question in the title ("Did he get hit by another knee") so it wasn't conclusive whatsoever. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Armin Perla

born 5.02.1990 is Bosnian football player whit pre-contract agreement to Ary United —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vederan (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Susan Wise Bauer

I cannot verify Susan Wise Bauer's rank or position on the faculty of William and Mary College. I suspect that she may have moved on, probably to a more prestigious post. The rank noted in the article tends to lower her credibility as an authority on world history education, the area of some of her books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrennenderSorge (talk • contribs) 00:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This CV seems current as of 2010, so I don't think we are too far off the mark. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

• Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A dispute has arisen regarding whether one version of the lede is problematic with regard to the biographies of living persons policy. Further opinions would be welcome at the article talk page.

CIreland (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the page, I think the BLP concerns aren't as widespread as portrayed--the biggest issue I see is with the NPOV, although it does have some tangential BLP effects. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, CIreland.

In a nutshell the BLP issues are these. Yes, SPLC is not a living person. On the SPLC page hates groups were/are listed is if they were actually hate groups, instead of saying this was SPLC's view either directly or as the media uncritically repeats the claims. Yes, hate groups are not living people. The problem is that some of the listed hate groups are run by or consist solely of a single person. That single person is easily identifiable by a simple look at the Wiki pages for those groups, let alone other sources. So labeling that person's "group" as a hate group is tantamount to labeling that person as a someone running a hate group, and that may violate BLP, among other things such as libel, but we are here talking about BLP. Before Wikipedia broadcasts the SPLC claims worldwide as if they were the truth instead of the SPLC's view, we at Wikipedia better be sure we have fully complied with all relevant policies. For more detail, see the various discussions going on. And thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see some comments here, as LegitimateAndEvenCompelling was editwarring (6RR) on the grounds that 3RR didn't apply to BLP violations. He was blocked but quickly was unblocked. Dougweller (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There is never any reason to edit war in a content dispute, it uncivil and disruptive. Talk pages and noticeboards exist for a reason, content in an article is decided upon by consensus, not by individual interpretation of policy. One editor's opinion that it is a BLP violation does not justify edit warring, only the Community-at-large can make that decision and then the decision should be carried out by an admin as needed to enforce the decision. I dont see consensus reached that the information must be removed. I am saddened that an admin felt that someone who egregiously violated policy should be unblocked so quickly.Camelbinky (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, Camelbinky, but there's a large amount of leeway in BLP that tends to result in this sort of editwarring in marginal BLP cases: one editor believes in good faith that his edits are 3RR exempt because of the BLP impact, while one or more other editors disagree, and believe in good faith that the version they prefer has no issues which create BLP problems. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This was in no way a clearcut BLP violation and he's lucky he got unblocked. What I don't understand at all is how anyone can claim that saying that the SPLC tracks hate groups could be a BLP (or even NPOV) violation. It is a fact that it tracks hate groups. Some of the groups it tracks may not be hate groups, there may be disputes over whether they are, but most of us would agree that many of the groups it does track are hate groups. There's no libel in saying that, the text never said that the groups the SPLC tracks are all hate groups. Dougweller (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"Hate group" is not an objective description - it is emotive and evaluative - and neutrality would mean we don't label any group as such - or even imply that the SPLC tracks any such such group. We say rather it track groups it regards as hate groups, the reader can decide for themselves whether the evaluation is warranted.--Scott Mac 00:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page, there are references to a number of sources that appear to be RS that say it's an organisation that tracks hate groups, not that it's an organisation that tracks groups it regards as hate groups. Dougweller (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a consensus out in the world, and certainly among reliable news and academic organizations studying the phenomena, that hate groups, however they are described, exist. The SPLC is simply one (although possibly the most important one) of many watchdog organizations that monitor such groups. It is erroneous to assume, without any proof, that any classification made by the SPLC is its unique interpretation unsupported by any of these other groups who monitor them.

