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.

Anthony Indelicato

[ No Legal Threats -- Redacted, user cautioned ] (timestamp for automated archiving. Fram (talk) 14:42, 8 September 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

(timestamp for automated archiving. Fram (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC))

Anurag Dikshit

Anurag Dikshit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a single pupose IP address and new user is repeatedly removing references (and external links) from this article, and completely removing a section on a guilty plea the subject entered (which is about 40% of his notability) while adding a bunch of off-topic stuff. This is the most recent stable version.

• Joproffice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new single purpose account
• JamesmaharrisonPRO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - second/sockpuppet account
• 62.49.31.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - IP address of same user

(timestamp for automated archiving. Fram (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC))

John McGrath (Western Australian politician)

John McGrath (Western Australian politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - information is being repeatedly added that has no veritable source - the reference given is a dead link. There is further information being repeatedly added (relating to a CCC inquiry that cleared John McGrath of all charges) which contradicts the reference that is cited. (timestamp for automated archiving. Fram (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC))

Laura Schlessinger

Laura Schlessinger has recently publicly complained about untruths in her Wiki-bio. See here.

Looking at the bio, there does seem to be an amazing amount of negative stuff that may be questionable. I've already found statement unsupported by the purported reference. The article needs unbiased eyes, alert to WP:UNDUE, neutrality, and willing to review sources to see if they are reliable, significant, and actually support the text.--Scott Mac 12:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

HOW DO YOU ANSWER CRITICS WHO SAY YOU SHOULDN'T BE GIVING ADVICE BECAUSE YOU'VE HAD AFFAIRS AND ...

Affairs! What affairs? That's all trumped-up nonsense. And the nude pictures -- the ones that show me from the top up -- those are me. The other ones, the really naughty ones, I don't know how they did it. That's good Photoshopping. The only regret I have is that at the time I didn't think I was cute. Now I look back and say, "Damn, I was cute!"

NO AFFAIRS WITH MARRIED MEN? NO OUT-OF-WEDLOCK PREGNANCY?

Of course not. Out-of-wedlock pregnancy? Somebody said that?

IT'S ON YOUR WIKIPEDIA PAGE.

Oh. Oh. Yes. Of course. That's the source of truth? Anybody can put anything on there!

BUT IT'S FOOTNOTED.

So it's footnoted to somebody else who made it up. I remember "All the President's Men," where they had to find three good sources before they could say anything. Journalism has left that way behind. Does Wikipedia say I have any illegitimate kids?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott MacDonald (talk • contribs) 2010-08-22 12:56:50 (UTC)

• Not a fan of Schlessinger, but on this occasion she's right. I have removed a chunk of unsourced material- a citation was given, but it did not support the claims. Somebody should go through this with a fine tooth comb. Unfortunately I don't have the time at present. --Slp1 (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've removed more speculation unsupported by sources, but I suspect we've a way to go on this. Help requested. Remember everyone, READ THE SOURCE, don't settle for the fact that there is one.--Scott Mac 13:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I've read the source, and what it actually supported was the stuff within the {{cquote}} removed in this edit. All that this means, of course, is that this decision was an unwise one based upon desire for promoting particular views of the subject rather than desire for fully-sourced, well-written, text to replace poor content that had been removed to the talk page for discussion and improvement. Uncle G (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes; but even the quote wasn't reportedly accurately.--Slp1 (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• I was reading this article a few days ago and removed some stuff related to her son. I actually read the affair stuff but sadly didn't pay much attention to the sourcing Nil Einne (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a good reminder that even people who many consider despicable should have their bios written carefully. Now the question is, does she go into Category:Racism. (See relevant general discussion at talk BLP.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom

List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Are there sufficient references and are they adequately reliable? // Thincat (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What an awful article, in , out, not out in public and with lots of uncited names, horrid. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

OMG – "Widely known to be Gay"! It's a good thing we have some LGBT experts looking after articles like this. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't need a WP:RS if your sexual preferences are widely known . The whole issue to me of labeling people by their sexual preferences as if it is a noteworthy thing is degrading to those preferences as if they warrant reporting and they are as such special and not the norm. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I should speak more plainly: I am now watching the article, and am ready to join any attempt to delete it (unfortunately, short of an ArbCom case, that would probably fail, but it may encourage onlookers to clean it down to WP:V and WP:DUE material – that is, about one short paragraph). Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP states that we should remove "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced...." Since sexual preference is a non-observable characteristic (unlike, say, jobs held, skin color, schools attended, etc.), and it has a particular charge, wouldn't it be considered "contentious"? Furthermore, couldn't we argue that we could extend the logic of WP:BLPCAT to articles like this that are lists: "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." That is, I would say that unless these politician's sexual preference are directly relevant to their work as politicians (for instance, perhaps it was an issue used, positively or negatively, in campaigning; or perhaps a politician known for focusing on LGBT laws and issues), then they should be removed from the list? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think present policy agrees you there Qwyrxian, it needs to be relevant to their notability or shouldn't be included. Clearly any user that felt that was needed could remove any of the contentious uncited content on sight. I have had a look at two or three of the uncited names and found the claims to be citable and at least one other user has also looked and I have left a note about the article at the LGBT noticeboard alerting them.If you feel or see anything contentious you can remove it also. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/the-iiosi-pink-list-2010-2040472.html this may be useful for citing a couple. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO this sort of thing should be dealt with by a category rather than a list article. The advantage of a category is that when X is identified as gay, that's done on their own bio page, where knowledgeable readers are going to notice it and make sure that it's properly cited. If people insist on having a list article, then all entries should be RSed within that article. Don't rely on "there's a source for this elsewhere in WP, or at least there was when I first added this guy to the list". --GenericBob (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a list article like this does not make a great WP article. However, I think it is unlikely to get deleted. Given that, I would say that the opinion that the sexuality of a politician needs to be shown to be somehow particularly relevant to their public life in order for them to be included is wrong. It just needs to be verifiable from a reliable source. --FormerIP (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well as I know and as is in the guidelines that is incorrect. The old I have a citation so I can add what ever I want point of view. Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BIO#Lists_of_people Every entry about a person in every list needs to be individually cited within that article. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 00:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the list as it currently is should probably be deleted until each and every entry can be reliably sourced. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If the list is to stay, it might be improved by moving to List of "out" LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom. Also, is there really no article on History of LGBT people in the United Kingdom? (Possible merge target?) Rd232 ^talk 00:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jclemens that it should be deleted. I'm not sure we should even have such a list. Categories are more easily maintained because of eyes on the articles of the subjects. Who's been watching that list? Yworo (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Whilst someones clearly taken a lot of time to create the list. I agree it should be deleted unless all the un sourced stuff is removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can delete the article based on a discussion here. It needs to be nominated for deletion.

Rob: regarding "the old I have a citation so I can add what ever I want point of view", I think I must have missed the email that made WP:V and WP:RS old hat. If a list article for gay UK politicians is to exist, then it should include or exclude people based on whether or not they are gay UK politicians, according to RSs. There is no good reason to restrict the list further than that. --FormerIP (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:V does not say "include everything that can be verified." It says "do not include anything that can be verified." Furthermore, WP:BLP is equally as important as WP:V, and thus must be weighed here. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I said: "it should include or exclude people based on whether or not they are gay UK politicians, according to RSs". BLP doesn't really alter this, it just underscores the need for RSs. Assuming the list is kept (although I'm not sure that it should be) there's no other sensible criteria for inclusion or exclusion. There is no basis on which to talk about how connected their gayness is to their public life. --FormerIP (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Any administrator who was so inclined can delete the entire article as a G10, if they perceive that the problem is sufficiently serious and lack time to do a more thorough excision of unsourced content. I don't happen to feel that strongly about it, since there's no hint that these allegations are new, or that the persons involved would be unduly harmed by them, but past precedents make it clear that any admin is expected and encouraged to take all necessary actions to prevent harm to living people. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely the issue is notability? If these people are notable simply for being LGBT then perhaps they merit being on a page relating to the history of LGBT. But how many of them are notable on that one issue? However, since they are all politicians, their notability is inherent in them being a politician, not in them being LGBT. Therefore, a sourced reference regarding sexuality might be warranted in their own biographical wiki page (assuming they are notable enough as a politician to merit one and that sexuality has been a notable issue in their biography), but there are no grounds regarding notability for a page such as "List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom". To put it into perspective, should there be pages for "List of politicians who ride a bicycle to work" or "List of politician who predominantly wear purple" ? It may be that they do ride a bike or wear purple, of even both, but these facts are not inherent to these people's notability, and therefore do not merit list format pages. isfutile:P (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Politicians being "out" is a significant part of gay rights history. It certainly merits coverage as a proper (prose) article, and the current list would be a resource for that. Rd232 ^talk 12:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Beyond that, notability does not apply to article contents, only to article topics. Thus, while an individual LGBT politician may not meet WP:POLITICIAN, the topic as a whole is certainly notable, and hence a list of verifiable members is acceptable, even if some of those individual list members is not individually notable. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to inform you all that a deletion discussion is now underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

... and the article has been deleted. Thincat (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Linda McMahon

An editor on this article has three times in 24 hours reinserted materially that potentially violates BLP. The article subject is a Senate candidate; the material being inserted is a lengthy section on the trial of a person convicted for illegal steroid distribution; McMahon's only connection to the subject appears to be that he worked previously for a company she took control of after he had had already been fired (and convicted). Given no source even claims she was involved in any way, this appears to be a simple "smear by association" coatrack, as well as having WP:UNDUE concerns. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Diff is [1] which has actually nothing specifically to do with the subject of the WP:BLP. Reverters eem not to understand BLP rules about adding tangential material into articles, and also to not understand Mr. Wales' position at [2] concerning political BLPs in specific. Collect (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

David H. Koch Charles G. Koch, Koch Industries

Appear under assualt by folks who insist that they are named "coke" and that they are as evil as Standard Oil, that they provide money to "Non-think tanks" etc. [3] Using such factual sources as Frank Rich's editorials etc. The Koch Industries article then has specific charges included against the brothers, which I suggest is contrary to WP:BLP, though one person says that WP:BLP "does not apply to companies". [4] I think if the sentences refer to the brothers by name, and the source is specifically aimed at the individuals that there is not such an exemption <g>. [5] is specifically and absoutely about living indiciduals "There’s just one element missing from these snapshots of America’s ostensibly spontaneous and leaderless populist uprising: the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it" "those corporate players who have financed the far right ever since the du Pont brothers spawned the American Liberty League in 1934 to bring down F.D.R. " "That rant could be delivered as is at any Tea Party rally today. " "The Kochs surely match the in-kind donations the Tea Party receives in free promotion 24/7 from Murdoch’s Fox News, where both Beck and Palin are on the payroll. " "As Mayer details, Koch-supported lobbyists, foundations and political operatives are at the center of climate-science denial " "But there’s a difference between mainstream conservatism and a fringe agenda that tilts completely toward big business, whether on Wall Street or in the Gulf of Mexico, while dismantling fundamental government safety nets designed to protect the unemployed, public health, workplace safety and the subsistence of the elderly. " "The Koch brothers must be laughing all the way to the bank knowing that working Americans are aiding and abetting their selfish interests. And surely Murdoch is snickering at those protesting the “ground zero mosque.” " all appear , to me, to not be a proper source for charges against the individuals per WP:BLP but rather fall into a broad category f editorial screed by Mr. Rich. Collect (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's late here so this is not a full reply to Collect's claims. If there is a more classic strawman argument than the one s/he makes, I have not seen one. None of the quotes he uses above are in the Wikipedia article, nor, to my knowledge, has anyone ever tried to insert them. The material he seems to object to is highly cited: to the Wall Street Journal, New York magazine, The New Yorker magazine, and this Sunday's op-ed column by Frank Rich in the NY Times. All of the material is highly relevant to an understanding of the biography of this man. Finally, as I mentioned on the article talk page, Collect is at 2RR already so please be aware of that. Arjuna (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am not aware of the correct pronunciation of "Koch". For other people using the same spelling, I have heard both "coke" and "coch"; in any event, my reading of his message above seems to imply a conspiracy to besmirch their name, which I find simply absurd. If Collect is certain that their name is not pronounced "coke", then s/he is welcome to correct that, with proper citation. (I'm not the one who added that material, FWIW.) In short, there is no conspiracy; it it is in error, then it should obviously be fixed. Arjuna (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is pronouced "Cook". I went to school with some Koch's. Arzel (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean people affiliated with Koch Industries or just some random folks named Koch? Because some families pronounce the exact same name quite differently. — e. ripley\^talk 15:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean someone that is related (somewhat distantly but had the same name) to the Koch's that worked summers at one of their bulk stations driving truck. I have also heard people pronouce it "Caughch" (Caught with a "ch" instead of a "t"), but was told by the Koch's I knew that it was "Cook" Arzel (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding op-eds, per statements of opinion it can be considered reliable for statements from the author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. Truthsort (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed entirely that Collect's post is mainly a collection of straw-man arguments. It's pretty pedantic to maintain that Rich's article can't be used for statements of fact (and as indicated it isn't a matter of the wikipedia article here asserting as fact Rich's own opinions). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It was certainly being used for "statements of fact" which were not clearly marked as an editorial opinion. And the "coke" bit was clearly intended to be derogatory - and repeatedly inserted to boot. WP:BLP must be zealously enforced if we are to obey the mandates from WMF. Collect (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And reverts taken to enforce BLP policy are not counted - this is a matter of policy, not of a "straw argument" that calling a person "coke" is contentious, etc. Collect (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you assert, without citing specific policies, that the reverts are to enforce BLP, but it is very unclear whether BLP-compliant sourcing has in fact been violated. The sources seem impeccable to me, so you need to clarify exactly how the New Yorker, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, and other sources are not in fact acceptable. If they are, your reverts most certain do count towards the 3RR rule. Admins, your clarification on this matter would be much appreciated. Arjuna (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Truthsort, for linking to the policy statement on use of op-eds. It does seem reasonable to conclude that Rich should not be cited for these statements of fact that are the ones his piece was used for: "a conservative advocacy group that has close ties to the U.S. Tea Party movement that opposes much of U.S. President Barack Obama's policy and legislative agenda" and "The Koch brothers are major funders to the U.S. Tea Party movement". However, these are relatively trivial statements of fact that are backed by other (reliable) sources including the Wall Street Journal and New Yorker. Therefore, it would seem to make sense to delete the Rich reference but not the other sources, and then to cite additional material - differentiated as critique/opinion - from the Rich piece. This kind of solution would seem to meet BLP standards to a "t". Best, Arjuna (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And such tidbits as "underwriting a vast network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups" are facts for a BLP? Collect (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To repeat, cause sometimes people don't get it unless you do. Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author. I'm sure more reliable non-opinion sources could be found for some of these accusations. One or two from opinionated sources is enough generally speaking. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Coke?

