Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:07, 20 September 2011

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.

Animal X

Article 'animal x (band) is about a music band from the country of romania. Please consider it is not a living person. It got me confused expression wikipedia:biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.. should it not tagg articles for living characters in the band?

Gudrun Schyman

I'm Swedish, and thus have a lot more sources availible than the average wikipedian with regards to the subject. Still, this was (is) a mess of such proportions that I don't think I can fix it. Maybe crowdsourcing it here can make it less headache-inducing. Good grief.

Zara Phillips

Resolved

– User:Reaper Eternal Move Protected Zara Phillips (expires 22:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As she is not changing her name upon marriage can someone revert this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zara_Tindall and possibly move protect it at least for now given the marriage has just happened so drive by page moves are likely. thanks RafikiSykes (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back to Phillips and requested temporary move protection. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgamesh in the Outback

Read what is currently there and compare it to what Robert Silverberg actually said in the source used: "During the heyday of the shared-world science-fiction anthologies, back in the mid-1980's, I was drawn into a project called Heroes in Hell, the general premise of which was (as far as I understood it) that everybody who had ever lived, and a good many mythical beings besides, had been resurrected in a quasi-afterlife in a place that was called, for the sake of convenience, Hell. The concept was never clearly explained to me - one of the problems with these shared-world deals - and so I never fully grasped what I was supposed to be doing. But the idea struck me as reminiscent of the great Philip Jose Farmer Riverworld concept of humanity's total resurrection in some strange place, which I had long admired, and here was my chance to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier. (Second paragraph is not germane - deals with character development) It was all so much fun that I went on to write a second Gilgamesh in Hell novella, featuring the likes of Pablo Picasso and Simon Magus, and then a third. I never read very many of the other Heroes in Hell stories, so I have no idea how well my stories integrated themselves with those of my putative collaborators in the series, but I was enjoying myself and the novellas (which were also being published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine) were popular among readers. "Gilgamesh in the Outback," in fact, won a Hugo for Best Novella in 1987, one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that. By then I realized that what I was doing was writing a novel in serialized form. The book that resulted in 1987, To the Land of the Living was not primarily an expansion but a compilation: I drew together my three Gilgamesh novellas, making slight revisions here and there in the interest of consistency, and added a brief epilogue that gave Gilgamesh's seemingly random wanderings in Hell some emotional significance and an ultimate epiphany. The only major change in the original three texts involved deleting all material that referred directly, or directly grew from, the work of the other writers in the Heroes in Hell series. This was done to avoid any clashes over copyright issues. Since I had, by and large, gone my own way as a contributor to the series, with only the most tangential links to what others had invented, it seemed wisest to eradicate from my book any aspect that some other writer might lay claim to, and I did." This is the actual citation that Wolfowitz is quoting from. The nuanced selective choices are trying to rewrite history and put both Morris and Silverberg in a bad light. He makes it sound like Morris, who is younger than Silverberg, tried to nefariously sucker him in to writing for the series. Silverberg was the President of SFWA back in the 1960s - he is by no mean naive or gullible. He knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote in the series and when he left the series. A more balanced account was written on the Heroes in Hell page, but Wolfowitz keeps removing it, even after we make the changes he cites for deletion. This needs arbitration by an unbiased higher authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.161.68 (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post and concern for the accuracy of Wikipedia. What is the source of the quote you gave above? Wikipedia has clear guidelines for sources. WP:RS. If you can help us access the source you have cited above then we can see if it is being accurately represented in the article and make any needed corrections. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source you requested: Thomsen, Brian (2006). Novel Ideas - Fantasy. DAW. pp. 205-206. ISBN 9780756403096. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.161.68 (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a reliable source to me. DS (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Hullaballo Wolfowitz referenced Brian Thomsen's "Novel Ideas" as a citation for his revision that Robert Silverberg's "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was "originally published in July 1986 Asimov's" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilgamesh_in_the_Outback&diff=449325690&oldid=444320250. It would be difficult for Hulaballoo Wolfowitz to challenge the Brian Thomsen citation given that HW also uses the same citation to assert "originally published" in the July 1986Asimov's. Dokzap (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Dokzap[reply]