In any event, the text in question does not name a single group. The article as a whole mentions only one specific hate group in the article section on hate groups and then does so only to cite it as an example of an organization that disagrees with being so classified. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Cory Burnell

User page was edited by coryburnell. Edits have been undone. Discussion page noted with link to WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ELH50 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Problematic editor at Dino Rossi

Hayek1818 (talk · contribs) Seems to be a case of a new editor on a mission who isn't terribly familiar with Wikipedia's processes. He's inserting information into the BLP of a challenger to a U.S. Senate seat, which includes information that may or may not be valid (I haven't looked in detail -- just noticed on vandalism patrol). In any case his editing is problematic because he's reverting to a version that contains what appears to be some commentary directed at editors reverting him. Some more attention to the article would be appreciated. — e. ripley\^talk 22:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reported him for edit warring, but would still appreciate any extra eyes on the article. — e. ripley\^talk 22:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the article. You are correct to revert him, although the BLP nature of the material seems tangential--he's trying to buff Rossi's article with his commentary. He's obviously new and might be salvageable--many good editors started as POV pushers. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the whole. Thanks for looking. I've left some specific pointers to policy on his talk page, so maybe he'll take a look at them while he's blocked. — e. ripley\^talk 23:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Limmie Snell

Limmie Snell has a death date of 1986 sourced offline, and seems to be performing this year. Are there two musicians of that name or is one source incorrect? Fresh eyes appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 08:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Cohl - Biography

The information contained in this biography is false. It only alludes to the down points in his career and doesn't speak to the real "Michael Cohl". This is slander against a great man. It also highlights two positions which Michael Cohl no longer holds. It is misleading and a vast misrepresentation of the man and his accomplishments. I suggest it be removed immediately. Thanks You, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.131.123 (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Amity Shlaes

Now has a section titled "Her Exit from the Financial Times" which starts with "A search of the ""Financial Times"" archives reveals that here final three articles were written in September, 2005.[4]" based on a FT search. Is this OR in a BLP? Further the section posits cause and effect for her leaving the FT. Is there any problem with the section title or contents? Additional input as to where the line on OR and SYNTH ought to be drawn would be highly welcome. Collect (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Manuel Rosales

This edit needs attention, and I'm traveling and can't get to it. I haven't checked the reliability of some of the obscure sources, and the claims are not represented neutrally (the claims are made by a convict, of dubious credibility, which isn't elaborated at all in the text). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

hmmm, no response, so I've begun working on it. This source does not appear to meet the standards of reliability for a BLP. This source also does not appear to satisfy the requirements for reliability for such changes in a BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned this up the best I can for now; it would be helpful if others would watch this BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

GoldieLocks

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

I have no first or second hand knowledge of the subject, I simply found the page a few days ago while reading through articles on the music genre and did some cleanup and one reversion. Apparently, IP is attempting to substantiate what I reverted. I am not afraid to revert this, but would rather have a more BLP-concerned admin handle the situation, the current pattern is dubious and I am not interested in going to war over it. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree the link is inappropriate and I have removed it, and will watch article for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sholom Rubashkin

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

Rubashkin is a high profile case, in which Sholom Rubashkin has been accused of fraud and a huge number of child labor offenses - this latter has just been shown by the courts to have been one big lie. According to Rubashkin himself, the accusations of fraud is similarly trumped up and he has been framed by the State and US Govenment. None of this has been mentioned in the wiki article, although I would suggest it is highly relevant. This case has appeared on wiki with a very non-neutral slant, and none of his defense has even been presented. Please see www.yated.com for an overview of the case from a different perspective. Each of his cases can influence the outcome of his other cases, so it is most important that this wiki article does not unfairly bias potential judges, jurors, media and witnesses in this very complex case. I don't know how to get a more open perspective into the article as I am a novice user. I wish someone would present his side of the matter somewhere in the article. From what I've seen others trying, and my personal attempts, it is complex to know how to present information in a way acceptable to wiki, and to keep it there despite reverts. Please can someone help here. Eftwithrachelg (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Rachel Geller

Matt Drudge

For some reason, I think "Allegations of homosexuality and homophobia" forms a red flag in any BLP. [27] shows the restoration of that section in Matt Drudge. Does anyone else find this to be per se "contentious" and ill-suited to an encyclopedic BLP? Past precedent is that "outing" a person as gay (source is a gay publication specifically opposed to Drudge) where they have said they are not gay is specifically beyond the pale, and labelling such a person as "homophobic" likely hits the same policy and rules for BLPs. Collect (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We may report stories that appear in reliable sources. However the section seems too long. TFD (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably more of an WP:UNDUE issue, if any. There might be a better section title than "Allegations of homosexuality and homophobia", as well. It seems a bit attack-y, or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, there may be a BLP issue here. This kind of info is definitely controversial, so only the highest quality sourcing is allowed. I'm just giving this a cursory glance, but commondreams.org, Washington Blade, Capitol Hill Blue, and NY Press probably don't make the cut. nydailynews.com is borderline (I think it's OK, but some others at the WP:RSN don't). CBC and Salon are pretty good, I think. That's just a cursory glance, as I said, some of those may be better than I think, and may not even be RSs for normal info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Peregrine on this. Since he has strongly denied the allegations, then it seems to be an WP:Undue issue at best and spreading gossip at worst, which is a BLP no-no. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoon the buffoon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please read this, get to know the issue, but keep discussion in one place, at Talk:Geoff Hoon. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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