Why all the fuzz about the Coke pronunciation. It has been there from 24 December 2008, long before the birth of the Tea Party movement. It was inserted there by 71.255.80.220 (talk · contribs) without any sourcing. Now that the article has come under scrutiny it is time to remove the vandalism. There is no reason to come to this this forum to complain about vandalism that happened two years ago. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the correct pronunciation for their name does appear to be "coke", like the soft drink. See YouTube video [[6]]. (Yes, I realize this is a partisan source, and no, it's not citable - I'm simply referencing it as evidence on how to pronounce their name, since I was uncertain myself.) It hardly matters how they pronounce it anyway, and finally I agree that the "coke" in the article should go - which it already has. Arjuna (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is another video that may be a bit less POV from the The Rachel Maddow Show. I must admit that the Greenpeace propagandists you linked to are real professionals. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't been following this pronunciation discussion so maybe I am missing the issue, but, in fact, there are plenty of sources for the "Coke" pronunciation. A few examples: Los Angeles Times, re Bill Koch (businessman): "Koch was probably in San Diego for a year before anyone knew whether his named was pronounced Cotch, Cock or Coke. For those who still don't know, it is Coke as in Koch is it."[7] Washington Post re David H. Koch: "To commemorate 100 years on the National Mall, the Museum of Natural History unveils its new David H. Koch (pronounced "coke") Hall of Human Origins."[8] Bloomberg BusinessWeek re Charles G. Koch: "Koch Industries, which Charles Koch (pronounced "coke") took over 38 years ago from his father, company founder Fred Koch, agreed . . . "[9] Associated Press (from 1998) re Fred C. Koch: "The Koch brothers' father, Fred C. Koch (pronounced "Coke") . . . " [10] I'm not really clear about why this should be contentious.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Arxiloxos, good question! It was always a non-issue, but someone decided to try to make it one. Arjuna (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Decided? Vandalism, no matter how old, does not become right. There is no cite for the pronunciation, and WP has a guideline about pronunciations which should be followed. WP:Pronunciation is clear. Collect (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss Arxiloxos' refs above? Rd232 ^talk 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Did that change the MOS on how pronounciations are presented? Collect (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Booker

Can the regulars here please advise on this edit [11] The ref`s used do not mention booker. I have removed it a few times and explained this on the talk page but certain editors keep putting it back in. I believe it is a case of [wp:or]] and is also undue as only one person seems to have actually mentioned booker in conjunction with this. Some advice would be appreciated, thanks mark nutley (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A brief note, as I explained on talk, we had a source that explicitly mentioned Christopher Booker by name, but Mark deleted it from the article, citing undue, before proceeding to argue that none of the remaining references mentioned Booker by name, therefore the whole lot needs to be removed to avoid original research. I'm happy to yield to editors with more experience if the following sources are found to be unsatisfactory. [12] [13] [14] [15] Wikispan (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If the other sources do not mention Booker and are being primarily used to provide a counterpoint or prove some other aspect to which Booker is related then it is OR. I can see no other reason to include sourcing that does not mention the primary subject. These other article seem to be using the opinion of another to counter Booker, yet they do not mention Booker. Arzel (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, George Monbiot's column in The Guardian, which is both mentioned and directly linked to by the NYT, identifies Booker as the author of the article which The Telegraph retracted. Is it OR to source The Guardian and/or the NYT then, for official comment, The Telegraph itself? Wikispan (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it looks like OR and a BLP violation. The edit that MN is referring to states that the article to which Booker made a false accusation was dated Jan 17th 2010. The very next sentence which is used to back up this statement (the appology) says that the article they are appologizing for was dated December 20th 2009 and does not mention Booker. The next reference also mentions back to the December 20th 2009 section. This is a clear synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The date was corrected by an uninvolved editor. How do things look now? Wikispan (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we get some more opinions on this please as this information has now been inserted into another BLP mark nutley (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Article for deletion

• Sky Tao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - brief explanation // Tommacao (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)self promotion, not notable in Hong Kong, created by skytao herself, extensive links to her own websites/projects.

Updating Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people

Which looks like it hasn’t been updated in a while, including to comply with this year’s changes to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_people#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates. Clarifications also needed. While most is cleanup, there are specific proposals to clarify cases where categories are using “Disclaimers” to try to get around the fact that inclusion of the category implies the person has a poor reputation. (For example see Category:Antisemitism and Category:Homophobia.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

articles naming people as pedofiles

Curley v. NAMBLA and NAMBLA articles are a real mess and my main effort has been to remove people named with bad sources. Now their remains a list of litigants from the case. Presumably some are alive and none have their own articles. The sourcing is to the court documents. Do we need the names? Do we need two articles? The case was dismissed and no one was ever charged. Cat clean (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right about the mess, particularly with the Curley article. One thing I would propose (although it may not entirely address the BLP issue) would be the deletion of that article altogether, since the topic appears better covered in the NAMBLA article and I can't see why a fork is needed. --FormerIP (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I know naaathing(my Stg Shhultz disclaimer), but yes, why is there a seperate article about a perticular court case, was it that notable? Merge it into the main article. Is there a "standard" (hate to ask) for how "court case" article are handled, forked off, ect? --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles on court cases which reach no resolution other than being dropped seem to be non-notable. We cover ones which are cited elsewhere (Marbury etc.), and are notable for that reason, but I would suggest AfD for this one. Collect (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the Curley v NAMBLA article would survive an AFD -- it received a ton of media attention at the time, including from national outlets. It was a highly controversial case involving a boy's murder, the ACLU, gay != pedophile activists, and other titillating elements. Search through Google's news archives and take your pick. It's probably better to either attempt a merge/redir, or just clean up the article. — e. ripley\^talk 16:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)‎

Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a dispute over whether to include material about a letter BOR sent to Barry Nolan's employer in reaction to Nolan "protesting" during some award diner, and Nolan's subsequent firing. The talk page has all the back and forth if interested. Is this incident notable enough for inclusion in BOR article or better suited for Nolan's bio? If to be included, how can it be worded to be NPOV and non OR/synthesis regarding the sacking. There also might be a RFC(wounldn't that be fun), but I thought I would post here too. Cheers, --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The other party has already stated his intent to call an RFC on the issue, and I don't think it's wise to try and scatter discussion across multiple pages. The talk page is a better venue than the BLP noticeboard, as there is no question of libelous content at this time. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The implication is/was the BOR threatening Nolan's employer, which in turn resulted in his getting fired. Maybe not libelous, but I am no lawyer. Anyways, I guess we can link to the RFC here? I just thought the more uninvovled editors, the better. --Threeafterthree (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

One may safely assume that the Columbia Journalism Review ran the piece past a lawyer, so as long as nothing is said that isn't in there, it's hardly an issue. Rd232 ^talk 11:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Marcel Diallo

This article has problems both with poorly sourced negative material and undue emphasis on controversy. Borock (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We may want to remove the fraud stuff. I don't know how reliable the East Bay Express is, but the normally reliable sfgate article has this disclaimer: "Editor's note: This is an SFGate.com In Oakland Blog. These blog posts are not written or edited by SFGate or the San Francisco Chronicle. The authors are solely responsible for the content." So, that one's no good. I'll remove the stuff that goes to it now. Anyone know about the East Bay Express? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it says it's been around since 1978 which doesn't necessarily convey quality but at least it's not fly-by-night. It appears to be a sort of alt-weekly. It's owned by the same parent company that owns the Village Voice, so I imagine we should give it the same treatment we give the VV. It probably has proper reporters and editors with commonly accepted editorial standards, but likely also a certain political tilt to its editorial pages. — e. ripley\^talk 17:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lori Douglas

It seems to me that the current version already is not in accordance with our guidelines, even after I removed some of the more salacious (and only partly verified) details. WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:WEARENOTATABLOID, besides WP:INNOCENTUNTILPROVENGUILTY come to mind. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, this is evidently news enuf for a world leader in reputable journalism (the CBC) and is not a matter of innocence (as the existence of the pictures is widely know and probably have been seem by countless tens of thousands on darkcarvern.com) and is not tabloid news, as it affects how the Canadian judiciary is seen (clear if you watch the news report and read the article.) This is not a trivial matter, and deserves coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.88.3 (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd appreciate editors familiar with our BLP policy to chime in. But thanks for your comment, dude. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a tricky case. In its current form the treatment of the affair seems OK to me (based on the CBC article), although it would be nice to have more information about her work. But I am not at all sure why the article exists in the first place: Why is she notable? Was she notable before these allegations came up? (The article already existed.)

An unrelated matter is the problem of copyright violations. The entire paragraph is mostly copy and paste from the CBC article. Hans Adler 11:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

See also: WP:ANI § BLP concern

• Please note I have trimmed this article to the essential facts required for a biography of a judge and semi-protected the article. I have also redacted a good number of the old revisions as they all contained material copied and paste from the CBC. –xeno^talk 12:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Please note I have twice reverted the insertion of the words 'sex scandal' into the BLP and fully protected it. As I have been involved in editing the article in light of the ongoing BLP concerns, I invite review of this action and give permission in advance for this action to be modified if anyone feels I have erred in judgment in this instance. –xeno^talk 17:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when did Wikipedia appoint xeno to be the censorship board of Wikipedia? The reason that I think that the wording should be "alleged sex scandal incident" is because when the censored article reads "alleged incident" it leads the reader to jump to the conclusion that the Judge has stepped down due to possibly illegal activities or judge misconduct or otherwise serious professional misconduct; incidents which would be much more serious and harmful than labeling the incident for what it is - an alleged sex scandal. This characterization is accurate and verifiable by many reliable sources including Financial Post, Winnipeg Sun, Ottawa Citizen, CBC Canada, and I could go on and on as this is a huge story in Canada. Verifiable information is what Wikipedia is all about, and in this case the censored content is more damaging by not stating what the "alleged incident" involved (being alleged nude pictures and alleged consensual sex - i.e. a "sex scandal"). Larkspurs (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to this at the ANI thread, no need to have the discussion in two different places. –xeno^talk 18:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that the ANI thread is closed. Has it been re-opened? Larkspurs (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's still open. –xeno^talk 18:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Neil Best

The article has recent vandalism that the family has complained about (via an email to WMUK). Please could someone take a look? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted revisions and pending changes. Should be OK now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ruth Deech, Baroness Deech

There is an ongoing effort here to insert information about a statement that Baroness Deech said on a radio program. My problems with it are as follows:

1. As inserted on the page, there are no sources testifying to this throwaway remark being notable. There are arguments on the talk page that it is notable, that it got a lot of media attention, but actual media attention seems slight to say the least. Nothing found in Google News. In fairness, one contributor did finally come up with one blog post at a Scottish newspaper referencing it.

2. The accounts seeking to insert this information are single-purpose or near-single purpose. Special:Contributions/Chickenlickentime and Special:Contributions/Cattwister

3. The Baroness' remark is being classified on the talk page as "racist". That's a monumental stretch not supported by any reliable sources (and patently false on the face of it, if you read the remarks - they are political and possibly wrong and stupid, but not about ethnicity in any way). Again in fairness, the information being inserted into the article does not claim (currently) that the remark was racist, but it does illustrate the POV-pushing nature of the attempt to insert it.

4. Even if the remark is notable, which I very much doubt, it is clearly WP:UNDUE - a quick search of google news shows that Baroness Deech is in the news regularly for all sorts of interesting things other than this remark.

5. This also smacks of WP:RECENTISM since the remark was only made 12-13 days ago (and nonetheless, doesn't appear in google news archives for the past month)!

Because I have already removed the information from the article multiple times, only to see it re-inserted, I'm going to back off for a couple of days and allow others here to take a look and advise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you have this about right, Jimbo. Unless greater notability can be shown then the incident shouldn't be mentioned in the article and, even then, not in so much detail. I also think that the characterisiations of the subject (a living person) as "racist" and "xenophobic" are not really fair on the basis of the material in question and the editors in question should consider refactoring their comments. --FormerIP (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the issue and the outcome, but notability of the remark itself is not an appropriate reason to remove it, per WP:NNC. That's not a big deal, because WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH are far more than sufficient justification in this case. Just wanted to set the record straight, less your statement be misused sometime later, Jimbo... Jclemens (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As an update, it looks like this is a related issue: Douglas_Murray_(author)#Scottish_Parliament_comments. Also there seems to be meat puppetry going on here: http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=530:fury-at-bbcs-anti-scottish-broadcast&catid=6:leisure&Itemid=9#comments= (Jclemens, I think "notability" in this context is suitable short hand for the explanation that "undue content also means we do not include stuff that is only marginally relevant to the BLP" :)) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, the Douglas Murray (author) article as a whole needs a lot of work. A perfect example of why quote farms of primary sources should be explicitly cautioned against. I've often thought this needs to be stated more clearly in one policy or another. And as an aside I've been trying to avoid using the word "notable" when talking about content issues because of the confusion that arises. Significant or important often work well instead. --Slp1 (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Douglas Murray (author) needs a look in this context; I hadn't noticed it. I came to this issue because I have a lot of peers on my watchlist.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Errant, that's how I took it, but I always assume that anything Jimbo says can be taken out of context by opportunists. :-) Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I will endeavor to be more careful with this bit of jargon. "Significant" or "important" are equally valid and don't run the risk of confusion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've made it through the Wikipedia maze and up the learning curve to this noticeboard... all points raised have been taken on board: I get it. I will try harder/better in future (and I've sent an email to "Jimbo" about it). I'm somewhat amused by the term "meat-puppetry" - but instantly understood it as soon as I saw it. I am curious, though, that if the Wikipedia page in question had been about the radio programme and not the living person (and I've no intention of creating one just for this purpose) then the direct quotes from the two panelists would have been more relevant/aceptable there? ("quote-farm" is another new term for me...)Cattwister (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeh sorry, Meat puppetry has become a bit derogatory for casual use like that... we need a new word :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really, why would we pick those two quotes that any other? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking about the undue weight argument: specifically, that the recording of this incident in her biography should be given weight and prominence relative to the importance of the (many) other things that she has done. With a skeleton biography such as this her comments on the show barely merit a footnote. A consequence of this is that by keeping a BLP skeletal the argument of undue weight can be trucked out to suppress any minor incidents as being distorting (which they would be). With a much larger biographical page it would me more appropriate to include the minor details and incidents... So my reasoning from there is... if there was a page about the "Any Questions" show, and perhaps even a page down to the specific episode, then the quotes mentioned would be (I contend) the most important thing that happened on that episode due to the amount of news coverage they received... given that the other topics on the show did not generate this level of chatter - Baroness Deech has responded to the criticism on the House of Lords' blog (I believe) but has not had to comment on anything else that she said during the episode. In which case those two quotes and the reaction to them would be appropriate material for a page at that sort of level... Yes, I'm stretching it but I'm just trying to get my head around this undue weight concept.Cattwister (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing things, Cattwister, and yes there is a learning curve here on WP. You are doing great.

In fact I don't think the fact that Deech's bio is short is truly part of the equation. If this was a significant episode in her life, it would be included. The incident may have caused chatter on the internet, but that's irrelevant to WP, which needs to see that an issue has actually been covered by mainstream sources, which simply hasn't happened here. All we have is an opinion column, which we cannot use for facts, but only, with great care, for the opinion of the author. So the most we could say is something like "Columnist Joan McAlpine complained about Deech's comments in an Any Questions show in August 2010, stating that they were xxxxxx." I'm sure you can see that the question then becomes whether McAlpine's opinion is significant enough for inclusion in a person's bio. Since to date no other reliable source has reported on the issue or indeed on McAlpine's comments, the answer clearly seems to be "no".

To answer your other question, a couple of things: BLP policy covers all articles, so content in an Any Questions episode page would also need to be BLP compliant. Such a page would only be created if the episode was notable, meaning that reliable, independent secondary sources had written about it in particular and in detail. Once again, one opinion column is unlikely to make the grade. If that hurdle was met, then the content would be determined by what was in the reliable sources found. WP doesn't want editors going through the episode itself and picking out what they view as the important parts. All in all, you can see that the same need for independent sources would be required wherever the material is included. I hope that helps--Slp1 (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Bodo Sperling

Bodo Sperling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm really not sure this guy is notable, the sources are weak and often self-published, I would request some more knowledgable editors come and take a look. // Bigger digger (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's borderline. I didn't see any obvious BLP issues, but you could take it to AfD if you want. I think it would be kept, but I'm not sure. It's hard to tell with foreign people. There may be tons of stuff in German, and there may not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried looking for, there are many references, mostly in German and French I think. Have a few English Links set, a German left-changed by an English link. I hope it was helpful, regards --94.230.214.229 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Describing living people with derogatory labels in edit summaries

A couple of editors (administrators at that), have taken to characterize an academic whose opinions they don't like as "part of the extremist lunatic fringe" or 'fanatic' in edit summaries describing their removal of his opinions from The Invention of the Jewish People - see the edit History of that article. (Said opinions have been published by mainstream, reliable sources, but that's not the point). Is this appropriate? HupHollandHup (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No not appropriate. I added this and user pages to intro to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Where_BLP_does_and_does_not_apply (where I would have assumed it was already) and we'll see if people agree. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. So what is to be done about this? A third editor has now joined the fray, with similar behavior. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Politely asking them to stop is a good first step. WP:WQA is probably the next one. Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that. Hopefully there will be no need to take this any further. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to me, I am not (and have no desire to be) an administrator. Which comment of mine is inappropriate? RolandR (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The one where you labeled a living person an 'extremist agitator'. HupHollandHup (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you mean my description of Steven Plaut, when I removed his description of Shlomo Sand, another living person, as a neo-Nazi antisemite recycling the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? I think my edit summary was extremely restrained. RolandR (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You may think that, but the consensus on this notice board is that your actions were inappropriate, and that you should stop. HupHollandHup (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A consensus of one? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Carol said "No not appropriate", Jclemens said to ask you to stop. That's two by my count.

