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.

James Ryan

The biography describes two completely different James Ryan's -- one is an actor from South Africa now in Australia, and the other is a actor, screenwriter, and Rutgers University professor in New York. While it's a fact that the Internet Movie Database entry also confuses the two, the individual arranging the Wiki entry has actually elaborated on it ("...he returned to South Africa"), and deleted statements explaing otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roz666 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 11 July 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...)

It appears that there is quite a bit of unsourced info and material needing referencing improvements in this article. -- Cirt (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 17:16, 2010 April 27

A diff would have been useful here. Geo Swan (talk) 21:13, 1 July 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

Eido Roshi's Biography page is being attacked

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

I need help moderating or locking the Eido Tai Shimano Criticism section.

Those who are augmenting the criticism are not signing their posts in a way that can be followed to a name. Right now those who are critical are attempting to suppress a footnote that supports the fact that no sexual complaint has been made since 1995.

Please lock this page until new verifiable information can be added.

I am a very concerned party as I am a Dharma Heir of Eido Roshi and sit on his board, and I can and do state factually that no sexual complaint has been received by the board since 1995.

Thank you,

Genjo Marinello —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenquaker (talk • contribs) 17:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Attacked?

The objection to the footnote does not concern the fact that no sexual complaint has been made since 1995. The objection is to a reference that states: "By the way, none of the four men I am referring to are members of AZTA, but please be aware that a man who was declined membership in AZTA, in part because Eido Roshi would not acknowledged him as a Dharma Teacher, started the current wave of vilification."

I am the person he refers to as having been "declined membership." The Membership Chairman informed me as follows: "Your application for membership in the AZTA was not "rejected without review," for you have not yet applied for membership in our organization."

Obviously if I have not applied for membership I could not possibly have been "declined" as stated. And there are far more people involved than "four men."

Remove the factually inaccurate material and there is no objection to the reference.

Kobutsu Malone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.102.214 (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Requests for page protection are made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, not here. However, I see no basis for such a request at this time.

Here is a relevant passage from Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Zenquaker, it appears that you are the author of the cited source you assert is being suppressed. As such, it is generally not considered appropriate for you to be adding it. Additionally, as an open letter apparently posted to a chat forum, it does not appear to meet the criteria for a reliable source (q.v.). As such, in my opinion it ought to be removed along with any claim it anchors. I agree that it doesn't speak to the claim that no complaint has been made since 1995, and that therefore it is not appropriate that it be attached as a footnote intended to substantiate that claim. Even if it did speak to this claim, as a work that doesn't meet the criteria for a reliable source, it would not be a suitable anchor for that claim in any event.

Descriptions of the controversy must stick especially closely to reports previously published in reliable sources, and must fairly represent "all majority and significant minority views" published in such sources. Any claim not directly supported by a published report in a reliable source should be removed.

Indeed, it appears that both of you have some personal connection to subject of this article. If this is the case, in keeping with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, you should avoid editing the article, restricting any edits you do make the reversion of simple vandalism and violations of Wikipedia's policy biographies of living people.

Zenquaker, I note that you have also substantially edited the article Dai Bai Zan Cho Bo Zen Ji, including the section Dai Bai Zan Cho Bo Zen Ji#Genjo Marinello. I would therefore ask you to review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with care, especially the sections How to avoid COI edits and Editors who may have a conflict of interest -- Rrburke (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Despite what has been said here, Zenquaker has now deleted three scholarly references from the criticism section on the page:

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/Aitken_Shimano_Letters.html

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/Zen_Master_in_America.html

http://www.hoodiemonks.org/ShimanoArchive.html

This was done under the justification: (→Criticism: removing references of criticism that are inflammatory and redundant.)

It would seem that there is an egregious conflict of interest operating here.

Kobutsu (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Those citations don't look like the kind of reliable editorially assesed that we require at wikipedia, as we have other citations there and the content has not been affected IMO we can do without those external links. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Off2riorob: we want only the highest-quality sources when the subject is living and the subject matter is this controversial -- that is, "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (RS). One of the two essays cited appears to have been presented at a conference, but there is no evidence that either was published or peer-reviewed and no information about the author's credentials or expertise has been adduced. If the works are unpublished or self-published, they would be wholly unsuitable for inclusion as sources. The raw letters (please see Wikipedia:Primary sources) appear to have been reproduced at a personal website lacking appropriate professional editorial oversight. In order for sources to be considered reliable works of scholarship, they should meet the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Scholarship.

As for the conflict of interest, I agree that Zenquaker has a conflict which would normally render his editing the article inappropriate. However, removing poorly-sourced controversial material about a living person is one of the few things an editor with such a conflict can do. That said, I believe he should now leave off editing this article except under the circumstances set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Non-controversial edits (this list includes removing BLP violations). -- Rrburke (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that high-quality sources are what is required here. As a result, I am going to remove the whole "criticism" section. The Aitken book does not support the allegations made (it talks about problems with social relationships), and the other references are to primary sources - letters, some of which are unsigned, some of which seem to be drafts, and some of which don't mention the subject by name. The danger of original research and synthesis etc is thus grave. It is possible that something BLP compliant can be developed, but this needs to be done with considerable care and the best possible sources.--Slp1 (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As the person who expanded the original “Criticism” section to include the Aitken letters, I find the censorship of these allegations against Shimano deplorable. I would like to remind everyone that these allegations are made not by me, nor Stuart Lachs, nor Kobutsu Malone, but by a number of Zen teachers, including Robert Aitken. Aitken is widely recognized as one of the most important and credible Zen teachers in America and has published numerous books and academic articles in peer-reviewed journals. To cast aspersions on Robert Aitken is unconscionable and grossly unfair. Slp 1 implies that the Aitken letters, held by the University of Hawaii, Manoa, may be somehow suspect. Copies of the letters, now housed at http://www.shimanoarchive.com/ have been authenticated by the university and each and every page is stamped by the library. They are authentic and to even suggest otherwise is irresponsible.

Eido Shimano is an important Zen teacher in American Zen. He opened the first Rinzai temple outside of Japan. When the history of American Zen is written, he will, like Robert Aitken, play a prominent role in that history. However, the truth is that Aitken, along with a number of other Zen teachers, including Philip Kapleau, another extremely prominent Zen teacher who did much to bring Zen to America, did write a letter calling for Shimano’s resignation or counselling. The letter was written due to Shimano’s philandering and the damage he was seen as doing to the Dharma in America and to the female Zen students involved. This is a fact, a truth, and the attempt by some at Wikipedia to alter history is censorship of the worst kind.

Genjo Marinello seems to think that because no complaints (as far as he is aware, anyway) have been made regarding Shimano’s sexual abuse of female students since 1995, altering history is acceptable. It’s not. The truth is out there and the readers of Wikipedia have a public interest right to know this history. Marinello knows this truth, that the allegations have not been made frivolously, without substance or by people who are deliberately out to vilify Shimano. If prominent Zen Buddhists such as Robert Aitken make such allegations, they should be taken seriously.

Wikipedians, I urge you to reconsider. Do not hide behind “rules” to alter history. The facts in this case are clear and unequivocal. Trying to alter history is one of the worst forms of censorship and deceit. It does more harm than good. Much more.Thinman10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC).