This derogatory not notable nickname which is just a simple insult has been added to the Geoff Hoon BLP, its not well known, its just a valueless insult of little or no notability and should be removed, content is a derogatory, non encyclopedic and not notable nickname. Here is a google search result for Hoon the buffoon , this is the kind of valueless derogatory insult with a citation that BLP policy should be there to remove, its a simple attack on a living subject, started elsewhere but the attempt is to propagate it through wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Because I'm lazy and don't especially want to add another page to my watchlist, could the discussion be kept centralised at Talk:Geoff Hoon, where there is already a lengthy section? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 20:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your lazyness is not at issue, the issue is the adding of a not notable derogatory nickname to the BLP of Geoff Hoon, please seek consensus here for your desired inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be delighted to seek consensus, a process which is currently taking place on the article talkpage. It is easier for all concerned if it all happens on the same thread, so I suggest that anybody wishing to comment does so in the existing discussion. (Although I don't mind if you post here, because I'm not particularly interested in what you have to say, since you are endlessly repeating the same fallacy.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 20:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, your desired addition has no value apart from insulting the living subject, feel free to seek support for your desired addition here, this man has done this and that negative notable things and I support thoe inclusion of those issues, actually they are already in the article, I object to your desired addition of what I see as a insulting slur of a nickname with no encyclopedic value. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As there is RS for it I see no reason not to include it, but in the body of the article. It would be better for the discussion to be centralised at Talk:Geoff Hoon as there is already a lot of discussion and many sources. People interested should probably weigh in there. Verbal chat 20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It clearly is a BLP issue and nothing but an insulting derogatory nickname and we will seek consensus here where there are a wider collection of editors. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And one that is reliably sourced, and he has even commented on in RS. Please keep discussion to one place now Rob. Verbal chat 20:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A reliably sourced BLP issue, super, fantastic, a valueless insult wikipedia can be proud of. I have previously removed other derogatory nicknames and this is no better at all, a simple insult to a living person of no value to the reader at all. Hoon the buffoonOff2riorob (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Off2riorob. There has to be a good reason (i.e. long-term significance) to add an ephemeral insult to a BLP. All politicians make mistakes, and if one of them has a name that leads to a nice rhyming insult, naturally opponents will use that insult and papers will report it – it's gossip that makes the world go round. If the insult gets under the skin of the subject, and he retires or starts legal proceedings or commits suicide or whatever, then we should include the information and the insult in the article. Meanwhile, we do not permanently record every insult used against an opponent in their BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, but that's making up new rules as we go along. RS are the gold standard for Wikipedia inclusion, full stop. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you mean WP:UNDUE vs. BLP. You need to look at the body of coverage on the subject, the current size of the article, and the ideal size of the article, and decide if it merits mention. Is it too much of the article now? Will it be too much of the article if it was a full size FA style article? I don't know the guy well enough, but there is a certain amount of usage of the term.[28] It sounds like he's pretty famous, so that may not be a large part of the total coverage. I'm American and I've never heard of him, to show you how much I know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not widely used and just an insult, I wouldn't ever add it but hey, if users think it is a good addition then enjoy. 09:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)

Good. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kevin Boyce

• Kevin Boyce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Ongoing effort by User:Protege10 in particular to use Wikipedia as a biased attack vehicle against Boyce. User keeps reverting to include original research and personal opinion such as "gross misuse of funds". Reverts cited edits that eliminate such non-neutral language and provide context to the issues discussed in the article. Brian Powell (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nazir Ahmad (Burewala resident)

Nazir Ahmad (Burewala resident) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a possibly living person known solely for an alleged honour killing (I previously nominated the article for deletion, but there was no consensus). His trial must have been over by now, and yet the verdict hasn't been reported. Only a single sentence in the article is referenced. Should I delete everything that isn't referenced, slap a tag on it, or send it to AFD again? Andjam (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You should have a go at searching for a cite to support the content, if you don't find anything you could just move the uncited stuff to the talkpage and see what happens. I have had a bit of a search and can't find the outcome, if someone is from Pakistan perhaps they could find out. I have my doubts that he is actually a living person though as this from Dec 2005 says Police in Multan said they would complete their investigation into Ahmed's case in the next two weeks and that he faces the death sentence if he is convicted for the killings and terrorizing his neighborhood.here Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)