@Jclemens - judging by the obstinate responses so far, i am not hopeful that politely asking these editors to stop violating BLP with derogatory comments in edit summary is going to prove a useful exercise. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the articles by Steven Plaut turned up by a Google search, it's hard to believe that any publication with aspirations to be a mainstream reliable source would, approvingly, publish any of his politically-oriented work. It's very difficult to see any reason why his opinions on anything apart from himself should be quoted in Wikipedia. See, for instance: a, b, c, d, e, f (and one from the [Wikipedia-blacklisted] Free Republic site, which can be reached by removing the asterisks in URL http://www.fr*ee*republic.com/focus/f-news/1841266/posts). I tried to find articles giving opinions on Plaut and came up with two by Richard Silverstein (an exreme leftist Jewish antisemite to Plaut-appreciators), one on Jewcy and one on his own blog. They aren't very complimentary.     ←   ZScarpia   00:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

None of this is relevant to the issue of wikipedia editors smearing Plaut in their edit summaries. 00:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HupHollandHup (talk • contribs) 00:47, 3 September 2010

You have had an answer: negative labels concerning living people are not appropriate anywhere. However, the history shows that some plain speaking was required to get some attention, and the initial edit summaries were a model of good wiki behavior. It is time to close this issue and move on. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Harriet Harman

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

User:Shakehandsman is adding this content to the Harriet Harmen BLP, imo it is undue, excessive and coatracked onto her when in reality it has little or nothing to do with her and asserts she was personal views and supports watering down child pornography laws, all of which is just false reflections resulting in a serious attack on a living person.. all cited to a partisan op ed from the telegraph. Asserting it is a controversy is nonsense, the claim is dated to 32 years ago and relates to a committee she sat on and should not be claimed to represent her personal views in anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Views on Child Pornography

In March 2009, Harriet Harman became involved in controversy while part of a Cabinet committee on young people’s welfare. The Daily Telegraph had revealed documents showing Harman's previous support for watering down Child Protection laws. In 1978 Harriet Harman, then a newly qualified solicitor, became legal officer for the National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty. When a Protection of Children Bill was being discussed by Parliament, Harman signed an official statement from the NCCP regarding the photographing of naked children, which suggested the following amendment to the Bill, We suggest that the term 'indecent’ be qualified as follows: – A photograph or film shall not for this purpose be considered indecent (a) by reason only that the model is in a state of undress (whether complete or partial); (b) unless it is proved or is to be inferred from the photograph or film that the making of the photograph or film might reasonably be expected to have caused the model physical harm or pronounced psychological or emotional disorder. The statement, signed by Harman clarifies: “Our amendment places the onus of proof on the prosecution to show that the child was actually harmed.” In response to the Daily Telegraph's report, Tim Loughton, the Shadow Minister for Children, said: “Clearly there is a serious conflict of interest with the committees she sits on, who might want urgently to clarify her position on the exploitation of children for the sexual gratification of adults..http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html

Yes, this is very much WP:UNDUE. It think it would be hard to make the case that this even warrants a mention in the bio of a Government minister. Is it reported anywhere other than in the Telegraph piece? --FormerIP (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Although the Telegraph has personalised this, surely in practice Harman was presenting the agreed view of NCCL which might or might not have been her own view. Even so, there could have been a conflict of interest. Thincat (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob isn't being 100% truthful here. Firstly I'm not the only person to have added this content, it has been added several times by different authors. Secondly, Rob originally insisted on bringing the discussion here to seek consensus rather than discussing the matter in the talk section, luckily others correctly continued the discussion and the consensus is to keep the content and I was simply enforcing this. Also there are a number of inaccuracies in Rob's text above. Harman wasn't sitting on some random committee - her work at the NCCL was her main job for a number of years and she was a very senior member of staff there. Finally the Telegraph piece is very well written and to dismiss something because of it occurring 32 years ago would count as recentism, something we all need to try to avoid.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am always honest but sometimes I don't add all the information, I personally thought it was a sock or a meat of yours that added the content and you stepped in to re add it when it was removed. You have a history of adding attack content to the BLP articles of female labour politicians and this is not the firsrt time that your contributions have been brought here.Off2riorob (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a second here. Firstly you're suggesting I'd engage in sockpuppetry and now you've left me a very unpleasant message on my talk page. This really isn't on. I've actually got a history of uncovering sockpuppets and I really don't appreciate any suggestion that I'd do such a thing. I've engaged in discussion on all the material and everyone came to a consensus. I'm the one who told people they had to remove material about Dromey whereas Rob has been going round stating that the material is somehow defamatory and untrue and telling people not to use the talk page.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks WP:UNDUE to me as well for the reasons stated above. The whole article needs looking at to be honest. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely WP:UNDUE -- a legal opinion written for her employer should not be taken as her personal opinion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree it might not be a personal view, however to suggest the material doesn't belong on Wikipedia is ludicrous. At the very least such content belongs in the NCCL article (they're now branded Liberty I believe). Placing it there would enable a more in depth look at the issue.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You can attempt to add it at some other location but please remember BLP applies everywhere on wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless anyone can provide sources to show that this really is a significant controversy, it looks blatantly inappropriate and should be removed immediately. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not investigated this case, but from the above, we read "The Daily Telegraph had revealed documents showing Harman's previous support for watering down Child Protection laws." and that is definitely undue and redflag material. The wording is exactly what I would expect from a partisan source and has no place in a BLP. We should not report every claim alleged against a prominent person. Wait until an independent source has provided an analysis that demonstrates something. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me a similar situation in different page where someone was inserting whatever "revelations" would appear in blogs or even newspapers about the person they wanted to defame. This source does not look objective to me, and should not be included in BLP. Spt51 (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Robert M. Carter

Are these sources ok for use in this blp? this appears to me to be an op-ed and this i`m unsure of maybe an op-ed It is in the sydney morning herald which is usally an Rs, it is the first link i am more concerned about mark nutley (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The first is certainly an opinion piece, apparently first published as part of something called the "Griffin Review." It could possibly be used as a source for his own opinion, depending on whether people find him to be a notable expert and of course subject to the rest of our policies. Here is his bio at the Griffin Review [16]. The second one looks like a straight news story, I'm not sure why you would interpret that as an opinion piece. — e. ripley\^talk 18:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to show more than the first piece is clearly written as a "personal view" of the author, hence is usable to show what the author's opinions are, but not to be cited as "facts." Collect (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok guys thanks, for now i have attributed the first to the article author, he appears to be a notable person. I asked about the second just to be on the safe side :) mark nutley (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Katarina Marinič

A Yahoo Group message posting is being used as a citation for the death of Katarina Marinič, with people claiming that it counts as a RS because it is run by a well-known gerontologist. Regardless, I do not feel that it meets the criteria under WP:BLP, but I cannot keep my eye out on the page until much later tonight. If someone else could, it would be much appreciated, as supercentenarian articles have a long history of edit warning over the reliability of that source. Canadian Paul 13:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be several reliable sources now reporting her death, one being cited in the article. -Atmoz (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye out! Canadian Paul 02:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Chattanooga TN Mayor's Ron Littlefield Being recalled

Resolved

Hello, I am trying to make sure no WP:UNDUE weight or BLP violation are currently at Ron Littlefield I have done my best to balance it out. Since a Single purpose account has been blanking I thought I check here for an outside opinion to make sure it conformsWeaponbb7 (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP issues. It's reliably sourced that the mayor was subject to recall. I think a little more background on the conditions of the recall migh be useful to the reader. -Atmoz (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool thats what I thought too but i always like having a Third opinion. Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul Staines

If a disinterested editor with some experience of BLP issues and policy would like to take a look at the Paul Staines article, where there is a small dispute about how to refer to claims made about the politician William Hague, I'm sure your input would be very helpful.Hobson (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Crist

Do allegations that a person is homosexual belong in a BLP where the subject denies the allegations? [17] regards the section at issue. Collect (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sexual orientation allegations

In April 2009, Crist was one of the subjects of Kirby Dick's documentary film Outrage, a Tribeca Film Festival feature about politicians who the film claims are "closeted" homosexuals and who vote against gay rights. The film featured interviews with multiple men who claimed to have had sexual relations with Crist. One of the men in the film was Jason Wetherington, a Republican party staffer, who, three years earlier, was described to Bob Norman, a reporter at the New Times Broward-Palm Beach, as a man who had boasted of having sex with Crist, and who had named Bruce Carlton Jordan as Crist's longtime sex partner. Norman independently contacted Wetherington and Crist, who both denied the allegations. Of Jordan, Crist said, "I don't know who you are speaking about." However, Jordan's father told Norman that the two men were friends, "but I don't think he's seen Charlie in a while."

• - http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2006-10-19/news/crist-denies-trysts

The film and the newspaper article led to media debates about Crist's sexual orientation, about a politician's right to privacy and the political ramifications of the allegations.

• - http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/04/24/outrage/index.html
• - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/outrage-documentary-activ_n_192476.html
• - http://thehill.com/capital-living/24173-as-outrage-documentary-debuts-outing-is-deflating
• -http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cause8-2009may08,0,6665296.story
• - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103832005
• - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/movies/08outr.html

comments

Generally, no, but when the debate is sourced to the NYT and NPR, it's hard to assert it isn't covered in reliable sources. I'd be in favor of trimming the section by 1/3-1/2, since there's some COATRACKing re: the film going on in there. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, trimming of the add ons. Opps, the lots gone. edit summary propogation of rumors/allegations, regardless of citations, is WP:BLP violation . Where is that referenced from? Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see the relevant part of BLP quoted in support of Arjuna909's removal of the whole section. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be used, Avoid gossip - Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject - It really is nothing more that cited gossip is it? There is as Jclemens says in such cases where the story is well cited and well known, keeping it out is close to censorship and troublesome as it is well known and widely reported it will likely be repeatedly reinserted. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This material really seems like a clear-cut case of BLP violation. Yes, the story is out there, but so is the story that Obama is a Muslim or what have you - that doesn't make it any more compliant with guidlines, and so no amount of sourcing will make it so. My sense is that there are only two possible ways to handle this: 1. would be a separate article on "Rumors surrounding Crist" (akin to Barack Obama conspiracy theories), but that possible solution runs afoul of lots of other glitches and I don't recommend that at all either; 2. would be to mention that there have been X rumors, but that there is no hard evidence to support the allegations, and leave it at that. The rumor may or may not be true, but it is not for Wikipedia to propagate such allegations. Arjuna (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It does look a bit hollow so to speak, a man claims he slept with him and there was a documentary, there is not meat to it apart from the allegation, no comment from him, no actually story worthy of any or much reporting, seems less report worthy in that way than the similar story but imo with more meat on the bones regarding William Hague. There were allegations and press reports and his advisor resigned and the living subject made a big statement, where are the BLP differences, seems like an editorial judgment call. Off2riorob (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "Avoid gossip": the film Outrage presents the allegations as truth—it most certainly does not hedge bets or pull punches by using weasel words. Everything in the movie is portrayed as fact. Some men in the film each say Crist had sex with themselves. The film is not a tabloid shocker with weak or non-existent arguments, it is a documentary. Similarly, the earlier Bob Norman piece in the Palm Beach paper is not a gossip item. Norman takes his sources at their word but then follows up with his own investigation to make sure. Norman talked to Jason Wetherington at his parked car (where Wetherington confirmed his own homosexuality) and he talked to Crist over the phone. He spoke with Bruce Carlton Jordan's father about the friendship between Crist and Jordan. He did his own field work before writing the story. This isn't the sort of flashy gossip column item where somebody writes "In flagrante homo: a state governor whose name rhymes with..." etc. All of the material in the allegations section was put there because it "is reliable ... is being presented as true ... [and] is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I also note that all of the other men mentioned in the documentary there is a mention albeit smaller mentions of the issue at their articles. Off2riorob (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

From this last comment of yours it seems your take on this section has moved more to the side of article inclusion rather than BLP violation and removal. I believe I have adequately rebutted the "avoid gossip" part of BLP, and with no other BLP concerns cited specifically from the guideline at WP:BLP, I am restoring the "Allegations" section to the Crist article. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it, until consensus is agreed and discussion is over it is better kept out, personally I am for trimming as a minimum. I see the second comment as clear coatracking .. The film and the newspaper article led to media debates about Crist's sexual orientation, about a politician's right to privacy and the political ramifications of the allegations... This is not actually about the subject but more abot tangential issues, this and its half a dozen citations imo do not belong and should be eliminated from the discussion. The gossip about his father is also of no value and can go.Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Leaving just this simple comment .. In April 2009, Crist was one of the subjects of Kirby Dick's documentary film Outrage, a Tribeca Film Festival feature about politicians who the film claims are "closeted" homosexuals and who vote against gay rights. Crist denied the allegations.http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2006-10-19/news/crist-denies-trysts.. we could add another cite to accompany it, this is the only other citation there that actually has any content about Crist, so ...http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2009/04/24/outrage/index.html .. That Palm Beach news cite from 2006, owned by the village voice, I am in the uk but those village voice and the miami new times seem a bit fringe activist to me. Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not enough. Your ultra-brief version has Crist denying allegations that are not stated. It fails to use the documentary film as a source for several men coming forward to say on camera that Crest had sex with them. It fails to discuss the 2006 Bob Norman piece and the answers Norman elicited. The only weak part of the section was the concluding sentence: "The film and the newspaper article led to media debates about Crist's sexual orientation, about a politician's right to privacy and the political ramifications of the allegations." That last sentence is a synthesis of sources, not a direct statement. It seemed to serve as the bucket into which a handful of similar sources were dumped.

The reason that the article has Crist saying "I don't know who you are speaking about" followed by Jordan's father saying Jordan and Crist had been friends is that, based on that and other factors, Norman is certain he caught Crist in a bald lie. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Salon source, Alex Koppelman, says this about Crist in the media:

"The person most reviewers have been focusing on is Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who was recently married—his engagement was announced right around the time when speculation was mounting that he could be chosen as John McCain's running mate. He was actually first outed back in 2006, by Bob Norman, a reporter for the New Times Broward-Palm Beach, who was also the first reporter to the story of former Rep. Mark Foley's sexuality, in 2003."