This has resurfaced as a hot potato, and the opinions of other editors are welcome on the talkpage. Another editor is trying to reinsert poorly sourced material from blogs and websites, arguing, as Thinman10 does above, that the allegations are important enough and the sources good enough. WP seems to be in the middle of some sort of Buddhist campaigning for and against the man. --Slp1 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This page needs to be allowed. It doesn't express any opinion. It simply provides verified pdf files of Aitken's letters concerning profiled figure. Removal of this info is simply "whitewashing" against all Wiki guidelines for NPOV. The desire to remove this info is simple bias. It is not said that Shimano DID anything - simply that allegations exist, that he denies. However, this controversy is driven largely by allegations by the most senior figure in American Zen and MUST be reflected in entry. I am not affiliated with either party, but am interested in American Zen. This is a serious issue in the American Buddhist community and should be reflected. I have removed zensite.com citations, since all info is at Shimanoarchive. Arguments that this information is not verifiable are simply ridiculous. There it all is! Look at it!Tao2911 (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

there is a tertiary journalistic article on shimano allegations here which cites zensite as source. This cite provides us not only with another valuable tertiary source citation, but provides validity for zensite and shimano archives.Tao2911 (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding that disputed content, it is weakly cited and primary claims with BLP issues and your additions are imo giving the issue undue weight. Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not being given undue weight. If you cared to do a simple google search, you would find that Shimano's name and controversy have been inextricably intertwined for decades, as multiple sources reflect. The passage in question is succinct, and without POV. it simply presents that these letters exist, along with a summary of notable content, and that none other than possibly the most important Western born teacher in American Zen has been calling for Shimano to be held responsible for at least 15 years, publicly, and repeatedly. This can hardly be overemphasized, not in one or two lines. The passage now is in keeping with sources.Tao2911 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Its undue commentary about a fringe issue cited to fringe citations. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Would www.buddhistchannel.tv be considered a reliable source for a BLP? ie this article [1] for this edit? Per this disclaimer page it appears that anybody can submit and article to Buddhistchannel, though it does appear that there is at least some moderation and editing articles before they are published.[2]. I note that the article something of an opinion piece in some ways... see the recommendations at the end.--Slp1 (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Jason Leopold

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

I am Mr. Leopold's attorney and the material on Salon that is included in his entry is libelous and defamatory and is taken out of context. Mr. Leopold sued Salon and this was settled in his favor as I have indicated in a letter sent to Columbia Journalism Review posted on the discussion page. This entry on Salon was something removed a while back because of ongoing litigation. In fact, the mater I would like to know who I may discuss this with here as well as the general nature of the article and the removal of information that gave it balance, for example, the fact that his book, News Junkie, was positively reviewed by Publishers Weekly and others and was a Los Angeles Times bestseller. Why was this removed? The entire article is biased and some of the material is defamatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at your edit history and comments I find some of your comments to be not the kind of comment I would attribute to an attorney. I see you are on a final warning on your talkpage you have been reverting away perhaps you should take a little time to read some of our policies as if your not careful your editing ability could become restricted. I have posted you a menu of links to our guidelines and policies on your talkpage. This link is about the subject and the article and has a link to contact or complain to the foundation Relationship_between_the_subject.2C_the_article.2C_and_Wikipedia Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of the lawsuit and its resolution? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think we need verification that the unsigned user is indeed Mr. Leopold's lawyer before we proceed with a discussion. This user is making serious threats against editors of the Jason Leopold page and is not contributing in any way to the article itself. This could all end up being a big waste of time or a significant news story, if legal action is in fact taken.Anthonymendoza (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe wikipedia's legal department can provide you with a copy or perhaps you may ask Mr. Leopold directly. The issues, however, were also raised in this letter, particularly the instances in which Salon is continuously cited. We have asked that the Salon material be removed as it's defamatory and libelous and the article to be free from bias.

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL

Evan Cornog, Publisher

Columbia Journalism Review

Journalism Building

2950 Broadway

Columbia University

New York, New York 10027

Re: Jason Leopold / "Three Strikes, You're Out – Jason Leopold Caught Sourceless Again" by Paul McLeary

Dear Mr Cornog:

"Salon removed Leopold's August 29, 2002 story about Enron from its site after it was discovered that he plagiarized parts from the Financial Times and was unable to provide a copy of an email that was critical to the piece."

The true facts are that Mr. Leopold was able, and did in fact; provide the aforementioned email to Salon.com. Salon’s concern had to do with authenticating the email. Moreover, the FT article was adequately credited by Salon's standards and Kerry Lauerman, Salon's Washington Editor, has apologized to Leopold.

The above statements are unprivileged and defamatory per se, in that they tend directly to injure Mr. Leopold in that they are an unprivileged and expose Mr. Leopold to "to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation" Cal. Civ. Code § 45.

Surprisingly, Mr. Leopold was never contacted for comment on this article. Quotes were wrongly attributed to Mr. Leopold and then used by the author to bolster the attack on Mr. Leopold’s credibility. A basic investigation into Mr. Leopold reveals that his book was published and is available. Further, Mr. Leopold’s book is cited with a link on every story he writes for Truthout, including the ones Paul McLeary cites in his article. McLeary ignores those facts and gives the impression to CJR's readers that Mr. Leopold's book was never published and is not available.

The article has caused damage to Mr. Leopold and continues to cause him damage. Mr. Leopold is currently promoting his book. This article is harming his ability to secure interviews and otherwise harming him professionally. We demand that you immediately take steps to mitigate the damage your defamatory actions are causing.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss the matter.

Sincerely, David J. Brown Attorney at Law Egerman & Brown, LLC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Once you've won a case against Salon and it's reported in the media, it will be added to the article. Meanwhile, the material in the article is cited to sources, and your attempts at legal intimidation are quite unlawyerlike. It seems that the subject would also have a copy of the letter, and not being a lawyer, might behave in this manner. The correct contact method for legal issues can be found here. Use the mail. Yworo (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, the complaint has already been filed with Wikipedia. Moreover, I am not sure where you were educated but not every lawsuit is reported in the media. Lastly, the Leopold article is biased, contains nothing but four year old accusations. Threats about lawsuits are made all the time, by the best attorneys. It's actually quite lawyer like. I have stated that this article is defamatory and libelous and was written in such a way so as to cause damage to my client. Mr. Leopold has built quite a body of work over the past four years, particularly on the issue of torture. Attempts to include those citations have been routinely scrubbed. Any attempt to paint Mr. Leopold in a positive light has also been met with heavy editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Then wait for the Foundation legal team to process it and take whatever action they consider appropriate. You are engaging in vandalism (removal of material cited to sources) and are about to be blocked for it. Yworo (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm not. I am making this article fair and balanced, which it isn't. The neutrality of the article has been in dispute for two years. There is a reason for that. I am making substantive changes.

And this thread does not answer the questions raised about the continuous use of defamatory and libelous material and the fact that the article is biased. Why do the contributors insist on defaming Mr. Leopold and presenting statements out of context? Why does anything "positive" continuously get erased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

For several reasons. 1) The article doesn't libel the subject. It accurately reports what the sources say. It's possible that those sources are inaccurate, but that's another matter. 2) You are violating multiple Wikipedia policies, the primary of which is that if you have a conflict of interest, you are not supposed to edit the article at all. You are supposed to discuss the article on the article talk page and have other editors implement the changes that consensus determines to be necessary. You are also edit warring. 3) The way you are going about it is not how things are done. You've written to the Foundation, and now you need to let Wikipedia process occur. Regular editors and admins have no way to know whether your claim to be an attorney, much less Leopold's attorney, are true. You are acting like a vandal, which makes your claim rather unbelievable. If you'd just follow Wikipedia process with respect to conflict of interest, as outlined above, you might be taken more seriously. But if you just continue to edit war, you will continue to be reverted and eventually blocked from editing. Yworo (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

still ongoing, still using the same tactics, etc. If someone could step in, it would be appreciated. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Natalie Dylan

Resolved

 – AfD has been initiated. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 17:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

.

This article centers on a young woman who announced on the Howard Stern Show that she was going to auction off her virginity. The announcement was nearly two years ago and the 'event' apparently never occurred. Although there was much mention in the press which would qualify Dylan for general notability, is this not a case of WP:BLP1E? It also occurs to me that the article can only accomplish one of two things 1) give unnecessary promotion to an otherwise non-notable individual or 2) cause eventual embarassment to the subject. Thoughts? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should be nominated for deletion as per WP:BLP1E via WP:PROD or WP:AFD. -shirulashem^(talk) 18:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be a BLP1E case, the coverage though goes over a long enough period it isn't clear cut. I'd suggest putting it up for AfD with a BLP1E argument and seeing what happens. Hobit (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this recommendation. It's worth noting that the "Official Myspace Page" of this publicity stunt has been "set to private" which suggests that the stunt is long since over. Most of the references are tabloids of dubious value in the first place, which gives rise to questions as to whether the whole thing was ever authentic in the first place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I followed this story for awhile and was pretty convinced that it not likely authentic. The backstory changed over time if you traced it. I do wonder what happened to her, though, I suspect a book deal was the ultimate goal.--Milowent (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin BLP

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia editing but I need some help with addressing some concerns.