Note that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz doesn't challenge the reliability or accuracy of the source. What he does challenge is the use of the source to support phony claims of "controversy" and related innuendo of impropriety regarding the story's author, as introduced into the Heroes in Hell article by an IP/SPA.[1] Since this source doesn't in any way support such claims, inserting them into an article is an obvious BLP violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of the information contained on "The Hugo Awards" website, written and administered by the Hugo Awards organization itself (publication data from the website: "© 2011 World Science Fiction Society "World Science Fiction Society", "WSFS", "World Science Fiction Convention", "Worldcon", "NASFiC", "Hugo Award", the Hugo Award Logo, and the distinctive design of the Hugo Award Rocket are service marks of the World Science Fiction Society, an unincorporated literary society.") http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1997-hugo-awards-2/, reporting that Mr. Silverberg won the Novella Hugo in 1987 for "Gilgamesh in the Outback" as published in "Rebels in Hell" of the Heroes in Hell series. I believe, of everyone, the Hugo Awards organization itself would have access to the most accurate information regarding its own awards process. I also do not believe anyone would accuse the Hugo Awards organization itself of being "biased" or guilty of supporting "phony claims" or "innuendo of impropriety" based on their own records from 1987. 'See' [2] Hulcys930 (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iota Nu Delta - Controversies section

This section of this article is blatant defamation over petty rivalry--broadly displaying the alleged misdemeanor of a non-notable person, his picture, his university, and an organization in which he is allegedly involved. Not all of these things belong in the public domain. It certainly does not belong on the Wikipedia page of a national organization. It is blatantly defamatory to the person and the organization and has no relevance to the article. The page has been protected due to edit warring but this defamatory section should be immediately removed. Thank you for your time. (Winfinity (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I agree that the Iota Nu Delta#Controversies section is a misuse of Wikipedia and should be removed immediately. As the article is fully protected following an edit war, I was unable to do that, so I left a request here. If another admin sees this, you might like to consider removing the section. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Orange Mike | Talk 13:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this frat group notable? afd? merge, .. Off2riorob (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What can be done to permanently delete the gross and purely defamatory content in the page history? Specifically the stuff here and on some previous versions which lists the name, location, alleged misdemeanor, university, and student club in which he is involved. Not all of this belongs online and certainly not on wikipedia. The motivation for posting this was defamation. (Winfinity (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Even though the article is deleted, this gross defamation remains online through the page history here and other revisions up until this one. None of this belongs on wikipedia and only some of it belongs on government websites. But information about the person's university, student, club, positions, and everything all in one place, is gross abuse. How can I proceed in having the versions permanently deleted? (Winfinity (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

- See- Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT - for how to request permanent advanced deletion. This link is also useful - Wikipedia:Requests_for_suppression - Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Perry