Koppelman gives credence to Norman's account and names Crist as having the most focus in film reviews. If our coverage of this allegation is not comparatively full and complete, we have failed to give it the proper weight. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The addition I am proposing is plenty. A simple uninvolved comment, if you have a desired addition please present it and we can consider the options. I don't get much of your comments here about these other people, but none of it adds weight to the story. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have not followed the names in the piece, how can you judge the weight they may or may not add? What I propose is the full first paragraph without the skimpy second paragraph made of synthesis. From the top of this noticeboard section, that is. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Its bla di bla, none of the extra content is of any actual value and actually distracts from the simple clear statement. IMO the stuff your attempting to include that amounts to, john harry and frank said they had sex with him is a violation and undue claims, it is more than enough to link to the documentary, we are not gay outing activists, its unproven and we are not going to list all the people that said they had sex with him and got paid to say that. I hadn't realized it was you that expanded the content only very recently, I had thought it was older, anyways, as it is recently added and disputed I can only suggest you understand that people are not happy with the expansion and accept the concise version. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Far be it from me to make people unhappy </sarcasm>. I thought we were writing a biographical entry in an encyclopedia covering all the major facts. This is a major fact, and Crist was the major focus not of the documentary but of the reviewers of the documentary, showing just how much Crist's homosexual liaisons have stirred up the media. It's notable, alright. Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added the concise version, imo it is plenty and people can follow the links for any further detail. If there are any objections to the addition please feel free to remove and continue discussion.Off2riorob (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your "concise version" is wrong in that it has Crist denying some allegation which is undefined. Has Crist made a statement denying the film's depiction of him since the film's release? If so, please show the reference. If we say that Crist is denying an allegation, we must say what that allegation is. What we have very solidly is Crist denying Bob Norman's question about "sex with a man" in 2006. We also have Crist shown in the 2009 film denying various things presented to him. Whatever it is that we say is being denied must first be defined. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Its not such a big deal as you assert, Crist denies the allegations all of them basically as content in the article that he is a closeted homosexual that votes against gays, simple, indisputable. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section as it does not belong in a BLP, it is idle speculation and gossip mark nutley (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Brief comment from someone watching the article since the WikiProject LGBT studies tag went on it a year ago. The allegations, or discussion of them, are well sourced enough that inclusion should not be controversial. I absolutely do not agree with the suggestion that the mention be shuffled off to a "controversy about XXXX" as those articles tend to be cruft magnets at best. At worst they provide a venue for more BLP/NPOV problems or are simply ghettoes for negative criticism. Crist specifically is the subject of speculation because a number of sources assert that republican support for him in 2008 was held back due to the possibility that he was a closeted homosexual. As for presentation, I think this merits at most 2 paragraphs and a sentence or clause in the lede. Protonk (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I dread your presentation of such excessive unconfirmed claims, you want two paragraphs and a comment in the lede about the opinionated rumors that he might be homosexual. To be honest , your comment is against all I have worked towards here and as an Administrator I am appalled by your comment, you should hand in any claimed authority you assert you might have because you have lost any that you dreamt you might have in my opinion.Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I reiterate my strong opinion that this material is wholly inappropriate. Salacious but unproven allegations about something that is obviously as sensitive (to some people) as this should be handled especially carefully in a BLP article. Wikipedia should not be a party to the "outing" movement. I appreciate offtoriorob's effort to construct some watered-down version that is marginally more acceptable, but I'm not sure that's not like being "a little bit pregnant" (to use a double negative). When it comes to allegations about someone's personal life (and not simply their policy positions or public behavior) BLPs require a higher threshold than just "notability" and "reliably sourced". Arjuna (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

One, I said "at most" two paragraphs. And two, describing the sourcing as limited to lurid allegations is inaccurate. If this was just the producers of Outrage making their statement, I would be among the first to assert that we should not devote space to the comments. But they are among those asserting claims about Crist's orientation and the nature of the discussion has moved beyond allegation and denial. As for the admin comments. Eh. I haven't used the bit in this discussion, I'm just speaking as a regular editor. Whatever feelings you imagine a hypothetical admin might have on the subject are pretty irrelevant to me. Protonk (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Suit yourself, your position is against all the BLP work I have ever done at wikipedia and I reject your position completely. What you are on about is also a mystery to me, lurid and whatever is nonsense. As an Administrator you never speak as a simple regular editor, if you want to do that then resign the claimed authority, and thanks for that. Your desire for two paragraphs and a mention in the lede is against all guidelines we have here regarding living people and for an Administrator to desire and support that is awful.Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Protonk's notional two paragraphs would include new material about how allegations of homosexuality lost Crist the confidence of the Republican party resulting in him changing to Independent, which is why the material would take up more space than that being discussed at this time.

To Off2riorob, I don't believe the exact WP:BLP quote has yet been found, one pertaining to your complaint about the section. I believe that the argument about gossip has collapsed against the breadth of sources, and I have yet to see another BLP guideline brought forward to challenge the text. Determining how BLP affects the section is why we are here discussing the topic, so let's lay the BLP cites on the table. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I find Blinkster's assertion that the gossip argument has "collapsed" to be laughable. A film made by the "outing" community is gossip; until there is dispositive evidence in a RS, this is all mere allegation about someone's private life. Full stop. Arjuna (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My copy of Webster's says that gossip is "rumor or report of an intimate nature." If we select just the "report" part, then yes, this is all gossip. We would normally "avoid gossip" as per BLP concerns but we would include it when the intimate information has become public, and the person involved is a public figure. Once the reports get as large as several national newspapers and a documentary film, they are past the point where we would "avoid" them—they are already out in the world, and we have a responsibility to report notable factors in the public figure's life. Every other politician target of the film Outrage has that fact mentioned in his Wikipedia article, and Crist was seen to be the main focus of reviewers of the film. We are wa-a-ay beyond trying to avoid gossip, it is hitting us in the face. We report it as responsibly as we can. Anything else is hiding the head in the sand. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just leaving a general comment not suggesting a specific set of claims in the article. For a long biography of 80-100k in readable text, an upper limit of two paragraphs covers a sma ll to medium size issue in the life of a person. Up to two paragraphs can also mean one paragraph or one sentence. The exact outcome will depend heavily on normal editing, UNDUE, and BLP. If the allegations are mentioned sufficient space must be given to qualify and contextualize them for a reader, hence the rather generous upper limit. Protonk (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Another source by Bob Norman, following his 2006 outing of Crist: "Crist Denies Trysts II". In this followup article one week later, Norman describes a videotaped sworn testimony made by Dee Dee Hall in which she said that Bruce Carlton Jordan told her at a party he was in a sexual relationship with Crist. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not been able to locate any reliable sources connecting the dots from allegations of gay sex to a loss of confidence within the Republican Party, leading to Crist taking a non-party-affiliated path in 2010. There are only blog posts by non-notables. I don't think Protonk's notional expansion of the allegations is going to happen. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times I have to say that my comment at the top wasn't some framework for specific line-by-line changes to the article. Protonk (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thought experiment

Let us imagine that Kirby Dick made a film called Lol Cheezburger which focused on cat owning politicians who had supported laws restricting cat ownership. Let us further suppose that one of his subjects was a Republican politician named Barley Brist and such a mention generated comments from NPR, the NYT and the LA Times. Would it violate BLP to include mention of Brist's cat ownership in our biographical article on him, provided such a mention was given due weight, cited to impeccable sources and did not defame the subject? Protonk (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

To say that I find that completely unconvincing is a massive understatement. Even to attempt to elucidate the stunningly obvious reasons why this analogy is spurious would be to inflict a grevious insult to editors' intelligence. Fail. Arjuna (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the part where you start "Would it violate" is some logical fallacy. No opinion on anything else. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously an elected republican passing as straight or actually straight would feel accusations of homosexuality were damaging to their image and life. But we need to separate that concern from the panic which normally accompanies issues like this. Is that specific concern enough to justify excluding this information. Note I'm not equating the two nor arguing that an editor who agrees that our hypothetical Brist should be outed as a cat owner would have to accept some claim about Crist's homosexuality. Just introducing the thought in order to disambiguate the two "BLP issues" into a serious, real issue and a fake issue born of our cultures attitude toward homosexuality. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No analogy on the internet escapes the analogy police. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Brist would never own a cat; he clearly is a dog owner, as can plainly be seen in the many articles about him and his new dog. LOL. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody cares if a politician has cats or dogs - they do care if he's gay, has been rumored to be gay for many years and discussions of his non-straightness have been made into a movie and discussed in national press. If the cat lobby can whip up hysteria over declawing laws then you might have a point. Instead we have the Republican party which has used gays (and abortion, immigration, guns et al) as a wedge issue for over fifty years with much success. Gays remain a hot topic of political battle to this day. Gay republicans are seen as hypocritical and many have lost their career when they have been outed in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.11.99 (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

They could join the Log Cabin... Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at Recep_Tayyip_Erdoğan

I am not involved in this and don't know the background, but could somebody please review Talk:Recep_Tayyip_Erdoğan#Erdogan_states_that_men_and_women_are_not_equal and the edits being made to the article to see if the removal of the quote is proper? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In turkish so translated is being used to support .. Erdoğan stated that he does not believe in gender equality. He was cited in the media as saying that "it is impossible for men and women to be equal." Instead, he believes that "men and women complement each other."

Hello, I'm the person who included the contested passage. You can check the meaning of individual Turkish words to better understand the translation, since the Google translation produces "Turglish." Some pointers: kadın = woman, erkek = man, eşit = equal, eşitlik = equality, cinsiyet = gender, mümkün = possible, olmak = to be, bunlar = these, birbirinin = each other, tamamlamak = to complete/complement. In addition to this statement of Erdogan's, I have included two more references which 1) cites one of Erdogan's earlier statements regarding how each family should have at least three children, which I may also explain word by word, 2) relates the controversy that followed this earlier statement. I am positively confident that I did not add any original research or personal views. All three references, which are from mainstream and reliable Turkish newspapers, are NPOV. In my opinion, deleting Erdogan's self-professed statements from his Wiki page constitutes a very strong violation of NPOV policy, and freedom of speech in general. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The adding of the two comments together appeared to make a false connention imo, he said that in order that the turkish population does not decrease women would need to have three children. Also comments in article titles are not reliable citations. We need to be extremely careful not to cherry pick comments and assert he holds a masochistic position and is down on womens freedom. Off2riorob (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check again, I actually doubt you've read all three articles. Erdoğan is criticised for his remarks regarding "three children" policy (second reference) in the third reference. Erdoğan cited declining population concerns, but the chief of Association of Demographics has dismissed his claims, while feminists have claimed that Erdoğan's statements violated fertility rights. If George Bush had made a statement regarding how abortion was evil because population rates in the USA were declining, he would have sparked controversy (as Erdoğan did) and attracted criticism (as Erdoğan did) and this controversy would, naturally, be reflected on his page as well. I did not cite the titles alone, I provided a word by word translation above. Anyway, I've included more references and updated the passage. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is with the gender equality edit. I found one English source reporting on it. It is the Huffington Post which is liberal. The author of the piece quotes what he said in English, much of which you did not include. You cherry-picked. The piece also reports that "there was no serious condemnation or protest by Turkish female politicians or activists" over the statement. I am removing the gender equality statement from the article, for the fifth time. Also, you have placed all of this information under the "justice" subsection where it doesn't really belong. --NortyNort (Holla) 01:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You're obfuscating the matter. So far I have several neutral mainstream references, NTVMSNBC and HaberTurk being especially equidistant to all ideological viewpoints. I am afraid you are merely looking for excuses to remove the passage for some reason and not being fair in terms of Wiki policy. Also, how did I cherry-pick? I've said that Tayyip Erdoğan "doesn't believe in gender equality and believes that men and women complement each other instead." This is exactly what Elcin Poyrazlar is saying. If what troubles you is the "I call it rather, opportunity equality" part you are welcome to add it to his Wiki page, but you still cannot delete the passage in question, as I've included several references for every single statement I've included on that page. Note: if you think the Justice section is not appropriate, you are welcome to create a new "Views on Gender Equality" section if you wish. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, check the last version. I did some changes. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To transclude part of my comment at ANI: At this point, I am not reverting your edit anymore, although I believe that it violates WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. I believe this is getting out of hand and will leave this issue to further consensus. --NortyNort (Holla) 04:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: this issue is also being discussed at ANI--NortyNort (Holla) 01:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Robert Schimmel

Resolved

 – reliable citation for expiration was added Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone can keep an eye on this article - there are rumors abound that may merit it. Thanks! Clamshell Deathtrap (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This was added to deaths in 2010, I removed it as there is no hurry and it still looks to be only a SFgate blog post referencing a facebook page, but the case is mounting... The BLP is currently fully protected in wait for a presentable reliable statement.Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Robert Schimmel, 60, American comedian. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=71633

http://blog.zap2it.com/thedishrag/2010/09/robert-schimmel-dies-following-car-accident.html

Gap Adventures

Not sure exactly where to raise this, but Gap Adventures are a currently trading company. As with the BLP, one would assume that negative info about a corporation would need to be well-sourced to WP:RS, and presented in a neutral way.

An IP editor is inserting negative, POV-laden info to the article, see here, here and here. Although I raised the issue at Talk:Gap Adventures#Overpricing and the IP has posted some sources, I don't see anything which supports the assertation that Gap Adventures overprice their holidays. I don't want to get into an edit war, so would appreciate a fresh set of eyes here. In anyone knows of a better place to post this, please copy/move the discussion there. Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree entirely However the IPs make a good point that it is pretty spammy. Can We see about stubifying it?Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when does WP:BLP apply to corporations? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It explicitly doesn't, though of course BLP can apply to any people mentioned inside of a corporation's article. — e. ripley\^talk 03:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, if you look at any of their trips that can be reasonably found from alternate sources online, you will find a 100% markup or more. A person looking to buy a trip from them will based on the article from wikipedia get the impression that this is a great company offering great deals. The article reads like a corporate flyer, and is extremely pro-GAP. Naturally, comparing their prices to actual prices on other sites has an element of OR, albeit, it has been difficult to find significant third party sources. Offcourse they need to cover their marketing and distribution expenses, as well as trying to generate a decent profit, but that does not make their trips either budget or affordable. As it stands today the article is extremely POV, and does not represent reality in any encyclopedic kind of way. Additionally, these kinds of articles undermine the credibility of corporate wikipedia entries as a whole, because they often tend to be pro-company-biased. Furthermore, the amount of effort required to balance them, disenchants would be contributors from putting in the work. Finally I did not log-in to make these edits as I would prefer not to involve my name in the discussion, precisely because of the above mentioned negative focus. --84.208.113.245 (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Heffernan

Columnist Virginia Heffernan recommended a number of blogs including Watts Up With That?, a blog by a climate change denier/skeptic. Later she wrote and confirmed via WP:TWITTER that she regretted the recommendation. How to handle this is being discussed at Talk:Watts Up With That?#Virginia Heffernan. More input would be appreciated. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that ScienceApologist is himself violating WP:BLP by adding unsourced contentious material about a living person.[18] ScienceApologist: Can you please show us this Tweet that you claim supports your unsourced addition? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well its appeared on the Watts website [[19]], so she appears to have indeed written this Watts himself does not dispute she wrote it and its been repeated by him so no BLP violation. However if we include her endorsements with out the subsequent caveat we are ion fact creating a BLP violation we are implicitly saying this endorsees the page without restriction (which is not the case) and that it might be seen that she endorses the views expressed on the blog (not the case). But if we include the caveat its been suggested that it violates BLP (because it a blog talking about some one not the subject of the blog (actually she it talking about her endorsement of a website but Sellavee). Given that there may be a BLP violation whatever we do it might be best to leave out her endorsement, especially as she is A TV pundit and not a science writer (thus why is her endorsement even notable).Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC).