I am concerned about biased language and information being added to the Wikipedia entry for Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Herseth_Sandlin), specifically under the "Election 2010" headings. The information included under this section demonstrates strong selection bias inherent in including the Rasmussen polls but failing to include any other third-party evaluative information related to the race. I'm concerned that this violates Wikipedia's Impartial Tone guidelines. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). In addition, some of the most persistently problematic editors have a history of making almost exclusively positive edits to conservative people and organizations' wikipedia pages.

I have a conflict of interest and do not want to make the edits myself. However, I would appreciate an impartial editor should taking a look at the page. I can provide additional information for incomplete sections as well as additional citations.

I'd like to suggest taking the whole section off that talks about polling for the upcoming election. It's not really the topic of the article, as well as the data having very little value as you said. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Linda R. Reade

Linda R. Reade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New users (e.g. Lower458 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) are loading up this BLP with material of tenuous relevance to this judge. She presided over the trial of Sholom Rubashkin and gave him a stiff sentence, upsetting some in the American Jewish community, who have mounted a campaign against ostensible anti-Semitism. This has seeped into Wikipedia, and in this article the added material {e.g. this) is apparently designed to make her look bad by pointing out alleged flaws in her reasoning and decisions. There aren't many established editors active on the page and I'm running up against 3RR. It's not a huge problem -- but perhaps more eyes, please? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just deleted the entire section as a BLP violation; at least one of the NYTimes sources was distorted, and the section (apparently deliberately) implied that Reade had denied Rubashkin pretrial bail when she had actually granted it, under stiffer conditions than the defense had originally filed motions for. Too much innuendo to pass BLP, and without the innuendo there's not enough to justify making this the dominant point in the article. Because of the BLP violations and the apparent deceptive intent, I think removing the section clearly comes under the BLP 3RR exception. A much more neutral discussion, covering commentary/criticism of her handling of the entire matter, not just Rubashkin, might be included. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the issues in the trial pertain directly to judge Reade. Of course we have to give her the benefit of the doubt and use credible sources. But it appears to some that she has some kind of, shall we say, agenda with Mr Rubashkin and his meat packing plant (example Expediting procedures for Federal agents ahead of ICE raid -NYTimes) which should be discussed. Whether it is "antisemitism" or acting as an for the Bush administration and its tough immigration policies. And yes, absolutely some in the legal community and Jewish community have strong feelings about Judge Reade. No denying that. But I'm all for using credible sources and neutral language. Lower458 (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"A much more neutral discussion, covering commentary/criticism of her handling of the entire matter, not just Rubashkin, might be included" - any suggestions regarding the direction? I would redo it according to the rules. Lower458 (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be okay to just mention the "stiff" sentencing without going into detail re bail and the illegal employment issue? Lower458 (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Do you have a RS which indicates the sentence was "stiff"? Hobit (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/06/22/sholom-rubashkin-gets-stiff-sentence/ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/us/22iowa.html - and feel free to Google "Rubashkin" for 100 more.

But as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz pointed out to me, you can not just complain against a LP here. This is not a newspaper, but an encyclopedia. If you mention the case from a negative POV, you have to also explain the Judge's rationale behind the ruling, mention any praise she received re the ruling (i.e. from PETA) etc. Lower458 (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Tracey Temple

This looks like a prime candidate for either a merger into John Prescott or simple deletion. I seek advice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Is`nt she the one who said he had a small todger? Merge to JP as a small subsection mark nutley (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is already in prescott`s article [3] May as well delete mark nutley (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Another call for experienced BLP editors to keep an eye on Eliseo Soriano

The guy seems to have an unsavory reputation as well as devoted followers and the article attracts POV pushers from both sides. The involvement of some experienced editors who know how to handle BLP issues would be greatly appreciated. Active Banana (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul Helmke

• Paul Helmke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Being a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, it feels strange to be in the position of almost defending the Brady Campaign, but right is right and wrong is wrong. The lead in this BLP is not neutral, to the point of almost WP:SOAPBOXing. At the point of this writing, the lead says: "...president of the extremest Washington, DC-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, an organization with the goal to deny American's rights guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." There is a small edit war about the characterization of the Brady Campaign in this bio and I'd suggest that it needs more input from BLPN observers. // Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Niteshift36, don't feel strange :), feel good that you are trying to treat an article "fairly" and with a NPOV even when you don't agree/support/like the subject/their position of the bio(sorry if Iam putting words in your mouth, or that is not the case). I remember trying to "improve" the Tom Metzger bio and saying to myself, why the heck I am I "defending/improving" this *&%^*^ article. I find that its easier/fairer to play devil's advocate with subjects we disagree/dislike. Anyways, I would leave out of the "descriptors"(or limit them) of the group this person is associated with and provide a link if folks want more details, that seems like the most NPOV way to deal with it. --Tom (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• I removed them. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before they are replaced. Some of the same involved in it are ones who are battling to call the Brady Campaign a "hate group" based on their reading of the wikipedia article on the subject. Again, I find myself in the position of defending Brady, despite comepletely disagreeing with their stance. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruth Turner (political advisor)

This article is slightly more than 1/3 about two scandals. In the case of the Cash for Peerages scandal, it all eventually came to nothing. Of course the Cash for Peerages scandal was a big one, but her role in it is unclear, and the article merely casts doubt on her without actually giving us any real information. I am not suggesting that everything about Cash for Peerages be removed, just raising the question of undue weight.

The other alleged scandal seems quite different. We source it only to the Daily Mail, which is not a very good source. Apparently her husband (boyfriend?) was involved in the awarding of a contract to a company which she'd left beyond 2 years prior. It seems more like political gossip than an actual scandal.

I will leave this note on the talk page of the article, but I will not get involved with editing it since I am informally advising (as a volunteer only) the Tony Blair Faith Foundation on their Internet strategy and although I don't think this gives me any conflict of interest, I would not want there to be any concern about that. I merely bring this up as a likely violation of our WP:BLP policies and leave it to your judgment. The subject of the article did not bring this to my attention, I just noticed it while preparing for a phone call.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Donny Long

Someone claiming to be the subject left a complaint on my talk page. I know nothing about the dispute but someone should look into it promptly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Note there is an active discussion at ANI. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That active discussion needs some reigning in from some clueful admins - users there are being WP:DOLTs. Hipocrite (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

William Connolley

Resolved

 – snow support to include the credentials Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a dispute on that page about including his credentials. It would be helpful if individuals who were not the usual climate change suspects could review the issue and comment. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted it. Yworo (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Karen Handel

Valid sources are constantly being removed. She is apparently running for Governor in a state in the Southern United States, and her campaign thinks Wikipedia is a campaign site.

From the looks of the history, references and sourced items have been removed no less than 50 times.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiboss2 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Christian Wulff, the newly elected President of Germany

Resolved

 – removed and nowsemi protected

The write-up on the newly elected President of Germany - Christian Wulff - makes the following unsubstantiated claim: "He lives openly gay." This is potentially libellous as Wulff is in a heterosexual marriage and has a two year old child. The claim should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.254.142 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thaks, it has been removed now and the article has been semi protected. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

William Rhodes Davis

William Rhodes Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not a BLP, but contains claims that strike me as original research to reach a possibly controversial conclusion about Gray Davis (who is living). I can't find a reliable source that makes the claim outright. Could someone with some experience in the area take a look? Gonzonoir (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the content pertaining to Gray Davis that I think violates WP:OR; would still appreciate others' input. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, well done. Looks like good work to me, if the user wants to replace it with a stronger citation they can. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Any problem with presenting the facts this way....William Rhodes Davis's son, Joseph Graham Davis, married Doris Jane Meyer, daughter of George H. Meyer, in November, 1941. According to a San Diego Union Tribune published obituary on October 8, 2006, former California Gov. Gray Davis was her, and Joseph G. Davis's son? ruidoso —Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC).