Political silly season is again upon us, and quite evident in this BLP where trivia is being added as though it were of major importance, including mention of a youthful prank which is not particularly notable, a large section reciting a letter to Hillary Clinton, a whole paragraph devoted to Paul Krugman's zealous denial of any economic credit in Texas to Perry, a tax section almost entirely devoted to criticism of Perry, and a large paragraph accusing him of "crony capitalism" just to hit a few highlights of the melange retending to be a biography. And this is not the only article being hit during this silly season ... I bring it up here because one editor says I must have an axe to grind if I remove "crony capitalism" etc. from the BLP <g>. Cheers. FWIW, I have absolutely zero connections to anyone's campaign for President entirely. Collect (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add to this that I got a thoughtful email from someone the other day pointing out that Krugman as a source should be treated very carefully, and I agree. He's an opinion columnist - a noteworthy one to be sure - but given the magnitude of coverage that Perry is getting and likely to get we should be careful to make sure to have a balanced approach.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to read Krugman's blog post about 9/11 -- mention of which has been kept from his own BLP <g> . In the case of Perry, one of the editors seems to be an SPA with under a hundred edits - all on Perry and Ron Paul, and with a fairly evident tone to his edit summaries. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] are fairly typical of this editor's edits. Cheers. I think you understand that the "silly season" does not help Wikipedia advance as a project. Collect (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Krugman is (merely) an "opinion columnist" and therefore is suspect is awfully hard to swallow. Yes, he writes for the NY Times -- but he is a world-famous economist, a faculty member at Princeton, Nobel Prize winner, etc. The fact that he writes for the Times does not undermine his standing in these other respects. I'm also deeply puzzled by use of the word "trivia" as applied to central campaign issues. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GPAs and their calculations are "central campaign issues"? Not. Did you read some of the sutff and the edit summaries? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You included under "trivia" issues related to economic policy in Texas, taxes, and the nature of capitalism in the US. You didn't include GPA calculations. I responded to what you (and Professor Wales) wrote. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of economics, he is an expert, but as a political analyst, he's no different from Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, or any of their other opinion writers. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a sustainable distinction, when the issue is economic policy -- a topic on which Krugman is clearly an academic expert. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And such posts as Krugman makes about 9/11 being a day of shame for the US? I suggest that such is not really in his sphere of expertise <g>. Collect (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you mean by 'political analyist'. If he's analysing someone's economic policy from the POV of whether he thinks it's good/bad/helpful/harmful or the effects on the US economy or world economy or whatever or then I agree it's his area of expertise although I don't consider political analyist really comes in to it. If he's discussing whether he expects the economic policy to be helpful or harmful to the candacy or whatever then I wouldn't consider that his field of expertise Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a long-time Texan, I just have to say that while Rick Perry being elected President WOULD get him out of our state, it's just not worth what would happen to the country. I will refrain from posting the plethora of political cartoons I have collected. I just can't wait for journalists (or ANYBODY) to really take a look at all the old videos and sound bites - after laughing themselves silly, they will have enough material to fill every newspaper and blog in the country for several years... and they can "analyze" to their little pea-pickin' hearts' content! Sorry, just couldn't resist! Hulcys930 (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Krugman

[8] has been strenuously objected to as an edit on that BLP. In point of fact, however, I think more eyes would benefit this article where even tepid criticism of the person seems to run afoul of WP:BLP as a matter of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the two sources that appear to be opinion pieces. It a rather blatant mistake to include cites to opinion pieces, in the lede no less where the specific material is not developed in the body of the article, to source that a person's critics claim that a liberal bias impugns their credibility. The editors who are edit warring over this are old hands here who should know better as a matter of style, reliable sourcing, consensus, BLP, etc. Nevertheless, the third source, an article in the Economist is a factual piece that sums up from a third party perspective that Krugman has critics, the critics complain about his political partisanship (which is somewhat different than merely being liberal or having liberal views), that he does in fact appear to be partisan in his writings, and that it is a significant aspect of his public persona, hence biographically important. The claim it makes is discussed in the body of the article at some length. If we accept that source as reliable, I don't see the BLP issue, though there can always be differences among editors about weight and relevance. And as a MOS issue, we don't need a citation in the lede if it's cited in the body (though in some extraordinary contentious cases it can help avoid dispute). - Wikidemon (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that since almost every BLP about contentious figures have at least one word indicating such in the lede, that omitting it entirely from the lede is hagiographic entirely (noting the huge amount of criticism currently mentioned in the article <g>). Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree. Also, those that are continually removing it are all but absent from any discussion. It appears to be a clear case of simply not liking it. The critism in the lede is a fair summary of his work. Arzel (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also strongly agree. Strongly opinionated op-ed writers, there is always a ton of criticism, so you need to make sure that the criticism comes from RS, which tends to be nil. And I pretty much agree with that for a BLP, it is an article about the person not a place to rehash his views. But, in order to state what he does, you have to say he is a *liberal op-ed columnist*. If the article is otherwise good NPOV, how is the reader supposed to figure out what the person does?Jarhed (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the critical opinion pieces and criticism was developed in the body of the article, would that make the material appropriate to include in the lead? CRETOG8(t/c) 15:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This person is a celebrity opinion journalist with a huge following, of course there is going to be criticism. Strict BLP policy should apply, in that all such criticism must come from reliable secondary sources and not other opinion sources. In other words, for this person's BLP, almost all personal criticism is going to be invalid because no reliable secondary sources are available other than other opinion pieces which, according to BLP policy, are invalid for BLP facts especially negative ones. If everyone followed this rule, BLPs would be much more accurate and easier for editors to work on.Jarhed (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I might just not fully grok WP:BLP, because that's a surprise to me. Where does the policy say that a critical piece (say, an attributed editorial in a respected newspaper) isn't an acceptable source for there being criticism? CRETOG8(t/c) 17:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Berezovsky (businessman)