Ephren Taylor

I never heard of this guy before, so I have no dog in this hunt. An IP user came in and made a massive edit making accusations of criminality and fraud, with no sources, so I reverted back. Then I looked at the old version, and it's almost completely unsourced, too, and not only that, it appears to have been a copyright violation for more than two years. I have reverted back to the version prior to the insertion of the copyvio, which is in itself unsourced. This article needs a lot of work and sourcing. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it and will see if I can help. — e. ripley\^talk 04:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck's Mormonism

The Restoring Honor rally article has a section called Restoring_Honor_rally#Theological concern about Beck's Mormonism. Several folks have commented on Talk that this section violates the letter or spirit of Wiki's BLP policy. Any input or comments?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger Scruton

Certain editors are trying to include an article from the Guardian [20] which reads like an attack piece and contains numerous examples of thoroughly unpleasant, and potentially libellous material. In addition, the source which the article hinges on is a leaked e-mail, the use of which the subject himself most strongly objects to in the same article—"The whole thing is quite immoral - the stealing of private correspondence and making it public," protested Prof Scruton. I think that this reference should not be included because it is obviously contentious and potentially defamatory. Jprw (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been coverage of this particular controversy (and a reference to the Guardian story) in the article in question since October 2004. What has changed is that User:Jprw recently sought to delete all reference to the controversy. The essence of the story is that the Guardian revealed, through the use of a leaked email whose authenticity is not in question, that the subject of the article, a noted moral philosopher and public commentator, was in receipt of a monthly subvention from the tobacco industry, which he was seeking at the time to increase, in return for his help in placing comment pieces on issues of interest to the tobacco industry (some by himself) in leading newspapers. The philosopher's response (duly reported in the text recently deleted) was to deplore the leaking of his email and to assert that his links to the tobacco were in the public record. The story attracted significant interest and as (carefully) written up for Wikipedia seems to me to be relevant, balanced, and appropriately sourced. Was the original story "defamatory"? Well, even in the UK's notoriously plaintiff-friendly legal setting, the subject never sued..... Nandt1 (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The section seems OK, though a "controversies" section isn't much better than a "criticism" section, which is deprecated; integrating into the rest of the article somehow would be better. However the "No mob veto" paragraph is solely sourced to their website, so I would delete that unless there's more sourcing to show it's worth mentioning. PS whatever the immorality of the Guardian using a leaked email, it's surely exceeded by the immorality of what Scruton doesn't deny doing; and at least the former has a public interest defence. Rd232 ^talk 13:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a second view from an administrator? This material really seems to be problematic to say the least and is also creating a problem in terms of WP:WEIGHT, and I have to take issue with Nandt1's assertion that "The story attracted significant interest and as (carefully) written up for Wikipedia seems to me to be relevant, balanced, and appropriately sourced". It is none of these things. Jprw (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not clear how many administrators have to rule on this matter before Jprw will accept that the discussion of this matter (which has stood on Wikipedia for nearly six years) is a legitimate one. Two? Three? More? WP:WEIGHT is raised but seems a red herring in that we provided a shortened text, with no separate headline of its own, but any reference at all to the controversy gets deleted by Jprw (as has just happened yet again). Nandt1 (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This story was very widely discussed at the time. See the coverage in the Independent[21], the British Medical Journal[22], the New York Times[23], the New Statesman[24] and many more. The issue was also noted by the World Health Organisation[25], by Action on Smoking and Health[26], and many more professional and lobbying orgnisations. This is a very significant incident in Scruton's life, and the coverage is certainly not undue. RolandR (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Judging by that, the coverage is substantially understated - which may be part of the problem. If the issue had been decorated with more prominent sources (without necessarily being all that much longer, but perhaps a little), its significance would have been clearer and perhaps not challenged, or at least not removed wholesale. Rd232 ^talk 20:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A second reviewer... Nandt1 (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In view of the numerous further high-profile sources cited by RolandR above I accept that it is significant enough to be mentioned. What I would ask for is that the incident be sourced to one of RolandR's sources and not the Guardian article which felt uncomfortably close to being an attack piece. I hope that can be a sensible compromise. Cheers, Jprw (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff

Could use a broader range of input on this rfc. It's an attempt to put Cat:Antisemitism on a BLP on the basis of one or two sources, & a failed court-case accusing the subject of producing antisemitic cartoons. Note to the I/P allergic: the underlying argument is about criticism of Israel/antisemitism. Misarxist (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Pat Robertson

I have been looking over this articles sources and have so far removed a lot of blog and self published stuff, this one however i am unsure of, [27] it is sourced to rawstory.com which looks a lot like the drudge report, any thoughts on this as a source in a blp? mark nutley (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

According to [28], Rawstory has editorial review, which means it meets WP:RS. The RSN discussions on the Raw Story found it to be reliable. We also have Media Matters (which is just as citable as Fox News) to cite. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The question is, is it a reliable enough source for statements of fact on a BLP, media matters most certainly is not mark nutley (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It has not a lot of usage usage is limited It is linked to less than 50 BLP articles only, clearly requires care and consideration in BLP articles and could be considered a bit tabloid-esqe. Personally I would not add it and never for anything contentious or controversial. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Raw Story - Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not that hard to find the quote elsewhere: CNN, minus quite such a neat "I concur" quote from Robertson (CNN says "seemed to agree"). Note same topic also is in Jerry Falwell. Rd232 ^talk 22:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Chester Carlson

Chester Carlson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Biographical article about Chester Carlton, a dead person. At controversy is the sourcing for the the first sentence currently under the "Legacy" heading. The sentence summarizes a letter Dorris [Carlson, Chester's wife, also deceased] wrote to the Zen Studies Center; it is available online as part of the Shimano Archive (http://www.shimanoarchive.com).

Editor Spt51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) believes this is not allowable under BLP because (a) Shimano is alive and (b) the site in question was previously rejected as a source for the Eido Tai Shimano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article (ref. one, two). Spt51 claims that, once a source is rejected once on BLPN, it cannot be used anywhere (his emphasis) in Wikipedia.

I contend that, for this purpose, the source is reliable. The linked PDF reproduces a letter written by Dorris Carlson. It is stamped as being part of the archives of the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa. I think that this gives the letter the status of having been "vetted by the scholarly community" and is therefore acceptable per WP:RS. It is cited in support of a sentence that does not make contentious claims about Shimano; rather, it is a statement of Dorris Carlson's frame of mind, as stated in her own words in a letter that was sent to multiple recipients and archived by a major university. While I would of course prefer to cite a "better" source, this is the only copy of this particular document that is readily available on the Internet. There is no contention that shimanoarchive has, or would, alter the PDF to present their own agenda; there is no commentary by shimanoarchive in the PDF—it is a straightforward, simple reproduction of Dorris's letter.

Because of Chester Carlson's deep involvement with Zen and Shimano in particular, I believe that Dorris's statement that the Carlson name was not to be used by the Zen Studies Center is historically important.

Spt51 did not delete the line in question, but deleted shimanoarchive as an external link, and deleted another set of statements that Carlson (deceased) and his wife (deceased) had a role in founding the Rochester Zen Center (not a natural person) with Philip Kaplan (deceased)—on the grounds that it violated WP:BLP because of the shimanoarchives source. It was first deleted without any log entry or comment on the talk page, subsequently restored by myself, then re-deleted with the above explanation. I have since restored those particular statements using multiple alternative sources. However, the manner in which Spt51 deleted these statements and the rationale seem questionable to me, so I am seeking further opinion.

I would like to know if it is true that shimanoarchive.com has been ruled verboten for all uses on Wikipedia by this noticeboard, and if not, if this usage is appropriate—or, for that matter, if it's even subject to WP:BLP. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I should say before beginning that Spt51 has brought this issue to my attention on my talkpage. I have had considerable involvement in various aspects of Eido Tai Shimano issues in the last few months.

Secondly, thank you Macwhiz for bringing this discussion here. It was a good decision and the question is an interesting one.

For other editors, issues related to Shimano have been discussed here here, here here and here as well as the talkpage. The short version is that Shimano had been strongly critiqued by various Buddhist subgroups on websites and blogs, including the Shimanoarchive (also known as www.hoodiemonks.org/ShimanoArchive). Various editors have sought to do include poorly sourced information about him on WP. Recently more reliable sources have appeared about allegation and Shimano's resignation. As part of this discussion, letters from the Robert Baker Aitken archive, (a strong critic of Shimano) hosted at the (critical) Shimanoarchive were fairly briefly discussed.

Many documents hosted at the shimanoarchive, are indeed stamped with the University of Hawaii stamp. I don't actually personally doubt the that documents are genuine, but I think it is clear that the shimanoarchive site is not a reliable source per WP definitions as it lacks the editorial oversight required. Having the letter hosted there rather than the U of H website is a big problem. The other major problem is that the documents are primary sources which generally are to be used with caution. The dangers are clear in this case: we have no context so we have no idea whether Mrs. Carlson actually sent the letter, whether she sent it to Aitken as a draft asking his opinion, or whether she later retracted it, something the shimanoarchive decided not to post. And then there is always the possibility that it was fabricated.

Shimano is a living person and BLP affects all articles, including the sentence in the Carlson article. BLP says that we must be extra careful with primary sources and with reliable sourcing in when dealing with living subjects. Given that both are issues here, I think it would be best if the sentence was removed unless a better source can be found. There seem to be lots of reliable secondary sources out there about Carlson. If it is important, a secondary source will have mentioned it. In any case, the sentence is more about Carlson's widow's opinions than Carlson, isn't it? --Slp1 (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the statement in question. I'm still not sure I agree that shimanoarchive should be considered wholly and irrevocably tainted, but I understand your logic in this case. One thing I'd like to point out, though: When an editor has a history of removing material about a particular person or group under the flag of the BLP, and does so with no explanation in the edit summary or talk page—or one that doesn't seem to make sense—it can create the appearance of a conflict of interest. It can look like it's a campaign to whitewash a subject. I'm not disputing the goal of upholding BLP; I'm just saying that doing so in the wrong way, no matter how good-intentioned, can lead to raised hackles and edit wars. Slp1, could you offer some advice as to how an editor can better achieve these goals without unintentionally raising a ruckus? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A question regarding provenance: Hypothetically, if there were not issues with the letter other than the shimanoarchive site, what would prevent an editor from changing the reference so that it refers to the University of Hawaii archive sans URL? There's nothing that says that a reference has to be available online, only that it be verifiable. Any editor wishing to verify the document could go to the University and ask to see it. (Of course, this would be relatively impractical for the vast majority of editors, but I don't think that "impractical for most" equates to "unverifiable.") Or, what if the University provided one with a copy of the archive along with a letter from a head librarian attesting to the archive's authenticity? Would that then prove the provenance of the letter sufficiently? (Again, leaving aside for the sake of argument whether or not such a letter would be otherwise permissible as a source for reasons of authorship or content—considering only its provenance.) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

1.8.7

I don't know how this works exactly, I'm somewhat new here. The article above has citations that keep being put back in, but are causing trouble for the artist involved. True they may be, but the truth of the matter is that the information leads to threats against their person. How do I know? I am personal friends with them. I don't know if I'd consider the information libelous per se, but the information listed here just seems to perpetuate the amount of death threats and hate mail they get. What can I do to keep it from re-appearing?

Quaranj (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

These are statements that the subject of the article made to a weekly newspaper in one of America's major cities and to a national magazine. I understand and sympathize that her choice to do so turned out to be regrettable, but it seems to me that it's a bell that can't be un-rung. You say the statements are true, and it's backed up by multiple reliable secondary sources; that would estop any claim of libel, because libel is a false statement. Removing a verifiable, uncontested fact solely because it is inconvenient—even extremely inconvenient—for the subject seems to me to run counter to the principles of an encyclopedia. Consider WP:HARM, which notes that "Do no harm" was rejected as a principle for WP:BLP because it's incompatible with NPOV. WP:HARM has an inclusion test. Is the information already widely known? In this case, definitively yes; it has been widely published. Is it definitive and factual? Again, yes; you acknowledge it's a fact, and there are multiple reliable sources. Is it given due weight in relation to the subject's notability? You may have a case here depending upon how the fact is included in the article. Stating the bare fact in question may not give it sufficient due weight. However, reading the cited source, 1.8.7 feels that this fact has had a direct impact on her career, so the information itself could be given due weight in the article with proper context. Based on that test, I'd say that it's reasonable for this information to be included. Again, it's not that I'm not sympathetic; I think it's terrible that this person has threats against them because of this fact. However, she made the choice to widely publicize this information, and she is a public figure, so I don't think she has the right to ask that it be removed from a biography. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It also looks like there's a conflict of interest here. Quaranj's edit history seems to be mostly edits to the 1.8.7 page. On his talk page, he made the statement "Might as well remove them all then, because there is _no_ way she is posting here, that's specifically my job. If I don't do it, she wont either. I know her personally and have her fullest consent. If that is not enough, then Wikipedia will suffer. " apparently in reference to the person in question. It's making WP:TEND come to mind, for me. The idea that it's "his job" to edit Wikipedia on behalf of 1.8.7 troubles me. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation on Talk:Elena Kagan‎

Could someone take a look at this edit [29] on the talk page of Elana Kagan. The editor in question has previously been warned about potential BLP violations, although in response all he did was attack the admin that warned him. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I "warned" the user and asked them to remove the comments. I suggest maybe give it a little time in good faith then consider redacting them --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The claim that Kagan is a lesbian has been discussed in the Washington Post[30] and all kinds of other sources.[31] What is it, a secret now? I find these complaints bizarre. I also notice that the allegation is apparently so speakably heinous that you can't even write what it is on the BLP page, which I find highly amusing. Kauffner (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What Kauffner (talk · contribs) conveniently omitted is his/her inflammatory comments on the talk page, "Her partner is out" and "she looks like a lesbian in most of the pictures", going well beyond the facts in the news reports. Cresix (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed most of it. Kauffner was warned by another editor yesterday, which he reverted with a PA, and I warned him again today (before I noticed the earlier warning in his history). Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Kern

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

I've just used a {{hangon}} for the speedy deletion on this one, because I think the person meets basic notability; however, it will need some careful checking over, given the subject matter, and BLP concerns - hence my noting here.  Chzz  ►  15:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• - Bio is a bit in need of a good copy edit, clean up, rewrite.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Kern - Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken Mink

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

An anonymous user and I are not seeing eye-to-eye at the article Ken Mink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article's subject is relatively non-notable as notable people go, but he is the subject of a rather uncomplimentary profile on ESPN.com, focused on his self-aggrandizing behavior and inconsistencies in the stories he tells about himself. The anonymous user has written a short description of the ESPN piece and says it belongs in the article because (quoting two edit summaries) "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" and "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject". The main thrust of this paragraph is on what really happened when Ken Mink left college in 1956. Since the article is focused on what he did recently, I see inclusion of this material in the article as undue emphasis on a fairly minor detail, and unnecessary negativity in the portrayal of a living person. However, the ESPN profile is currently cited as both a cited reference and an "external link".

I'd like some other viewpoints about the ESPN content, at Talk:Ken Mink#Content removed from the article.

An additional wrinkle is that someone else -- very likely the article's subject -- has periodically contributed unsourced complimentary material to the article. I've also removed that sort of content, which I don't think necessitates discussion. --Orlady (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mike Freeman (columnist)

Mike Freeman (columnist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor claims the article is biased and subject to censorship [32]. I've added what I can to balance this, using sources I've found online. The subject is a sportswriter who has apparently written controversial articles, and those that have prompted the strongest reactions have generated the most coverage, hence the content of the article. It appears that there has been a history of unsourced negative edits, but my take is that things are pretty level right now, given the reliable sources that exist via Google searches. Any help here will be welcome. JNW (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted, article looks better now thanks to your recent edits User:JNW. - Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Charles Platt (author)

Charles Platt (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Spork33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), editing while logged out, has been attempting to insert this [33]. From their edits to Talk:Sailing faster than the wind/Archive 4#Apology and thanks and posts elsewhere with a similar username, this user appears to be directly involved in this controversy. Spork33 has just informed me that they intend to continue editing the article (User talk:Cassandra 73#Charles Platt article) after I advised them of the conflict of interest policy. Cassandra 73 ^talk 21:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The edit you are disputing adds content that appears not to fit into the article. I don't think this is really a BLP issue so much as a COI issue or just plain bad writing. Possibly this tiff is worth mentioning in Mr. Platt's article, but the amount of text devoted to it in the proposed edit is far out of proportion with the scope of the rest of the article. Based on the size of the rest of the article, and the time period it covers, at best the dispute being described here merits a single, short paragraph, like this:

In 2009, Platt became involved in a controversy over whether it is possible to build a wind-powered vehicle that travels downwind faster than the wind. In a Make Magazine article, Platt asserted that it was not, and challenged readers of Make magazine to build such a device. At least one inventor has subsequently claimed to have built and tested one.

The editor can't say that Platt hasn't paid the $1000 unless he or she can cite a reliable source backing up that claim. The text in the diff you provided seems to be pushing a viewpoint that Mr. Platt hasn't paid the $1000, which is not supported by sources. However, this dispute occurs is fairly well known at this point, since Wired Magazine has been talking it up recently, so it would equally be viewpoint pushing to insist that no mention be made of the controversy in the article. You will probably get closer to the result you want by simply adding a brief mention of this rather than by trying to prevent any mention of it from being added to the article.Abhayakara (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. To be honest I have no knowledge of this subject and I only came by this when checking edits tagged by the software for possible BLP issues. I raised it here after the discussion on my talk page because I was hoping for more eyes in case the user adds any more poorly sourced material.

The user has now left another message on my talk page about the amount of unsourced information already in the article, and they have a point. The talk page indicates that it is an autobiography. I'll consider how to respond to this later today. I can take this to WP:COIN if it sits better there. Cassandra 73 ^talk 05:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Abbott (director)

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

Resolved

 – no apparent BLP action required. Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello,numerous adds of additional new data of works completed by person to page I created last yr, only to have every single one undone and have me blocked. I have found additional works and the data for director to add previous movies and additional books written and added them, referenced the source of the United States Copyright Office, Published Catalog. She also when starting her copyrights for her works stated her birth yr born as 1955 which was also added. You can view these as well here:

1) here

2) here

There are many jennifer abbott's and when searching you will see another in the us copyright catalog and they place their yr of birth in their copyright profile, licenses and next to name to separate their works from being confused - see here they all put their birth yr next to their names to protect their own works and not confuse. cocatalog.loc.gov

Clearly you can see from the two links above they each show works that are already posted, for example war of the gods film, other dimension book, scream from within book, and new dvd ms abbott made previous needs added from 2005 Americas Sexiest Girls. Also added data for interviews re prev film found.