The new content is all cited, and I am reluctant to edit war over it as I don't see any reason to doubt the veracity of the sources. I'm still concerned, though, that without a citation to a single source that makes the connection between Rhodes Davis and Gray Davis, that fact itself may not meet notability standards (i.e. is not covered substantially in reliable sources). I don't know, though, whether the notability standard should be used on specific content within an article, rather than to determine the inclusion threshold for the article in general. If anyone else wants to chip in on this it would be useful. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dean Richards (rugby union)

I've just been on the phone with the subject of this article, who is not happy about it as it includes a number of factual inaccuracies. Looking at the article, it contains a lot of unreferenced material that should be removed, and the referenced material should also be checked, as well as whether the article is representing the subject from a neutral point of view. Would someone be able to look at this asap? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a look and it doesn't look too bad, I removed one comment as uncited, the citations are to the BBC and the telegraph and the content seems to be pretty neutral as for factual errors I didn't see anything glaringly obvious. Did he specify any or the alleged errors? If someone else a rugby supporter could have a look that would be good. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up quite a bit, removing some unsourced claims, adding citations and tidying it up generally. Dean Richard had an illustrious playing and coaching career but with a particularly notorious incident as a coach in 2009 which should be noted but not given undue weight. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this - to me, it looks much improved! He did specify a number of examples of where the article was wrong but, not being a sports person, sadly not all of them stuck in my memory. The ones I remember were the undue weight away from things like his playing in three world cups; there was something about the mention of football not being right - was this actually him, or someone else? I gave him the info@wikimedia.org address and asked him to email all of his issues to that, so hopefully he will provide a more thorough list of issues (hopefully on the new improved version of the article).

I have also received a phone call today from the person behind the edits of Pmdcreative (talk · contribs) wanting to know why his edits to this article kept getting reverted (e.g. [4]). If someone could leave a note on their talk page explaining w+hy they were reverted, that would be great. It looks to me like the business is worth noting somewhere in the article, but there is currently little to no third party coverage of it, and the website's about us page also isn't too useful.

On a side note: having a press phone for Wikimedia can be a pain when this sort of call comes through, especially on a work day... ;-) Sadly it's the only phone number in the UK for Wikipedia that people can find... Thanks again for cleaning up the article! Mike Peel (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we don't cover Richards' playing career well. The mention of 'football' refers, I imagine, to an incident when the Calcutta Cup was mishandled, shall we say. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Aah, I see - as a non-sports person I misread that as playing a game of football in the Calcutta Cup (some sort of contest?)! The reference doesn't really support them playing football with it, though - it doesn't seem to specify how the damage was done. Mike Peel (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That is the point I think, no one admitted to anything and they were all pie eyed and I think the commet we have is the generally speculated opinion rather than actual fact. Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks User:Mike Peel. The article is a lot better after User:Malcolmxl5's good work. Regarding the addition of Pmdcreative (talk · contribs) Perhaps an external link Dean Richard Sports. online sports supplies. The only thing would be that we haven't got a citation that supports that he is involved. I have opened up a dialogue with user Pmdcreative on his talkpage. I notice he has also attempted to remove the football with the cup incident and I start to wonder if he was involved in the actual football with the cup at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of press about the incident (the cup being damaged) but I have removed it as undue weight. Richards did so much more in international rugby than that. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have cleaned it up and asked the guys at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union if they would like to improve it futher. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The only comment O would have is that the link to the Bloodgate article was lost in the edit. This is the place where the issue itself can be written about in greater detail. I would go throw a link in to it, but thought I would let others do that.SauliH (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that! I've added a link but do feel free to amend it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Global warming controversy

Resolved

 – Blogs have now been removed from article

Global warming controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Is the use of a blog post here by User:William_M._Connolley on a living person Roger A. Pielke a blp breach or not? The following statements are made in the blog post, To this complaint I do have some sympathy, but RP loses that by ranting. In fact what his post is really complaining about is his failure to get his point of view given primacy in the CCSP report and RP then proceeds to pick up this strawman and run with it I think these are statements of fact being used and would like some help on the issue. mark nutley (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the question relates to a para starting "In blog posts..." in Global warming controversy which quotes a blog by Pielke, then a blog by Connolley, and the blog by Connolley includes the text you mentioned. I'm sure quoting blogs in an encyclopedic article is dubious, but I do not see a BLP problem. The text that you quote is just a robust statement of opinion that one would expect in a blog, and is hardly an attack in any BLP sense. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

True/Slant; Failure to promote non-controversial hook at DYK, on the non-consensus assertion that the underlying article contains a 1-sentence BLP issue

True/Slant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am involved in a dispute with User:Epeefleche about this article, which has been proposed for promotion to the main page via WP:DYK. The dispute involves the final paragraph of the article, about two individuals recently charged (though not yet convicted) of seeking to engage in terrorist activities.

The paragraph in question quotes a source describing the two as "America's dumbest Jihadis" and mocking a misspelled sign apparently made by one of them. The inclusion of two mugshots draws further attention to the paragraph. I have argued that the presentation of this material violates BLP, while Epeefleche, the author of the article, asserts that it does not.

BLP states that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist ... and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgement. It also states that BLP-related content should be presented "responsibly" and in a "broadly neutral" manner. I believe the paragraph in dispute fails these guidelines as it frames these individuals in a prejudicial manner, using mocking headlines and quotes pulled from a tabloid journal. Moreover, this dubious content is superfluous to the topic of the article, which is about the journal, not the detainees. I think the use of the mugshots in this context is also problematic, per the "images" section of BLP. One user has described the overall presentation as "a classic smear".[5]

Given that this article is proposed for exposure on the main page via DYK, I feel it is important to get it right. However, Since Epeefleche and I have been unable to resolve the dispute, I have agreed to have the matter adjudicated by uninvolved third parties at this page. Gatoclass (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like simple anti jihadist coatracking to me, the type of which includes all the BLP issues you mention which would have included a main page link to the mugshots of two people as yet not found guilty of the charges. Off2riorob (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• For added detail, DYK discussion is here. Off2riorob (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• More added detail - the DYK has been disapproved. Off2riorob (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to be concerned about our use of mug shots of people who haven’t been convicted. The only reason we have mug shots is there are no other free-use images of these two that I am aware of. Those mug shots came from the U.S. Marshall’s office and are therefore free-use. We have plenty of images of accused terrorists, including Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. The U.S. is busy trying to drop bombs on them and they haven’t been tried and convicted in a court of anything. If someone knows of more flattering pictures (and less grainy ones) of these two alleged terrorists that are free-use, please advise. At least they are arguably clearer than that horrible picture we’re using of bin Laden. I see no reason to poo-poo photographs that illustrate the subject in question for a reason that essentially boils down to the fact that the Marshall’s service caught them in less-than-flattering poses; we work with what we have at our disposal. I try to add plenty of illustrations to my articles; they greatly improve Wikipedia and make it a more professional product. Moreover, reliable secondary sources have frequently been using these very images when they write of this story, so we are not going out on a limb here by any stretch of the imagination when we do the same in an encyclopedia. Greg L (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Greg, the debate about this is over. We've had four users object to this content now, articles need a strong consensus to pass at DYK. In regards to your comments about the image, nobody is objecting to the use of these images in the article about the detainees themselves, but their use in this article is unnecessary. And of course the objections were not just about the images, but the text as well. Gatoclass (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To add my 2 cents, there is nothing objectionable about the content. It simply fails to fail BLP. IronDuke 19:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree w/Greg and Iron. (Gato has, btw, also failed to count correctly in a past discussion of this issue. There, he argued that one sentence was not in fact one sentence.)

Gato--in his long discourse above--somehow fails to mention what the hook that is at issue says. The hook, which I am seeking to have promoted at DYK, is as follows: "... that Lisa Todorovich wrote in True/Slant that if Warren Beatty's claims to have slept with 13,000 women is true, he would have had to have slept with one woman every 1.17 days from age 14 to age 55?"

Gato sought to have the hook disapproved on BLP grounds. He failed to receive consensus support. A third-party-editor approved the hook. Gato reverted the editor!

Another editor offered as an alternative hook: "... that contributing writers to True/Slant are partly compensated according to how many times their articles are viewed?" Gato said that he does not have a problem at all with the hook(s). Which he views as "fine". But still objected to the hook being promoted. Then another editor (who has given Gato an award in the past, and since appeared at discussions defending Gato) came in and without consensus disapproved the hook per Gato having a BLP issue.

The issue is whether, where there is a completely non-objectionable hook, and the underlying article contains a reference inter alia to a spelling error, there is a BLP issue of such magnitude that the hook (not the article, but the hook) cannot be promoted at DYK.