The second link shows works listed already of other dimension, poems from the deepest corder of the soul, but new title found needs added called vacuum field. Please have edits reverted, as these are verified and evidenced and stop the auto undo's by many. Its not understood to me how or why every person can come and undo verified, sourced and referenced edits like these. The purpose of this site to have accurate data and adding additional works and birth yr found are relevant data. Thank you - uscopyright User_talk:Uscopyright

• - User:Uscopyright was blocked after posting and is also tagged as a suspected sock. Also after a quick look I can't see anything worthy of BLP action. Off2riorob (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Saud bin Saqr al Qasimi

Saud bin Saqr al Qasimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a periodic attempt to post an alleged incident for which Saud was arrested and the charges were dropped. This violates the guidelines for bios of living persons in my opinion, which state "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."Belgenius (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Put it on my watchlist, the refs being used fail wp:rs amd it is a blp violation to insert that content using those refs mark nutley (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Charlie Anders

[Talk: Charlie Anders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charlie_Anders] An anonymous user is starting up an edit war on an author's talk page, with over use of personal information and non-relevant content including real names, family members, and long quotations of controversial material. It violates WP:BLP and all its cautions about privacy and relevance. This looks like deliberate harassment to me. --Lizzard (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. As I understand it, the "controversial" quote is from the introduction of one of the subject's own books, which has been widely published. There can be no reasonable doubt that Anders wrote it; you can even view it on Amazon's site. The quotation mentions no names. It makes a passing reference to Anders' parents, without mentioning their names, but not in a way that could be considered derogatory. (I think it's reasonable to assume that any person would have parents, so I cannot see how a reference to having parents can be considered a BLP violation.) It's not a particularly long quotation, and it is illustrative of the author's mindset and history—directly so, given her choice to publish the statement in a mass-market book. There is no privacy concern where the material is already broadly published. The material in question seems highly relevant to the biography to me. The quote in question appears OK under WP:SELFPUB. There are no names in the quotation, so WP:BLPNAME doesn't apply. So based on what I can make of this, I'd have to say the anonymous user has the right of it. If I'm missing something, could you point to a diff that better illustrates the issue? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note the potential COI going on at this article. I have flagged my concerns at [Talk: Charlie Anders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charlie_Anders]. Thanks! Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Lizard - Perhaps you'd consider restoring all the edits you've made to Anders' page and withdrawing from the discussion, as you are in fact a blogger for "other" mag, which represents a huge COI on your part. Your user page has your name and information that points clearly towards your writing work outside of Wikipedia and for "other." (http://www.othermag.org/blogit.php)

I cannot speak for the other editors who have been trying in vain to improve this page, but I am trying to add useful information to flesh out Ms. Anders' entry. It looks like everything I and others have added is sourced. If she is worthy of a Wikipedia entry at all, it cannot simply be a resume. As a notable public figure, she deserves a quality article with interesting, true, and verifiable information! Should the entry on Sandra Bullock omit all discussion of her recent adoption and split from husband Jesse James, because they are not directly related to her acting work? Please do not ruin the aims of this site by reducing the entries of people you know personally to vanity pages. 76.169.140.29 (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.140.29 (talk)

I think that lquilter outlined some good objections in the [Talk page], in a much more clear way than I did. Her points about original research, about people's intentions about public acknowledgment of information, and about tipping the scales in favor of privacy. Please take a look there at her explanation. --Lizzard (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think those objections apply to the discussion of the book quotation on the talk page. After all, the way to avoid having that quote becoming "undue emphasis" is to add yet more material to what is a very sparse article. If the article weren't so short, this wouldn't be an overly long quote. Again, there is no privacy issue with the quote: it was published in a book issued by a major publisher. There is no conceivable way that one can say that the information in that quote is private information, when it has voluntarily been not just shared, but intentionally published to a potentially massive audience. Lizzard, your actions are not constructive, they're obstructive; why not try helping others construct a better, more in-depth article in good faith? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My objection to the quote is undue weight (not privacy); it appears a bit jarring given the dearth of other biographical information in the article. The difficulty with adding other biographical information, of course, is that there isn't a lot of published biographical information on Anders -- one of the sources is a publishers' bio, which just goes to show how little is out there. You can only add what's published, verifiable, etc. So at this point it seems to me pretty difficult to construct a lengthy biographical section that would support that lengthy of a quote. --Lquilter (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, recent contributor to Anders' page dannyobrien has previously edited the Boing Boing entry, adding info there on author Danny O'Brien's work for them. Writer Danny O'Brien has appeared at one of Anders' "Writers with Drinks" events. (http://www.writerswithdrinks.com/past.html) 76.169.140.29 (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The things I edited out were not sourced properly; they linked to various interviews which did not contain the cited information. Those edits focused on Anders' sexuality and gender identity, family relationships, and former names. None of those things are covered in the articles cited. The articles, bios, and interviews focus on her creative and community work as notable things to be covered in news articles. The long and rather prurient quotation from a minor 10 year old work was as long as the rest of the article, and was not encyclopediac or notable. WP:BLP does ask that people respect the privacy of living people and their families. Regarding COI: half of literary San Francisco has worked with Anders and Newitz. I have kept a neutral and unbiased tone, and edit under my real name without any obfuscation. --Lizzard (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, by what metric do you describe this as a "minor work"? Please note that just because you don't like something that doesn't make it minor nor necc. "prurient". You may well have been right that the quote was too long or not useful. The right response would have been to have raised your objections to its inclusion on the talk page (indeed, the anon editor raised the poss. inclusion of the quote on the talk page for discussion rather than adding it before hand -- a nice example of wiki-etiquette some other editors to this article could follow) not to delete it -- from the talk page -- citing bogus BLP concerns. I really suggest that you withdraw from editing given your admitted COI and repeated failure to assume good faith. Of course, you are free to do as you wish, but I will monitor future developments to make sure abusive editing isn't going on. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the use of words like "pruient" and "minor" to describe the book tend to argue against your neutrality. Those are judgement calls, and I don't see that they have been made by consensus—as someone outside this argument, it looks to me like you're trying to enforce those value judgements by fiat. It does give the appearance of a COI. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree at least in part: "Minor" is a legal judgment that really has nothing to do with "judgment calls". Anders was objectively a minor in the quoted passage. --Lquilter (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry; "minor" is about the work, not about the person. That said -- my assessment that Anders was describing her experiences as a minor stands. So -- (a) I am not weighing in on whether the work is a "minor work" -- I'm not qualified to judge, but do note that it is a book not an essay; but (b) the quote is about Anders as a minor, and since it's sexual, it's frankly kind of creepy for that to be selected from the entire book to be a quote. --Lquilter (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's the second time an editor has made a value judgment about the "creepiness" or "prurience" of the quote. I have two observations. The first is that the quote is from Anders' own memoir. Thus it has been written by the source (and not in a mere "throw away" interview) and widely published. The second is that such a value judgment is not only inappropriate, but tends to argue against your neutrality. If you find this subject creepy then you shouldn't edit it. There are plenty of articles on things I find to be creepy (Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin for instance). I steer clear of them.Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) It's not creepy in context; but excerpted from its context and placed in an encyclopedia article, it's a bit creepy. If you don't like the use of the word "creepy" to describe it, fine; let's just say, then, information about a child viewing him/herself sexually strikes me as inappropriate to excerpt, or non-encyclopedic in tone. Your example is inapposite, since the subject of those articles are people, and you're apparently saying you find those people creepy. I don't find Anders creepy; I find the (proposed) inclusion in an encyclopedia article of a quote about a minor's sexuality to be creepy. The article is not about a minor's sexuality; it is a biographical article about Anders. Such material would generally be deemed inappropriate in any biographical article -- we can find lots of references to various famous people (especially writers) talking about their childhood sexual fantasies and so forth, but it's not relevant. (2) As to whether my take on the topic suggests a lack of neutrality -- frankly I disagree, and I'm honestly not sure why you would even say such a thing. People do in fact have opinions; it doesn't mean they're non-neutral as to the subject of the article. In future please refrain from casting aspersions unnecessarily. --Lquilter (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Lquilter, I think you are being a bit obtuse here. Firstly this debate started because Lizzard felt that the quote was so damaging it could not stand uncensored on the talk page of the article. Not the article, its talk page. Secondly, like it or not, Anders' is known primarily as a writer, not of scifi, but a writer who deals with issues of gender identity and sexuality. I agree such a quote would be very odd in the bio of many writers, but it is not at all odd in the bio of a writer who has written about her gender identity in a full length book. As an aside, I see you criticise me for suggesting that claims of creepiness/prurience argue against neutrality, yet didn't raise such criticism when user ⌘macwhiz said the same thing. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Charlie Anders here. Sorry to be the source of so much fuss. I really appreciate your efforts to make my wikipedia entry more complete. And I do think it should include the fact that I'm openly transgendered, which is something I've said on the record a hundred times. I also absolutely agree that it should list my first book, The Lazy Crossdresser, and the fact that I wrote it under the name Charles. I'm still really proud of that book, even though it no longer reflects my identity now that I've been living as a fully transitioned woman for the past eight years. I'm really glad the Lazy CD is out there. That said, I'm now living as a woman, and almost everything notable I've ever done has been as a woman. Even though I agree my entry should say that I'm a trans woman, adding a bunch more references to the fact that I used to be a guy seems really unnecessary. And that lengthy quote from something I wrote 10 years ago feels way too racy, and as though it's going to turn my whole entry into being about my former male identity. I really don't think that being transgender is the most interesting thing about me, and I think it's going to create a weird impression if there's tons of details on that one aspect of my life and no details about anything else. CharlieAnders (talk)

Anders- If this is indeed you, it is considered very bad Wiki-etiquette to get involved in the discussion of your own entry. It also points more strongly to an attempt to control the entry by proxy. Your wikipedia entry is not owned by you, and you should not attempt dictate what the emphasis or items included are. I note that the IP address (64.81.56.218) you have posted this comment from has in the past edited your own entry, Michael Kupperman's entry, and Annalee Newitz' entry. I'm sure W. would prefer not to have a link in his entry to an article on "Efforts to Impeach George W. Bush," but he shouldn't be attempting to edit his own Wiki entry. If you are notable enough to rate a Wiki, then you must be a public figure of interest to those who consult Wikipedia. You've written some great things on gender and personal identity - and the entry currently lists quite a few publications and activities you've been involved with that are NOT related to your gender identity or writings thereon. You may be seeing this through your own perceptions and concerns. Please remember: the Wikipedia community decides what's "unnecessary" and what the "impression" of you is. You're an awesome writer and person - I respectfully ask you to stand back and let the community make you shine with a superior entry that will be both compelling and informational.

Lizzard - if everyone in San Francisco has worked for or with Anders, then perhaps unaffiliated wiki-editors in New York or Chicago should be the ones working on this. To continue my examples from above, I'm sure lots of people know Sandra Bullock and George Bush socially and through working with them, but they shouldn't be the ones working on the Wikipedia entries for those two. Also, I think you're not reading the articles that were linked to properly, when you claim they do not cover the details cited. For example, I have recently added in a direct quoted phrase regarding Anders' teenage years to try and combat such a false claim, as dannyobrien made on that subject. I can, however, add more direct quotes on other topics if you feel it's necessary, in order to point out what I think you and others are not seeing. As for privacy, why are you trying to censor something that was widely published, which doesn't even cite proper names -- especially on a Discussion page? "The Lazy Crossdresser" helped establish Anders' career in a major way. Regarding an entry for an author who has published two book-length works and edited a book-length collection of essays, it seems very important to discuss those books, no matter how many articles they have published as well. I see your user page lists GLBT history as one of your main interests, so I do not understand your anti-trans edits here. I am surprised you wish to support any type of censorship, let alone in a forum like Wikipedia. 76.169.140.29 (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear 76.169.140.29: You are further going over the bounds suggested by WP:BLP right here. WP:BLP says, "The subject should be welcomed and invited to explain his concerns". Instead, you are bullying the subject of the article who has written to directly and politely address Wikipedia editors. As far as my edits, I think that I may have been a bit zealous in counteracting a pattern of what I saw as deliberate and malicious harassment. But I stand by my edits as unbiased, and as taking out unsourced or improperly source material. You are also arguing to silence me, and the subject, while accusing me of actual censorship and being anti-trans... a bit much. I have to conclude you are trolling and hiding behind clumsy officiousness. I hope that an admin who is sensitive to the issues of BLP and becomes involved soon. My main concern is that the article not out people, their relationships, and is not, as Anders points out above, framing a biographical encyclopedia entry by overemphasizing one aspect. --Lizzard (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

How does "outing" someone come into this discussion? You posted regarding a quotation in a book; if any "outing" happened, it occurred ten years ago when the author published the statement in a book. No one's trying to silence you; they're raising reasonable concerns that you may be too tightly tied to the subject of the article to be able to view the subject dispassionately. The rather loaded language in your reply, in my opinion, adds support to those concerns; it's anything but dispassionate. There's a difference between "being silenced" and "having a different viewpoint than the consensus opinion". // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Though for full disclosure, it should be noted that your IP (76.169.140.29) address also edited the entries you referred to, including ones with very subtle connections to Anders. If I were to step back from this, I would see a classic wikipedia edit war emerging, in which one party with a particular interest in the subject is attempting to (disingenuously) reframe an article of a living person in an unencyclopediac way in order to hurt the subject or those connected with them, which inevitably attracts those who attempt to fix that problem. Because of the long history of such battles in Wikipedia history, at least each group on each side these days conducts their edits using sources, and verifiable facts, and with a nod to NPOV, which are effectively the lowest rung of compliance with WP policy. However, such edits wars often end up more subtly distorting other WP aims: the desire to be encylopedia-like, privacy-protecting in the field of BLPs, and without drawing WP into external battles that don't help with building WP. It's exactly these kind of sensitive issues for which WP has BLP policies, and this page, and additional process. I recognise BigDaddy1981's concerns of COI in the current pattern of edits, and would respectfully ask other editors to step in who have not been involved in the editing of this page. However, it's my belief that 76.169.140.29 and other anonymous IPs attempts to re-work this article are as conflicted as anyone else, and that in protecting this article from malicious editing from any side, particular attention should be paid to the longer history of Anders' article to attempt to detect long-term patterns of harassment that do not immediately appear when considering simple line-edits. In particular, it may be useful to involve those who have both a long record as WP editors and a sensitivity to the kind of intimidation that GLBT notable living persons undergo to take an interest. --Dannyobrien (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

76, you are quite mistaken in your claim that it is 'very bad Wiki-etiquette to get involved in the discussion of your own entry'. In fact both WP:COI and WP:BLP make it clear subjects are welcome to offer their opinions on the talk page and other relevant places of articles concerning them particularly when they disclose who they are. It's true that they cannot dictate how articles should be, but we will take their comments on board as we will any other editor. The thing that is disagreed is people actually editing articles concerning them, which isn't what's going on here Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually Nil Einne, that's exactly what has been going on. Ms Anders -- if you look at her edit history -- has repeatedly purged content from her entry (with no edit summaries). Bigdaddy1981 (talk)

That's not true, actually. I did undo a couple of edits quite some time ago, which were adding unsourced and personal information that had already been removed previously by other people. I regret doing it, but I don't think it's germane to the current discussion. CharlieAnders (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't germane to the current discussion. However, I wanted to make sure that Nil Einne was aware that his comment that "[t]he thing that is disagreed is people actually editing articles concerning them, which isn't what's going on here" is not really accurate. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't read the discussion properly. In retrospect I should have said "The thing that is strong discouraged is people actually editing articles concerning them, which isn't what the main part of your comment referred to. If Charlie Anders has made mistakes in the past, that is unfortunate but if she now understands these were mistakes and isn't going to make them again, then it's best they are left in the past. She is still welcome to contribute to any discussions involving articles related to her and it is inappropriate to suggest otherwise." In any case 76 has accepted they were mistaken and my main point here was to ensure the's no confusion on that part so I'll bow out of this discussion Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Danny: Let's not imply that only people with a professional connection to Anders (and therefore having a COI) would have interest in her article! That would unfairly diminish her notability. Those of us outside the SF Bay area writing and GLBT communities want to contribute meaningfully, too! 76.169.140.29 (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

17:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ms. Anders: I get the sense that the frustration here is that quite a few people want to do you justice by expanding your bio, but they're having trouble finding acceptable sources under Wikipedia rules to do so in a way that doesn't seem to give undue weight to certain parts of your life. I don't think this is intentional; it might even be an unintended consequence of a private lifestyle. Although you shouldn't edit your own article, because of the obvious COI, this doesn't mean you can't contribute. I suggest that you're in the best position to point other, uninvolved editors toward acceptable secondary sources that would expand your bio in a fair, balanced fashion. (For that matter, I'm sure you have media contacts that would help you create such sources if you were so inclined—mind you, I'm not suggesting anything unethical, merely that you probably have a better chance of getting an interview published than most people.) Perhaps you could use the Talk page to suggest articles, books, etc. that contain information about you that you think others could use to update the article? That would be a constructive way forward, it would make Wikipedia better, and it would help you build a stronger relationship with your fans. After all, some of these people care enough about you to spend their time, without compensation, fighting this fight to make your article better. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A generally good analysis but surely we need not suggest to subjects of articles that they become less private than they would like to be in order to make wikipedia better! Encyclopedias make use of published material; they don't solicit its creation. If as a consequence of a private life there's not a lot out there, then we have to deal with that. --Lquilter (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying "you must go publish a defense!" No, my point is that the subject of a BLP likely knows better than anyone what interviews she's given and where information about her has been published. Therefore, if the subject of the BLP wishes to have that information included, it seems to me that the best way would be to bring those sources to the attention of the other editors. Further, at the risk of pointing out a loophole in BLP policy, if the subject of a BLP has information that isn't currently sourced that they'd like to see in the BLP, their best route is to get that information published in an acceptable source. Ya don't have to do this, but it is an option. It seems to me like these options don't necessarily come to mind for a lot of BLP subjects. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Anders here again! Thanks for the suggestion, Macwhiz. I actually can suggest plenty of interviews with me, as well as personal essays I've published more recently, which people can feel free to mine for biographical details and insights into my life and work. I'll be happy to do that over at the Talk page for my entry in the next couple days. Thanks again for the suggestion! // CharlieAnders (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The accusation of conflict in anonymous editors seems kinda defensive, and a bit harsh to accuse contributers of 'longterm patterns of harassment." 98.148.100.213 (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Responses (Lquilter):

1. Anders' comments and contributions are and ought to be welcome; commenting here on what is desired for privacy is entirely appropriate, and is distinct from editing the subject's article.
2. Let's not mix up the various concerns with various pieces of material. As I see them,
   1. the concerns with the quote are undue weight to information of a sexual nature about the subject when she was a minor; and
   2. the concerns with the relationships (family and partner(s)) are the "outing" concerns, reflecting privacy issues.
3. Let's avoid all the suppositions about harassment, COI, and so forth. I see no reason why we ought not take people's words that they have no COI. I would strongly argue against any idea that one ought not edit any article on the basis of any acquaintanceship. That's far beyond WP:COI. COI's guidelines refer to promotional material. None of the edits here strike me as either promotional, harassment, transphobic, etc. So let's just let all that go and focus on a good faith disagreement in what is appropriately private or balanced.

--Lquilter (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing about undue weight: The concern isn't that this quotation was added to the article causing undue weight. The present BLP inquiry was posted because someone proposed on the talk page that this quote might be a good thing to add. I think that was good behavior and the right thing to do. Another editor felt that the quotation was so heinous under WP:BLP that it couldn't even be discussed on the talk page, apparently started a talk page edit war, and then brought the issue here. I find the assertion that this quote was that bad to be ridiculous and unsupportable. It may well be that the quotation is inappropriate for the article on the basis of undue weight, but I see no reason why editors couldn't have a mature and reasonable conversation about the idea on the article's talk page. Perhaps consensus will be that it shouldn't be added. But... instead... the discussion was prematurely terminated by starting an edit war and then taking it here. So, in terms of what was originally asked of BLP/N, "undue weight" is a bit of a red herring, is it not? The real question was, and is, "Is the mere discussion of this passage on the talk page unacceptable under BLP?" // ⌘macwhiz

I disagree with this characterisation, both of the history of this complaint, and the scope. Let me preface this by saying that it is hard for me to even construct an alternative narrative without breaching the "Assume Good Faith" principle, but really, at some point (and particularly at this point) there is a going to be a great deal of not assuming good faith, and a lot of dicta (good word, Lquilter) being thrown around that assumes that it isn't. For instance, there's COI as a general principle, and there's presuming a lack of good faith because of a presumed COI. Currently, Macwhiz's version of the story is that someone proposed a quote in perfect innocence, another editor went crazy, started an edit war over this quote because of its heinousness, and that's the end of the story. There's clearly an assumption of good faith *and* bad faith (or at least random craziness) in this. My view of the story is that there was an ongoing series of edits that seemed to create undue weight to one side of the article that involved posting a great deal of material about particular aspects that are *known* to be touchy in terms of BLP privacy. There was an ongoing discussion of those edits, both in Talk and in the edit log (as is often the case in BLP privacy cases). In the middle of this *discussion*, the person who was involved adding a great deal of material started adding large quotes into the discussion page. I know this may come as a shock to some, but a strategy that is used by those seeking to unbalance Wikipedia pieces *is* to seek to include that material in the Talk section. The concern was that attempts to unbalance the article were now disingenuously being used to include large pieces of text in the Talk area, too. (contd.)

The issue raised here was narrowly defined as whether this quote should be in Talk, but the context was a worry that this BLP article was being used in a way that the BLP additional processes are designed to protect against. I apologise if "pattern of harassment" was too strong, but what *I* see looking through the logs of this article is a pattern of unsupported assertion, challenged and removed, followed often by those statements returning backed either tendentiously with sources that don't quite fit the assertions, or with actually quite good sources. This happens a lot in Wikipedia article evolution, of course: that's how WP is supposed to work. But the choice of topic, and the attempt to place undue weight on particular topics in somebody's private life is an approach that is both compatible with this, and still of explicit concern when creating BLP articles (that's why we have presumptions of privacy, and why we have a lot of discussion about the level to which WP:HARM issues should influence BLP).

To give a further example: while we have been discussing this, there are now even more detailed descriptions of the subject's current gender status, added by the same editor, with [citation needed] tags in the main text. Given that we're already having a discussion about the dangers of overbalancing or coathanging this article, it seems disingenuous to be adding yet more content in this area, along with cheery encouragements by that editor to other editors protesting this overbalancing to contribute their own material.

To summarize: the concern is about overbalancing the article in favour of content concentrating on the person's current gender status family relationships and behaviour as a minor, as opposed to the notable facts, which are about the person as an author. The fear expressed by some editors was that this overbalancing was part of a deliberate pattern of stigmatizing, the evidence of which came from a long-term pattern of edits to this article and others. These are the arguments in favor of excising a long, irrelevant quote from the Talk page, because while its absence does not effect the debate going on there, its presence would certainly be invasive to privacy especially given this pattern. I would strongly encourage those who cannot understand how this could possibly be a controversial quote to sit down and look through the previous pattern of edits of this article (and connected edits) to try and understand the wider context.

My proposed compromise is to keep the quote excluded, but provide enough link and context to allow those to find the quote; to keep an eye on this page both for COI edits *and* for patterns of deliberate undue weighting, to revert to the 21:43, 8 September 2010 version of the main article (before this new rash of personal life additions); and to encourage all editors here to step away from the text box, and leave this article to others. --Dannyobrien (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand, and agree with, your point about the overarching pattern of behavior. However, you lost me at "invasive to privacy." There's no way that a quotation taken from an internationally-published book can cause an invasion of privacy; any loss of privacy occurred when the book was published ten years ago at the author's own hand. There may be other valid reasons for excluding the quote from the talk page, but in this case "it invades the author's privacy" isn't one of them. There's no expectation of privacy in a statement you've literally published to the world. I've yet to hear any persuasive, rational line of reasoning to change my opinion on that point. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, of course, and I felt uncomfortable using that terminology as I wrote it, because these are indeed public facts; of course. I don't know how to best describe my real concern which is that this action was an attempt to actually continue the pattern of editing behavior that seems so worrying in the main article into Talk itself. I guess the Noticeboard is here is about the closest you can get to Talk:Talk, and the only way to alert editors to pay attention to a wider pattern of unencyclopediac behaviour which may have ulterior motives, rather than to argue over particular line-edits which may not, on their own, seem problematic. Does that make sense? --Dannyobrien (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your goal, and I agree with you that this can be a problem on Wikipedia and that the edit pattern on this article is a bit questionable. In this case, though, I think it was a good faith edit combined with frustration on all sides. I think that sometimes, organic growth of a BLP can look a bit like undue weight, especially when the article is young, and it's a tough call whether it's malicious or just the result of building an article bit by bit. That's why discussing it—can we add this? How?—on talk pages is the right way to go, and I think we all have to be careful not to stifle that unnecessarily. It especially concerns me when something like "invasion of privacy" gets coatracked onto an issue like this where it so clearly doesn't belong—this board's supposed to be about preserving NPOV, and if we can't recognize when we're not being neutral ourselves... and it makes it harder to be taken seriously when a real invasion of privacy comes along.

I also think there's a lot of sensitivity about Ms. Anders' gender identity. I understand that GLBT folks don't have it easy, and I've no truck at all with bias or discrimination based on one's sexuality or gender identity. There's undoubtedly been that sort of thing creeping into this page, unfortunately. I don't think this particular case was so motivated. I think sometimes, people who face a lot of discrimination start seeing it where it doesn't exist, because they come to expect it after seeing it happen so often. That's understandable, but it's also a form of prejudice in and of itself. I'm concerned that's happening at this article, and I hope everyone can take a step back and trust each other a little bit more. A proposed edit might not be a good idea, but that doesn't mean it was a malicious one. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk) 16:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC) I think that we may be near a solution here. Here's what I suggest:

• The quote shouldn't go in the article at this time.
• It's reasonable and proper to discuss adding the quote in the future on the talk page. To avoid conflicts, I suggest that next time, someone who believes the quote is relevant and inspirational could add the quote (properly attributed and consistent with fair use) to their personal page, noting that it's a quote they personally find inspirational. They can then raise the issue of adding it in the article's talk page, and instead of quoting it there, they can refer people to their personal page: "There's this quote I find inspirational, it's on my page here->, I think we might add it to the article, what do you think?" Calm, constructive discussion can then follow.
• Ms. Anders has offered to supply leads on potential sources on the talk page, which is excellent all around.
• Other editors, preferably editors who are not acquaintances, co-workers, or employees of Ms. Anders, can use those sources to improve the article. It's conceivable (but by no means certain) that the controversial quote might not be "undue emphasis" after this work is done; that should be decided by consensus on the talk page before it's added.
• I hope that all involved with this article will take a deep breath, step back, and realize that each one of you wants to make this page better; you all mean well, it's just that you disagree on the methods. Stop fighting and find common ground! :)

Does that sound reasonable? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems eminently reasonable. So long as Anders' friends and colleagues remain dispassionate in their edits (no relying on their personal assessments of "prurience", "minor" works, or "creepiness") or better yet -- leave the editing to non-COI editors, then I imagine that this article can be pretty easily improved. Maybe Lizzard and some of the others can give their views of this solution. The worst outcome, of course, is for this debate to leave nothing changed and the old pattern of excising content that is unpopular with certain editors to resume. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

See my comments above re: my quibble w/ bigdaddy1981's side comments (what we in the legal biz might call "dicta"). I'd also point out that Lizzard et al are not the only editors using over-excitable language or implications. Setting all that personal stuff aside, I think things are moving along & will continue to do so. --Lquilter (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to your criticism above, I'll not repeat it here as this debate is getting long and I don't want to needlessly add text. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just revised the entry, keeping in mind the concerns about personal information: specifically, the reference to LC's content is more general (now omitting mention of "early teens"). I added a section on Anders' activism, which I think is extremely important for a fitting entry. In a couple of places, I've added details that Charlie raised in WP discussions here -- I'm hoping the upcoming interviews that Macwhiz proposed will quickly get into print the items Charlie would like to see included... and then we can fill in those relevant citations! 76.169.140.29 (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No details should be added until you have RS citations for them. It's a BLP; you can't stick stuff in there speculatively waiting for someone to fill in [citation needed]. Be patient! // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Fred Phelps discussion at RSN

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

I have opened a disucssion about a source making a contentious claim about Fred Phelps at The RSN. You can find it -->here<-- Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Good to see a couple of editors working to improve this BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Louis Zorich

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

Someone keeps changing the ethnicity of Louis Zorich from Croatian to Serbian. I previously raised the issue on this board, and it was addressed. See link below. Now the person has returned. I opened a discussion on the Louis Zorich page, but the person refuses to engage. Please help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive92#Louis_Zorich ( unsigned comment added by User:Grabovcan - Off2riorob (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC))

I've watchlisted it, though I find these continual Serb vs. Croat edit wars to be utterly tedious. Yworo (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is still strong feeling after the horrors or the war. This would be perfect for pending protection, if it continues semi protection is an option. Off2riorob (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Gerald schreck

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

Resolved

 – uncited and disputed - removed. Off2riorob (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually the owner of the canvas shop is Linda Schreck. Gerald Schreck does not own a canvas shop now. He does not even live in Pensacola anymore. Linda Schreck is the sole owner and operator of the boat canvas business in Pensacola. Please change this information. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.53.2 (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• - Disputed content was uncited and I have removed it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Can advocacy groups be cited for contentious information on BLPs?

Can advocacy groups, such as Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center, be used as sources for contentious information for BLPs? I know that these are respected and legitimate organizations, but it seems questionable to me to use these as sources for BLPs (as opposed to secondary, reliable sources). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say no, and you can chuck in places like media matters as well. No group with an ax to grind should be a source in a BLP mark nutley (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also say, no , they are groups with strong POV against a living person then they are clearly opinionated and nothing contentious or controversial that is disputable should be cited to them. If it is widely known then it will be reported at more uninvolved quality citations, which renders the opinionated or activist citation as excessive and detrimental to neutral uninvolved reporting in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

They're both well respected sources of information in their fields, generally the answer is yes. There may be specific problems, ie the ADL is now commonly described as an Israeli advocacy organisation. What is the context? Misarxist (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

They can be cited for what their opinions are, in general. Opinions are not facts. If they aver a "fact" then a RS ought to be found for the fact, and not rely on the group for contentious claims. Collect (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Misarxist: Well, I'm asking in general, but catalyst for my question is our article on Fred Phelps. There's a quote sourced to the ADL that begins "His Christ-rejecting, God-hating Jew blood bubbled to the surface." I can't find a single secondary reliable source that even mentions this quote. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A quote needs a specific RS. Really. Collect (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Shirley Phelps-Roper

I happened upon this article about a daughter of Fred Phelps and just deleted the entire section about her arrest, see the article's talk page for more details. However there is still a line in the bio that I wanted to put to this board: Her first son was born out of wedlock in 1979 after an affair with a man in a halfway house where she was an intern. which is sourced to The Pitch, which appears to be an alt-weekly owned by the Village Voice's parent company.