Gato argues that that is the case. He tried to AfD an article with the spelling error reference. Pointing to what he called a "clear BLP issue". Apparently, it was only clear to Gato. He failed utterly to gain the faintest hint of support for his peculiar view of there being a BLP issue. The AfD closed "Keep".

Undaunted, he then appeared as part of a distinct minority of those who have this peculiar view. His view is not only wrong. It is a completely non-consensus view. As here, yet again. As to Off2 -- hi -- I haven't seen you since I just criticized you for what you did in defending a 6-time blocked mate of yours from an even longer block this past week. Fancy meeting you here.

As to the DYK being disapproved, it was. Under highly curious circumstances. After another editor had approved the hook (only to be reverted by Gato, a highly involved sysop)! By an editor (against consensus) who had himself put up successfully for DYK a hook where the underlying article spoke of a man being investigated for vaginally penetrating a 23-month-old. That, apparently, is fine. A spelling error mentioned in the underlying article ... not so much.

Let's take a look at "the DYK standard". One that is referred to, without a quote or diff ever being supplied, mind you. Let's see how it is applied. Not only does the "disapproving editor" himself boast among his few DYKs a hook where the underlying article speaks of investigations of a living person for vaginal penetration of a 23-month-year-old. But the DYK standard allows for hooks describing people as 10 most wanted fugitives and as be-headers (with pictures to boot). And these hooks (no BLP issues in any of those, apparently) are among those we boast about as having the most hits.

Furthermore, the "disapproving editor" was hopelessly confused. Inasmuch as he erroneously wrote "you're putting the problematic bit right in the hook". Which was, of course, flatly untrue. When the error was pointed out to him, he had absolutely no response. But stuck to his support of Gato, ne'ertheless.

The non-even-handed activity here, in which a couple of editors seek to force their non-consensus POV onto the community, is IMHO reprehensible.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Unverified royal divorce

At Talk:Princess Noor Hamzah#Requested move to Princess Noor bint Asem, an article move was requested due to her supposed divorce. This divorce is all over royal-watching forums and websites, but verifying the divorce using reliable sources has eluded me. If it's true, the Jordanian authorities are probably not keen to shout about it, and the Jordanian press show a remarkable reserve compared to their Western counterparts. Comments welcome on whether we should move the title anyway (as it is her maiden name), and what to do about the 'common knowledge' of the divorce, which also affects Prince Hamzah bin Al Hussein. Fences&Windows 12:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about royalty or about Jordanian customs of naming with respect to marriage. However, not every woman goes back to her birth name, assuming she has changed it, when she divorces. Some may do so quickly, but others go on for years with the divorced husband's surname, especially if they have dependent children. I wouldn't assume a change unless it were to be officially announced. Bielle (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is what I thought too. We can't bend rules on sourcing for BLPs just because the Jordan Royal family and media is keeping this close to their chest. We just have to be patient and wait for sources (for surely, if it is true, they will eventually appear). Fences&Windows 16:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Alan Caruba

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

I have just removed an entire criticism section from this BLP, it has sourcewatch and exxonsecrets used as refs, could someone take a look please to assure me i have done the right thing mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have only had a first look - Exon Secrets is not reliable is it? Have you had discussions about the site and sourcewatch at at the RSN? Some of the content looks not to be perhaps in need of a rewrite. IMO total removal is a bit excessive for a first step. You could try moving it to the talkpage for discussion or just removing the unreliable citations and the worst of any negative attack type content, I notice there has been nothing on the talkpage for amost two years, but opening a tread there about the issue will allow any interested parties to comment. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well exxonsecrets is an adcovacy site and there is no way that can be used in a blp, sourcewatch is an open wiki so that can`t be a reliable source either, i`ll move the lot to the talk page as you suggest and see what others have to say mark nutley (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, always good to open discussion threads and to get feedback. Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Not defending what was removed, but there's now little more than stuff referenced to primary sources, non-notable websites and Caruba's letters to the editor. The two block quotes in Alan Caruba#Views are especially overkill, given the sourcing. I suggest removing the soapboxing and scary quotes might provide a more realistic article length than what's been batted around and battled over the past couple of years. Flowanda | Talk 02:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Off2riorob (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ed Byrne (jazz musician)

The entry reads like an advertisement. The historical relevance of the person in question is debatable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.201.179.61 (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that the page was created by User:Ed Byrne Jazz and then moved to the current location by someone else. On the other hand, the page itself, taken at face value, suggests there is no problem here and there is sufficient notability. Just to be sure this isn't a hoax page (I have no expertise in the area) I will do some more googling now to learn more. But I think initially that this is probably fine.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real issue over notability, but it's a copyvio of Byrne's allaboutjazz.com entry (compilation of bio and discography pages.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree with you. I added some possibly useful links on the talk page. He's clearly at least arguably notable (I think, but I don't have enough knowledge to judge), although actual information is fairly thin on the web.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks a bit fluffy, wrote a couple and played on some records, a jass teacher with books and such, gives lessons etc. I can't imo see much that asserts a deal of notability as a jazz musician or independent reporting in reliable citations. Off2riorob (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted as copyvio. Other editors, please feel free to create a new and different page, based on independent reliable secondary sources. Thank you! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Default edit page notice for BLPs ?

What happened to the default edit page notice for BLPs? Used to be there, now it is not? -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's working fine for me. Try bypassing your cache? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to add unsourced information to articles on BLPs ?

Is it appropriate to add unsourced information to articles on BLPs ?

I had recently removed completely unsourced information from some articles on BLPs. A few of these edits were reverted - by SQGibbon (talk · contribs). See for example, [6] and [7]. I do not think it is appropriate, once removed, for another user to add back completely unsourced material to a page on a WP:BLP. Thoughts? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on the information. For negative information (or information plausibly considered negative by the subject of a BLP), it is clearly inappropriate. For neutral or positive information, I think it can be a judgment call but it is much much much better to provide a source - or at least at a bare minimum some indication that a check has been performed. Here the reason is not BLP, per se, but quality and respect for the person who remove it (who likely had some good reason, particularly if a longtime contributor in good standing).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it is okay to have completely unsourced information on WP:BLP articles, even if that unsourced information is deemed to be "positive" or "neutral" ... -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked in imdb (took only a few seconds) and confirmed the information for Michael D. Roberts, and added it back. I'm not 100% sure of how good imdb is regarding for general sourcing but for a basic filmography it seems fine, no?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. As I know, IMBD is considered reliable for basic filmography and similar but not reliable for any biographical content. Off2riorob (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, did you check everything in all the material you added back??? Or just that one sentence? Does IMDB verify he is "known" for that role? Or just confirm the role itself? You should not have added back this poorly sourced info to a BLP. It is one thing to use IMDB for a table filmography. It is quite another for main-body-paragraph-text. Please remove it. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just done the same for Marissa Ribisi. If you have a problem with the wording "known" for Mr. Robertson then I would recommend changing it? For Marissa, I did check all the information in the thing, including that she has both an acting and writing credit for one movie, and that another movie was her first major role. (Her earlier credits were guest appearances on television programs.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the poorly sourced info you added to two BLP articles, until you can find a better source than the one you used, especially for the commentary and assertions that are not backed up by that source. Please remove that info. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have gone through Michael D. Roberts to carefully address each concern that you had. In some cases, I toned down the language. In other cases, I simply removed the fact tag. As an example of the latter, I do not think it is necessary for us to have a source for the fact that Rain Man was a hit film. We link directly to the article on the film which notes that it won 4 Oscars and was the highest-grossing film of 1988. I am beginning to be concerned that this is not about these two biographies but that you are trying to make some broader philosophical point? Why don't we discuss that directly instead of you doing strange things here to these routine biographies?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am confused, it seems to be that Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) is attempting to put forth the notion that it would be perfectly acceptable to have an entire WP:BLP article on Wikipedia be sourced only to IMDB as a source, even in the main-body-text-paragraph portion of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I neither said, nor implied, nor believe, anything of the sort. What I did imply, and stand by, is that it is incredibly pointy of you to ask for a source for the fact that Rain Man was a hit film. Neither of these biographies are great - however neither are they awful, and IMDB is a perfectly good source for the basic data mentioned - even in the main-body-text-paragraph.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is not a good source for commentary about roles in films/television. Other Wikipedia articles linked to, does not satisfy WP:RS or WP:V. Even for Rain Man. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, this has been brought up before. While it may seem ok to keep unsourced neutral or positive information in a BLP, upon further thought there is a problem with doing so. Information that seems positive or neutral could still cause real-life harm to the BLP subject, because if it is false it might contradict with how the person has represented him or herself to others and could make them look like a liar or dishonest. I agree that IMDB can be used for some basic filmography information for the subject. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of that. Please go review the edit histories of the biographies in question. I have not argued for anything remotely close to a blanket ok on unsourced information of any kind. But there are cases where it is clearly a judgment call. As an example, Cirt challenged with a fact-tag that Rainman was a hit film. I removed that fact tag and did not supply a source - though if someone wants to source that, I have no objections, neither is it necessary to do so. We link to Rain Man and it - fully sourced - establishes that fact without difficulty.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree here with Cla68 (talk · contribs). It is wrong to keep in unsourced material in a BLP article, simply because a particular editor deems it their personal opinion that said info is "neutral" or "positive" in nature. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Jimbo Wales, linking to another Wikipedia article, is not sufficient sourcing. -- Cirt (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask you point blank, then. You are claiming that when we mention that a certain actor was in Rain Man (with a source which proves that fact) we can't say, for reader context, that Rain Man was a hit film, without finding a source for that particular claim? That this obviously true statement, positive about the subject of the article, should be removed? That linking to our article on Rain Man is not sufficient? I am asking about this particular case, not all cases imaginable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do not think linking to another Wikipedia article is sufficient sourcing. I am quite surprised that you do. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't "sourcing" at all. It's completely valid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent addendum): Policy backs me up 100% here: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article."