Is this an adequate source for such an assertion? I am on the fence, as the reporter appears to have interviewed several family members who seem to acknowledge at least that she'd had a child out of wedlock, but it doesn't quite say that it was by a man in a halfway house (the article says she gave birth to a child out of wedlock, and observes in the next sentence that she became romantically involved with a man staying at a halfway house, but it doesn't connect the two thoughts -- only implies them -- and later in the article says she refuses to state who the father is). Of course, then there's the question of whether it belongs at all. — e. ripley\^talk 16:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that the sentences aren't connected. And I support leaving the sentence in the article, as its sourced to a reliable source per BLP. Aditya Ex Machina 17:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but the connection really isn't explicitly made. It's implied very strongly, but nowhere in the article does it explicitly say that the homeless man is the child's father. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but that's why I wanted to solicit opinions, particularly on a BLP. — e. ripley\^talk 17:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the connection is obvious enough. I'm not sure if the sentence should be included. It's borderline, but I think it's OK (don't know much about Pitch). One obvious problem is there's a big difference between being an intern and dong a college internship. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ripley: the connection is implied, but not explicitly stated. Implication isn't enough for a BLP; it needs to be explicitly stated. Otherwise, it's rumor. Notwithstanding that, I don't see how the sentence in question contributes to the article. It's a non sequitur. I think the entire sentence should be removed, unless plausible, non-coatrack, properly sourced statements can be added to give it context and a reason to be in the article. (Why would someone care if this person had been born out of wedlock, or had an affair with a homeless man? What's the relevance?) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that this is the classic dilemma that ultra-religious people who put themselves in a position to judge others' morality find themselves in when it's discovered that they have done the type of thing they would denounce other people for. However simply to have it sitting out there without context makes it seem cherry-picked to make that point ourselves by its mere inclusion. It would be better if she had been criticized in some reliable source for this having been a part of her life, given her heavy involvement with Phelps' church. Perhaps that criticism exists, I'm not sure, but it does seem to need it. — e. ripley\^talk 20:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually many Christians, maybe most, have unmarried sex. Christianity is often criticised by other religions for its laxer standards on sexual relationships. Have you ever read The Autobiography of Malcolm X?Wolfview (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't, in fact, but I probably should. I take your point that lots of Christians have unmarried sex, but what I was referencing really is focused more on how publicly righteous someone is about their morality -- people who make it their business to publicly denounce other people for various immoral deeds have a lot farther and harder to fall when it's uncovered that they're doing immoral things too. — e. ripley\^talk 15:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am nominating the article for deletion. There does not seem to be any substantial coverage of her in the secondary sources cited. Wolfview (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Getting back to the matter of her first-born child: my view is that this statement is both adequately sourced and gratuitous and should be removed. Whether the article's subject meets WP notability standards is a pretty tough call about which honest people may differ, but that's not what's being discussed here. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me like the balance of opinion is that it's at best a borderline case, and given the way BLP is structured that probably means it shouldn't be there. I'm going to excise it. Thanks for your comments. — e. ripley\^talk 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Potentially libelous claims in Elie Wiesel entry

A single user has repeatedly inserted claims in the entry for Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel that he has no Auschwitz tattoo, notwithstanding that Wiesel has written extensively about his tattoo. The only evidence of this claim is a link to a subjective YouTube video with selective edits, out of context, from a documentary about Wiesel revisiting his hometown. The sound is removed from the clip and someone has re-edited with a biased point of view and added new title cards. To use this as a "source" clearly seems to violate Wikipedia policy, and I wrote on the Elie Wiesel talk page as to why. As another user wrote on the talk page, it is potentially defamatory to make such a claim about Wiesel in his Wikipedia article. I agree this could be libelous because it questions Wiesel's honesty and the accuracy of his published books. The user inserting the original research is "Someone ua" and he/she has only ever edited this single article and only added the claims about the tattoo. 71.175.4.207 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The text that's being inserted now by User:Someone ua is utterly inappropriate and irresponsibly states as fact things that are inadequately sourced with highly questionable links. This particular line appears to be pushed by something called the "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust" and backs up its assertions with cherrypicked quotes and some sort of Youtube video. — e. ripley\^talk 18:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A request a few months ago in the reliable sources noticeboard drew the reply: "Both the codoh and jdl are extremists (to the extreme). Neither is a reliable source for anything but themselves. Since the CODOH is unrelated to anything but the CODOH or Bradley Smith, it should not be used as a source for anything but those two entities."[34] RolandR (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The information has been thoroughly rejected both here and at the article's talk page; as such I've removed the discussion from the talk page per WP:BLP. If anyone disagrees with my scrubbing the talk page of references to such rubbish feel free to revert me, but I thought it was the right thing to do. — e. ripley\^talk 15:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Iris Apfel

The article should be improved, but didn't see BLP problems.Wolfview (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Pamela Geller, again

This edit [35] inserting an adjectival description of a group, appears to me to be approaching WP:OR and WP:NPOV. particularly based on the edit summary "The reason her association is mentioned is because they are notorious for their radicalism". If our sources are not making that claim and description, Wikipedia editors certainly should not. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 14:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The cited source says "far-right": "But while Geller has inserted herself into mainstream politics in America, she has also aligned herself with far-right causes across the globe including the English Defence League in Britain, white supremacists in South Africa and Serbian war criminals."[36] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur; the source supports the cited edit, and it's a reliable source. It also doesn't seem to me to be undue emphasis, given that it's an article about a political activist. As for the edit summary, if the sources support the assertion that the English Defence League's notoriety is primarily due to an agenda of radicalism, then the summary would be literally true (if framed too tersely to avoid raising hackles in a political discussion). // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that the cited source uses that description (unrelated sources had been added at one time just to call the group far right) and this article has been subject to much POV editing. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 17:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Cecile Pineda

Someone claiming to be a friend of this author enquired in live-help about inaccuracies; in particular, the article name was incorrectly given as "Cecile Piñeda" so we moved it to Cecile Pineda, and fixed the name in the article - this fact seems bourne out by her official website.

I made a bit of a start on fact-checking here, but it could certainly do with some more attention. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nina Power

• Nina Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Femipower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Evil saltine (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Mainly a heads-up, since I hope the situation is largely resolved now. User:Femipower was adding large amounts of (in my opinion) heavily biased content, most of it referenced to various blogs, to the Nina Power article. This is nearly the only article Femipower has edited since creating her(?) account yesterday evening. During this time, three other users were revising or undoing her work as biased, inaccurate, and/or unreliably sourced. The last user to get involved (excluding me) was User:Evil Saltine, who reverted a number of Femipower's edits and gave her several warnings about BLP, reliable sources, and so on. After a while doing this, Evil Saltine asked for help on IRC; I looked at the situation with another admin, and we both agreed that the two of them were probably deserving of blocks for edit warring, although Femipower more so than Evil Saltine due to the longer period of edit warring. I've since blocked Femipower 24 hours for WP:3RR and WP:TE; Evil Saltine has blocked himself 24 hours for 3RR violations as well. Some more eyes on this article may help, especially once the blocks expire, but hopefully this is largely defused now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I notice the blog post ([37]) is still present. Doesn't WP:BLPSPS apply here? Evil saltine (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Mirza Masroor Ahmad

• Mirza Masroor Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Peaceworld111 has repeatedly removed well referenced section 'Friday Sermon of 30th Jan 09'.
Although I hope a compromise has been reached, Peaceworld111 has stated in talk section they don't wish to argue, thereby shutting off further discussion of the issue.

I can't say that I see what you see. It looks to me like Peaceworld111 is actually inviting you to discuss the issue on the article's Talk page; they just don't want to argue with you on, or about, your personal blog. Nothing wrong with that. The method Peaceworld111 used also seems to me to be consistent with BOLD, revert, discuss, at least at first. It looks to me like you stopped discussing before he did, which breaks the BRD cycle. You mentioned a compromise; how's that working out? (I've always liked the saying that in the best compromises, everyone walks away satisfied, but not happy...) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Shields#cite_note-16

OK, I'm sorry that your formatting requirements are to complicated for this wikipedia user to easily comprehend. Subsequently this post is probably improperly formated. However, the content is important because it addresses potentially libelous assertations made in the bio page for Brooke Shields.

Six facts seem to be cited by reference note 17. Four of those facts appear to be untrue and at least two of the falsehoods appear to be potentially libelous.

According to the article referenced by note 17: (http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/nude-photo-of-brooke-shields-does-not-tell-the-whole-story-518845/) 1. the photos did not appear in Playboy, 2. Brooke was not paid, and did not receive the $450 USD, 3. there is no evidence in the article to support the claim that Brooke posed nude at age 8, or 4. that she ever posed nude before age 10.

The nude photos taken at age 10 were published by Playboy Press in a book called "Sugar and Spice," and her mother was paid the $450.

http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/~tgleason/j385/Brooke.htm

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/Short%20Playboy%20Incest%20Imagesf.pdf

It would also be nice to see some reference made regarding her court battles to gain control of the images that she was apparently coerced into making at age 10 in the Wikipedia bio.

It is my opinion that Brooke was coerced because in American society we believe that a minor or a subordinate is incapable of giving consent in sexual situations. Specifically in the case of a person being involved sexually with a superior in the workplace, coersion is assumed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.165.247 (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• 'Tis gone. I checked the source. You're right. The facts stated were not supported by the source cited. The place to suggest your additions to the article is Talk:Brooke Shields. Uncle G (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Eva Angelina

In the Eva Angelina article, the fact that she is a "retired" actress is sourced to a Twitter statement. I removed the Twitter reference on the grounds that Twitter is not a reliable source. I was reverted on the grounds that it's allowed because it is supposedly her personal Twitter account (though there is no proof of that). When I clicked on the link, it turns out that the page that is sourcing the claim is not sourced, so I removed the link again, this time on the grounds that the Twitter page doesn't exist. I was reverted again, on the astonishing grounds that just because a Twitter account is closed doesn't mean we shouldn't still source BLP claims to it. So we now have a BLP that is sourced to a non-existant source. WTF? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I actually remember the source of the claim since I had originally checked the claim when it was inserted, and it was indeed her twitter. WP:SELFPUB is allowed under WP:BLP for when it belongs to the subject itself. She has since removed her twitter account upon retirement. Just because WP:LINKROT has occurred doesn't mean WP:V has not been satisfied. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • So how is a Wikipedia reader, coming along and reading the article now, supposed to be able to verify the information now? Verifiability means that readers can check for themselves. It doesn't mean "It did say that once. Honest! Trust us! We're pseudonyms on a wiki. Would we lie about a living person's career to you?". Uncle G (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Dead links do usually satisfy WP:V as the page usually becomes available on archive websites such as web.archive.org. Epbr123 (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried it? I just tried the first one [38] no joy. mark nutley (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have found that there seems to be a 1-year publishing lag on archive.org. I have no idea if it does archive twitter.com. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This brings to mind the to-and-fro over Amanda Bynes. Both "retirement" and "un-retirement" were sourced to Twitter posts that aren't where they were claimed to be. Uncle G (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed those sources per wp:v and asked on the talk page for actual reliable sources to be used instead, luckily the refs were not used for anything contentious mark nutley (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not positive that deleting the information is appropriate. WP:V says explicitly that information should not be deleted merely because the link is dead now. In this case, the citation may still be verifiable, if not immediately or trivially. It's also not controversial, so WP:BLP wouldn't seem to support an urgent deletion. The Library of Congress is archiving all public Tweets. It is possible that the tweet can be verified through the LoC. It doesn't appear that the archive is online yet, but there's no requirement that source verifiability must be done online. Perhaps someone wants to email the appropriate librarian at the LoC? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I restored it back pointing out that WP:LINKROT explains that dead links, which had fallen under WP:SELFPUB do not have to be deleted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Tweets (verified) are fine for limited personal details. But in this case with the link rot and no verification it is not a worthy citeation to support any claims, looking at it there are a few other twitterers claiming to be Eva. Off2riorob (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I demur. Tweets are valid for nothing unless or until Twitter confirms the actual identity of the person involved. Collect (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely so. If it wasn't from a verified account—and Twitter does have such things—it definitely isn't a RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macwhiz (talk • contribs) 12:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I added verified, although I disagree as to the specific meaning of verified in this situation, there are unverified twitter accounts that are clearly and indisputably the person in question, in fact quite a few stars are so clearly themselves as they do not bother to get the official verification but assert the verifiability through their personal tweets and pictures of themselves and so on. There are occasions where I would support an unverified account and I have added them myself (this is absolutely not one of those occasions). Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to comment that based on my personal experiences with the subject (since I have worked with her in the past and I am also friends with her former publicist), that the twitter account in question was clearly her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The specific tweets had been verified in the past when the account was still active. Does WP:V constantly require reverification at any time on demand and with convenience? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO with tweets being new and a weak Self published source and not as yet unarchived, in regards to BLP content if they are unable to be viewed they are worthless. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• - I have removed the claims, they are presently uncited and valueless and as far as BLP goes removable, please do not replace them without consensus support here to include such personal detail so weakly supported. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

David Rovics

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

This page is a mess, and was even before another IP stepped in today to add such gems as this and this. Please keep an eye on it and help prune. I'm going to do what I can for now, but I have to get busy here shortly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Irina Shayk

Hi. There is a small edit war in Irina Shayk. It is the last revert [39], user have 3 reverts for this day -- user from Bashkir wants to see a bashkir town Sibay in this article. But his sources is not very reliable - [40] - this is a small (number of copies around 11k), local to Sibay newspaper. This article says, that it is an interview with "Irina", taken an 2008 and reprinted at 2010. But how the press in small russian town could even get the interview from top-model (#18 of sexiest models in the world, 2 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue at the 2008 with her)?

Also, place of birth and living place of parents and grandmothers is not connected with Irina's notability. `a5b (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Page was protected in ru:~. This user is from ru:~ too. `a5b (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Blakeman

• Bruce Blakeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article on Bruce Blakeman is currently semi protected //
• Maryertl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - We got a request at the Help desk to delete part of the article which, the editor comments, is libellous. The particular part being pointed out is well referenced, though to an outspoken news source (seems reliable; the newspaper claims it has won a few Pulitzers). Request appropriate action as I don't know exactly how to proceed. Warm regards// ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 14:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well well well the fantastic The_Village_Voice Some people like it but imo it is not very good for anything controversial, has it been reported anywhere else? 14:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

Try this. Just scroll down and you'll see some links all around. But no, I've not verified any link from this search. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 15:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Its coatracking titillating tabloid allegations of mob connections to some donations to a campaign from 1998 from truck companies in the run up to a present 2010 election, partisan attack better kept out of the BLP . Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger Scruton

• Roger Scruton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Roger Scruton article was the subject of a report here just recently. That one dealt with Scruton's dealings with the tobacco industry. This one is about Scruton's comments about homosexuality. UserNandt1 has insisted on adding his own unsourced commentary on Scruton's views about homosexuality. I've tried to explain on the talk page that Wikipedia has policies against doing that sort of thing, and that we need to simply report things without adding our own commentary, but Nandt1 has persisted in adding his own interpretation and analysis, for example here. That edit makes it look as though Scruton has written an essay specifically about homosexuality - something he hasn't, to my knowledge, ever done. Scruton has written an essay ("Sexual morality and the liberal consensus") that deals essentially with liberal views on sexual morality; it argues that homosexual sex should be illegal, but homosexuality is only one of the subjects it mentions, so it's not really "about homosexuality". Nandt1's intention seems to be to make it look as though Scruton was repudiating that essay, but while he could have been doing that, it isn't at all clear that he was, since he didn't mention it by name in the interview Nandt1 added his commentary to. Nandt1's edit could inadvertently make it look as though Scruton was repudiating comments he made about homosexuality in the Daily Telegraph in 2007, but there's no sign that he has done that either.

The ongoing disputes at the article make it essential that more editors take an interest in it.

I should note that the administrator SlimVirgin has been involved with editing the article; she has actually argued in favor of including original research on the article's talk page. See her talk post here. SlimVirgin seems to feel that we must include original research or the article will somehow be "misleading": "...if we don't add the context, it sounds as though he's repudiating his more recent views too (e.g. the 2007 Telegraph views), which I think he is not. That's the problem: what we write will either be misleading or OR." I am very uncomfortable with that attitude, and would like others to comment on whether it is appropriate. UserVOBO (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

See also this edit by SlimVirgin, which seems extremely dubious in BLP terms. UserVOBO (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark Harper bio being repeatedly censored by Peter Karlsen

   ==Mark Harper bio being repeatedly censored by Peter Karlsen==

There is an autobiography warning at top of Mark Harper's page. I have now found evidence that it is indeed being abused as a self-flattering page. I have tried to put perfectly reasonable contextual info and found it repeatedly removed by "Peter Karlsen" on false grounds. He claims it is unreferenced but it was referenced as the specificl r4 Any Questions as you can see. He removed two final sentences as supposedly unsourced and yet they are self-evidently true (but necessary explanatory context) so no need for sourcing. He is clearly just looking for pseudo-excuses to keep that page censored of all unflattering content. I suggest that if this abuse is not prevented then the whole page should be removed. 86.171.172.129 (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)