That Rain Man was a hit film is not challenged nor likley to be challenged. Neither is it in any way "contentious". Insisting that every fact in a BLP be sourced is absolutely without precedent in policy. I say this as perhaps one of the strongest advocates of quality sourcing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate to have wholly unsourced information on WP:BLP articles, especially for the reasons outlined above by Cla68 (talk · contribs). Insuring information is cited to WP:RS secondary sources, helps to easily avoid those problems. -- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, I am very glad that insuring information is cited to WP:RS is precisely what I was doing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the case of referring to Rain Man as a hit film, it's best to reword that phrasing as "hit" could mean a variety of things. It doesn't indicate if it was a hit with critics, awards organizations, box office, viewers, etc. We'd be better off specifically stating why it was a hit. In addition, unless his role was really related to the negativity/success of a film, we likely don't need to mention anything except for the plain "he played the role of Vern in Rain Man". If he was one of the main roles (or a minor notable one) such as Tom Cruise or Dustin Hoffman, further explanation could be more helpful for the reader on the impact of the film. Concerning IMDB, we should not be using it for citing materials as it is an unreliable source (outside of the news postings they provide, but even then, that is usually also available elsewhere). Information on IMDB is user-submitted and although it can be accurate, it is usually best to use it as a starting point for finding details to lead to more reliable sources. Linking to it in the external links should be sufficient for his roles in the filmography section, but not for citing biographical details. The film itself should be sufficient for mentioning the credits, but if additional citations are needed, something like this could work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything said in this comment by User:Nehrams2020, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see Cirt's deletion on the Jason Lee article here. I assumed good faith and asked nicely several times for Cirt to point out the claims that he/she were challenging or thought likely to be challenged as per the very specific wording of WP:BLP "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." or in violation of any other section of BLP. The conversation went nowhere as you can read here. My feeling is that the problems Cirt is pointing out are non-BLP content issues that would be better handled via tagging ("citation needed"), brought up on the talk pages, rewritten, or some other less bold action as there seems to be some babies being thrown out with bathwater. SQGibbon (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

After reading through this thread, I must ask, is this really the place for this discussion? Isn't this notice board for incidents that need immediate attention? In that spirit though, I agree with Jimbo, that not everything in a BLP needs a source. Only information that is likely to be challenged absolutly needs a citation. Yet, citations are better than no citations.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced info should not exist on BLP articles. It would be much easier to move it to the talk page, and work on it there. There is simply no reason to be hasty about reverting and adding unsourced or poorly sourced info back onto a BLP page, instead of working on it on a subpage or the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd thought I was as much a BLP hawk as anyone, but I'm certainly being outdone here. I'm in close agreement with Mr Wales on this matter, although I probably draw slightly finer lines. There are several principles that I think should be kept in mind. First, current BLP is a relatively recent addition to Wikipedia policy, and was not intended to require the wholesale deletion of content with significant encyclopedic value which does not meet its more stringent sourcing standards and does not raise issues under substantive content policies; instead, it envisions a steady process of improved sourcing. Second, not every aspect of every assertion must be pinpoint-sourced every time it appears; for example, if an article on a writer asserts that "a major influence on his work is Thomas Pynchon's novel Gravity's Rainbow," but in the reference the writer simply cites the title, expecting his audience to know that GR is both a novel and written by Pynchon, that's OK. It's often useful to make explicit what a source leaves implicit; so long as the implicit claims are well-sourced in a more germane linked article, there's no basis for treating them as potentially contentious. If every mention of "President Obama" or "Queen Elizabeth II" or similar figures required a direct citation to a source establishing the legitimacy of the title, we would soon drain the global supply of footnotes dry. Writing a useful encyclopedia requires both sound mechanical rules and the exercise of sound judgment; this is an area where the latter is more important. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, anything is not likely to be challenged, shouldn't need a citation. The articles would be overwhelmed and monotonous with citations.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is fine for basic filmography. That Rain Man was a hit film does not need a citation, whether the actor is a Scientologist or not. --JN466 14:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Are all of the actors under discussion Scientologists? Just curious... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The three raised above are, yes. - Bilby (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look through Cirt's contribution history from July 3rd and look for the edit summaries with the phrase "removed unsourced information, from a BLP article page", you'll see that Cirt took this approach with over 40 other people associated with Scientology. SQGibbon (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was removing unsourced info from WP:BLPs listed at the page List of Scientologists. Those pages are on a controversial topic, and often contentious as well, so removal of completely unsourced information from them, is the best way to go here. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you have been a bit off-course here, Cirt. Take [8]. Sourcing it would have been so easy for someone with your abilities. As it is, you removed useful content. --JN466 16:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Especially on controversial topics, best for unsourced info on WP:BLPs to be moved to the talk page, and sourcing efforts to take place there. But noted, and in the future, I will not just remove blatantly unsourced info, but also make a note of it and place the material in question, on the article's talk page. :) Cheers. -- Cirt (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope you aren't serious, it won't be appropriate for the talk page either in some, perhaps most, cases. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, I would tend to agree with you that unsourced info should not remain on article-space pages in most cases - unfortunately apparently others here have a more cavalier attitude towards unsourced info remaining on BLP pages. -- Cirt (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of images of signatures

A complaint has been made by an employee of the New Zealand parliament about use of images of signatures of MPs. The thread at the policy Village Pump is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Signatures. Please comment there. Fences&Windows 16:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Should self published videos of the subject be included as a list in the subject's BLP?

Eckhart Tolle has created a series of free videos which are available for viewing on his official web site Eckart Tolle TV [9]. A link to this web site is already included in the External Link section of the Tolle article. At present these 13 (and counting) videos are also individually listed in the article, in the section titled Publications. [10] Is it appropriate to list self published videos in this BLP? Thanks for you input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

At first glance, this looks to me as more of a regular content dispute than a WP:BLP issue. Since the article recently underwent a GA review, perhaps the reviewer would have an opinion? decltype (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A single link would be plenty, more than that is promotional. Trimmed. Off2riorob (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've invited the GA reviewer via his User Page to come here and comment.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the article for GA, and I think a single link is fine. I'm not sure why it would be "promotional" to list multiple self published videos (he's a notable individual), but it creates unnecessary clutter in the article. They are technically publications, but we should avoid listing them all for the same reason that we don't list the names of every essay in a published book. Claritas § 14:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Buffy Sainte-Marie

Buffy_Sainte-Marie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As it is completely unsourced, I am concerned the section Genealogy Corrections might be potentially libellous. - BalthCat (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree and just edited the talk page to remove that section. The editor who posted it has not been active since July 2009 so I do not think any further action is warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Can some other editors please have a look at the lede of this BP, there is a weakly cited genetic claim being added to the lede like this...

Buffy Sainte-Marie, OC (born Beverly Sainte-Marie, February 20, 1941 or 1942)[1][2] is an aboriginal Canadian singer-songwriter,[3]

I have removed it and requested discussion and stronger citations and to move the genetic claims from the introduction as per WP:MOS but it has been replaced again. Please have a look and comment. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. What exactly is the problem? Her ethnic identity belongs in the lead as, in my opinion it is an important part of the way people know her, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) doesn't have the word 'ethnic' in it (and WP:MOS only has it in relationship to the word Arab). Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:MOSBIO. Yworo (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that she is indeed Cree, and that this is significant to her notability. The lead should state her tribal affiliation, not call her "aboriginal", which though true, is less accurate and does injustice to her tribal identification. I've corrected the article. Yworo (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's actually pretty standard for First Nations Canadians to identify themselves by tribal membership, often for very specific political reasons (not to be mention cultural). I think it's appropriate in this instance to include her Cree heritage in the lede. freshacconci talktalk 19:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the same for Native Americans in the U.S. I'd personally find the use of aboriginal rather than First Nations or Cree (or in my case Mi'kmaq) to be rather offensive, even if technically correct. Yworo (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Aboriginal is a word that creates unnecessary problems. It is technically correct to use this in a generic sense but why not use the more specific and accepted terms? Is it a crude analogy to compare this to describing someone from France as European rather than French in the lede? freshacconci talktalk 20:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead should probably say Cree. Certainly not aboriginal. But the lead should mention her ethnicity as it is part of her notability. Dougweller (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Scott Greenstein

Scott Greenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Greenstein&action=historysubmit&diff=372422262&oldid=345781175 // SwedMusicFanz (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Watched, BLP is a bit promotional and with only a single primary citation, needs improvement. Off2riorob (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Anna Chapman

As some may know, the accused spy Anna Chapman has received a great amount of attention unrelated to the spying allegations. The article currently (permanent link) has a brief section containing some rather detailed claims about her sex life. While extensively covered in tabloid sources I question whether covering these allegations are necessary for someone who's primary reason for notability is spying (even more so since she appears to have claimed they are lies) Nil Einne (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've chopped out the entire section related to her sex life - we're not a tabloid and BLPs should always be written conservatively. Exxolon (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good edit, pure tabloid titillation. Off2riorob (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've noted on the talk page, I think this bio is a case of BLP1E and should be merged into the general article. I recognise that the chances of editors agreeing to this merge after pictures of this attractive woman have been plastered all over the media are rather slim. Fences&Windows 20:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Michaels (global warming BLP)

I was doing some WikiGnome work on our article on Patrick Michaels when I happened to notice some controversial information that was poorly sourced. AFAIK, we're not supposed to be citing blogs or opinion pieces for contentious material about living persons unless written or published by the subject. So, in this edit,[11] I removed material that was sourced to a blog. In this edit,[12][13] I removed material that was sourced to an op-ed. Can someone please review my edits to make sure that I am correctly follow policy?

Also, I'm concerned with the paragraph that says, "Climate scientist Tom Wigley,[14] a lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has stated that "Michaels' statements on the subject of computer models are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation … Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading."[15]" The first cite is broken. I found an archived copy of the source here.[14] It appears to be a press release. The second source is a book which I don't have access to. I wasn't sure what to do, so I left it in. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(note I think the 2nd diff was meant to be [15]?) Both of the deletions seem ok on the grounds given (being op-eds, so not meeting blp). Re "Climate scientist..." I'd guess the American Geophysical Union is good enough, and while the book's author's opinion would need to be attributed (at the very least) given that he's only relaying Wigley's comment that seems ok. Misarxist (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Misarxist: Yes, that second diff was supposed to be [16]. I fixed it above. Thanks for looking at my edits. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at this? Another editor has resorted the contentious BLP material.[17] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Folks, the above does not state our policy on BLPs and blogs correctly. It actually says " Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." So what exactly is the problem here? Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I also don't see a big issue here, attribute and move on. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this. The second column[18] is doubly problematic, as the author is basically describing a conspiracy (against Michaels and others), that in and by itself should discount it as BLP material - but there is an additional factor.... All of these accusations have been examined by official inquiries, and been found to be without basis in reality (see Climate Research University e-mail hacking incident). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the second column is inappropriate; however, Monbiot piece seems just fine and relevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the only one I looked at, and it seems ok to me, none of the comments above seem a good reason to remove it. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hisham Mackie

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

The article is full of errors and has over-inflated and exaggerated figures about Hisham Mackie's history and income. This is due to someone who has mal-intent against this person. This biography should be removed at once. Diamond exports and other data should be cited appropriately, which is available publicly through the Sierra Leone Mines Authority, the World Trade Organisation, the Sierra Leone Kimberely Process Committee, amongst other official sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.154.30 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is proposed for deletion. I support that. The one source Global Policy Forum seems to be trustworthy enough but just mentions him in passing.Wolfview (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Negative iinformation

I do not understand how unproved and negative information can be posted on your webpage. Teh article about Rahul Gandhi is very negative. Do you have such articles on Obama, or Blair or Prince Harry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.0.223 (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question is yes, we have criticism in articles on people such as Obama and Blair. There's no problem with that, see WP:NPOV. If you have any specific complaints about unsourced material in Rahul Gandhi then they can be examined, but I see 50 references at the moment so the article as a whole is sourced. Dougweller (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that specific complaints would help. To compare the quality/oversight of this bio to the Obama article is pretty silly, imho. Also, have you tried using the article's talk page? The bio does seem to have alot of "controversial" stuff, but maybe this guy has done alot of controversial stuff? There seems to be alot of praise woven into the article as well. Overall, this could probably use some improvement. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Jalal Merhi

Birth date of 1967 on this bio is incorrect - probably 1957. I worked for Jalal in the jewellery biz in 1979 and he was certainly not 12 yrs old. Note also his most competitive yrs in martial arts were 1978 through 1986 - ages 21 through 29, not 11 through 19. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.81.147 (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Uncle G fixed it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Morrow321 and Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination

• On the talk page of John F. Kennedy assassination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Morrow321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to insert a lengthy tl;dr diatribe accusing a man by the name of Billie Sol Estes of orchestrating the murder along with Lyndon Johnson. Original addition, my initial reversion, subsequent addition. This is just the latest in a lengthy string of JFK-centric lunacy from this particular account, which (aside from this lovely addition to Chelsea Clinton's biography three years ago) seems to be a JFK-centric single-purpose-account. Badger Drink (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • So, I'm inclined to give this guy the boot after reviewing his contributions. In three years, he's contributed absolutely nothing to mainspace, and maligned a bunch of people in the process. Should we move this to ANI and propose a topic ban from conspiracy theories? Jclemens (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree. There are many sane and rational people out there who have doubts as to the validity of the Warren Report on the JFK assassination. All this user seems to be doing is starting discussions about content. Isn't that encouraged? Why disparage someone elses opinion, just because you don't agree with it? I saw no evidence of edit warring or incivility, so for lack of any policies not being adhered to, I don't see that anything should be done at all. User is doing everything within the policies and guidelines of this site.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a CAPSLOCK INFUSED rant calling Lyndon Johnson a mass murderer and adding long tangents about Chelsea Clinton being so-and-so's lovechild is totally within policy. Do you even bother to click diff links, or are you so sure of Wiki-injustice that you feel compelled to mash "edit this page" before bothering to inform yourself? Badger Drink (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did I wrong you in another life? I guess good faith only goes so far these days. Maybe Prince is right and its all going to go away soon.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If I directed half the stuff at you that your apparent client slings about in the direction of various politicians and politicians' offspring, you'd be trembling with such indignant rage that you'd very nearly mess up the Wikilink to WP:NPA in your no-doubt seething reply to me. That, to me, is the definition of an unproductive contributor. I'm still curious how calling LBJ a "STONE COLD KILLER" and adding completely unsourced information about Chelsea Clinton's alleged illegitmacy in article-space constitutes doing anything, let alone everything, "within policies and guidelines of this site". Badger Drink (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the edits made at Chelsea Clinton, then you should have brought it up 3 years ago when it mattered. Otherwise, your taunting replies have no effect on me, but your incivility and bad faith are border-line rude and will not be tolerated.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Billie Sol Estes (alive today 7/10/10) is a man who Lyndon Johnson made a multi-multi millionaire in the 1950's through his corrupt use of governmental influence. In return LBJ got millions in kickbacks from Mr. Estes. Billy Sol Estes is ON THE RECORD admitting to planning the murder of US agricultural official Henry Marshall (June, 1961) with Lyndon Johnson, LBJ's top aide Cliff Carter and LBJ's hit man Malcolm Wallace. I suggest googling these names or reading Billie Sol Estes' book: Billie Sol Estes a Texas Legend. http://www.amazon.com/Billie-Sol-Estes-Texas-Legend/dp/B000ANCGGS/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1278794261&sr=1-1 Lyndon Johnson was a STONE COLD KILLER who murdered a lot more people than Henry Marshall. LBJ had so much criminal and political liability he had to murder people not just so he could stay in office, but to keep out of jail. Really, Badgerman, you need to learn about this and quit deleting what I post in the discussion area of the JFK assassination. It is completely relevant to the JFK assassination, which Lyndon Johnson was deeply involved in. Billie Sol Estes discussed with Cliff Carter (before he died) many of the murders that Lyndon Johnson, Cliff Carter and Malcolm Wallace committed, with the participation of Billie Sol Estes in some of them. If Lyndon Johnson did not like someone, he would say "Get rid of them" - meaning murder them and the hit would occur.

[gross violation of WP:BLP removed Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)]

Morrow321 (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And as for you, Jclemons, the John Kennedy Assassination page is a fraud and a sham. It is an embarassment that Wikipedia would be carrying water for the completely discredited Warren Report ... and by extension the murderers of John Kennedy 47 years later. There are probably people walking around today who have criminal liability in the JFK assassination: George Herbert Walker Bush being just one of them. How can folks contribute to the mainpage of Wiki if it is locked down and only the discredited "lone nutters" are allowed to edit? The American people don't buy the propaganda that this page is pushing on JFK... Here is just one little nugget on GHW Bush - his response to Nixon's smoking gun transcript that references the JFK assassination (in code, Bay of Pigs): http://www.watergate.info/tapes/72-06-23_smoking-gun.shtml

GHW Bush's response was this: http://www.google.com/search?q=Timmons+asked.+%E2%80%9CHe+broke+out+in+a**holes+and+sh*t+himself+to+death%2C%E2%80%9D+was+Burch%E2%80%99s+answer%2C+confirming+that+anytime+Nixon+referred+to+%E2%80%9Cthe+Texans%2C%E2%80%9D+he+meant+George+Bush+Sr.&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=

So there I think there are MANY areas relating to the JFK assassination where Wiki can get more FACTUAL and ACCURATE. And it ain't what is on the page now. Morrow321 (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

While Jojhutton makes a good point that there are many people who can rationally and productively contribute to the dialogue on conspiracy theories, I think Morrow321 has proved my point that he's not one of those people better than I ever could. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Jclemons, you are welcome to believe anything you want to about the JFK assassination. But the problem with Wiki's entry on it is that it shows any respect for the Warren Report or the HSCA. Seriously, Wiki uses these politically motivated cover ups as "sources" for anything relating to the JFK assassination? The vast majority of Americans agree with me [they reject the Warren Report], despite the fact (or rather because of) the fact they have been lied to by killers in government, the major media and the "establishment" about the JFK assassination for 47 years. Calling Oswald as a "belligerent" on the Wiki page is a farce .. with no info on who the REAL murderers of JFK were and WHY they murdered him. Wiki needs to get up to speed to reflect the fine work that has been done by that assassination research community. Morrow321 (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Morrow321, you need to stop pushing poorly sourced conspiracy theories or you'll be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to try to right great wrongs: we simply reflect what is said in reliable sources. Fences&Windows 22:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. See Wikipedia:No original research and also Wikipedia:Truth for why we can't use your contributions. Tabercil (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

David Novak

David Novak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Some IPs and SPAs have been attempting to turn David Novak into a book report about his books. I'm not sure if it's promotional material or where it comes from, but it's obviously copied from somewhere. (One of the versions of it they are trying to add begins with an essay on Rashi's philosophy of medicine.) --B (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That entire BLP page appears to be blatantly unsourced. -- Cirt (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Johann Hari

Johann Hari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There's a fairly long discussion the talk page about what seems to me to be a WP:UNDUE discussion in the article regarding criticisms by HonestReporting and CAMERA. The criticisms have been challenged by one editor on the grounds of being a self-published source, but WP:UNDUE hasn't been specifically mentioned.

My view is that this is probably, although not certainly, WP:UNDUE. The question is likely whether or not 3rd party independent sources regard this as a notable criticism. I won't be getting directly involved in editing it myself, but thought that rather I would ask for more eyes on the question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Has there been coverage of the same material from the above-mentioned sources, in other independent reliable secondary sources? -- Cirt (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not much. A famous blogger (blogging for The Atlantic, a perfectly fine magazine) called the criticism "smears and character assassinations" - in an opinion column. All of it seems to be opinion columns, as opposed to 3rd party reporting in a neutral or at least attempted-neutral setting. Mr. Hari seems to be the main source for it, ironically enough, having devoted a column or two to attack those who attacked him. (This is one reason why it may not be a self-published source situation, although it might not be anyway, since the two sources do apparently have some editorial oversight.)

Not much is not zero, which is why I'm unsure here. Certainly there has been no 3rd party neutral or neutral-ish news coverage of a controversy, but I wonder if that standard might be unreasonable for giving readers a good understanding of various opinion columnists and their work. Mr. Hari writes often in defense of Palestinians (with some heated rhetoric) and so of course he attracts the attention of those who defend Israel. I'd hate to say that we can't explain that reasonably well to readers, while at the same time, I think we shouldn't take one little dustup and turn it into a centerpiece in someone's life.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Nod, agreed. Seems like good practice would be a mention, yes, but due to the lacking of significant discussion from independent reliable secondary sources, not to the degree of depth currently given. -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Max Boisot

Max Boisot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am having some issues with user:81.110.111.164 on the above page. Per this I deleted a reference to a relationship with Prince Philip which has been the subject of much title tattle. I did this at the request of Boisot who I know. The IP concerned has not just inserted the material, but also a "denial reference" which is in the worst tradition of gutter journalism. Boisot is a minor figure and entitled to some protection. Its made worse in the this case as the IP is playing WP:Hound after edit warring over a political template where he cannot get agreement and has failed to observe WP:AGF in his/her comments.

If I have got the policy on protection of minor figures wrong then OK, let me know and I will suggest to Boisot that he asks for the whole article to be deleted. If I have it right then can someone with the right authority levels get rid of the material?

Thanks --Snowded ^TALK 00:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it's the case that our articles are not censored by request, and that something that the subject merely finds uncomfortable is not subject to removal. The claim is sourced (the article names the subject himself as its source), and would appear to be directly relevant in context since it forms the basis for his gaining entry to the school in question. I suggest that Snowded has a conflict of interest and his report here is an attempt to play the man rather than the ball. 81.110.111.164 (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to discuss this on the talk page of the article. Considering that the source is the Mirror, I'd lean towards just leaving it out. It doesn't seem very relevant.  –Joshua Scott 01:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My report here is seek guidance from the community as to what is permitted and what is not. My concern is that reporting an "accusation" from a tabloid newspaper is in effect to give publicity to a minor figure which is damaging to that person. Its not a fact about the subject which the subject finds discomforting, but the unsubstantiated accusation of illegitimacy which goes with it. My belief has always been that Wikipedia has always been careful of minor living figures in this respect. I am hoping that the community can resolve this quickly. --Snowded ^TALK 01:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The article didn't claim anywhere that he was illegitimate. 81.110.111.164 (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

People sometimes described as Scientologists who deny they are Scientologists

I know this is a contentious issue, but I'm puzzled by the way of handling it which has recently emerged here. Without stipulating that being a scientologist is a positive or a negative, I can imagine analogous lists - People sometimes described as gay who deny they are gay/People sometimes described as drug takers who deny they are drug takers/and so on. Surely this isn't how BLPs are supposed to be handled. Credible denial quoted in a reputable source should be the end of the matter, no?KD Tries Again (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again