Complaining re disruptive behavior of User:Deepdish7, who keeps reinserting poorly sourced, potentially libelous information, containing accusations of the subject of various crimes, including murder and funding of terrorism. All attempts to reason with the editor have failed. Request intervention. There is a parallel complaint about me by User:Deepdish7 on WP:COIN, with my detailed response, which is relevant to this report. --Kolokol1 (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been locked for the next two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Permanently Lock the Article

Locking the article for 2 weeks is a temporary measure. User:Deepdish7 will resume reverting it to the disputed version as soon as it is unblocked. He said that himself, and has done so on many occasions before. Going into mediation with him is pointless, and the discussion in the talk page has been going in circles for two months without any consensus. We are dealing with a person on a mission to create an attack article aimed at exposing the subject -- an opponent of Vladimir Putin -- as a criminal, and the British decision to grant him political asylum as an act of hostility to Russia. He declared these objectives himself in his talk posts. This is not a matter of conflicting opinions, but of reliability of sources and NPOV and of good faith in using WP tools, or lack thereof.

Although I am not the subject of this biography, I admit having an interest in a fair and balanced treatment of Mr. Berezovsky in accord with WP policies. Let them brand me with COI, this still does not justify dissimination of contentious, poorly sourced and potentially libelous material.

Presently, there are two versions of the article on the record, which speak for themselves:

Version 1, the original attack article created by Deepdish and his support team (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&oldid=439915507 )

Version 2, a collaborative effort of myself and other editors to clean it up in accord with WP policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&oldid=450509807 )

The latest edit war, which resulted in the locking of the article, consisted in reinserting blocks of text from the first version into the second, and their removal.

Version 1 is a quintessential attack page; Version 2 is admittedly a work in progress, but it is pointless to continue improving the article in the situation of perpetual edit war declared by Deepdish7.

So I call on the administratiors to protect the article indefinitely, and assign a disinterested editor to vet all further additions, which could be drafted on the talk page, for adherence to WP policies.--Kolokol1 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too many accusations and too many unfeasible proposals. Deepdish accuses you. You accuse Deepdish. Russavia accuses you. You accuse Russavia. Deepdish accused Black Kite and wanted a different administrator to "handle" the article. You want the article to get some sort of special treatment with a "disinterested" editor reviewing the additions on the Talk page. I personally tried to do that and was given grief by everyone. I have no particular interest in the subject of the article. In fact, I'm probably much more ignorant of the subject matter than each of you is. Yet, when I tried to slow down the pace of the changes to the article (this was after the last lock) and review each change carefully, I was met with flak and contempt. So, I bowed out and have remained on the periphery since doing so. Frankly, I'm not sure that any of you should be editing the article, but that's not for me to say and certainly not within my power to implement. But my guess is that if after this particular lock expires, and if the same pattern continues, the locks will just become increasingly longer and the article, in whatever state it is, will remain in that state. An article - any article - is not a battle field, it's an article, and we're not improving the integrity of this article at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban them both. The disruption at the biography is/has recently been unending. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not put us on the same footing. We may seem equally disriptive to you but the principal difference, from the standpoint of WP:BLP is that my opponent is trying to smear a person and I am trying to protect him within the BLP rules. Anyone who bothers to compare the two versions above would see this. The policy on this is very clear--Kolokol1 (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(retracted my support for a single topic ban) - Although you are defending the subject I think the point is somewhere in the middle and imo - the article will have more chance of WP:NPOV and will be less disrupted if your both restricted from editing there. Off2riorob (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, you might want to take a look at the discussion on WP:COIN before you agree with Kolokol.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had seen bits of that at Coin...that user appears to have issues but the person creating the attack article is the one that bothers me the most. He is also attempting to name this subject as the murderer of the free press guy -.. Paul Klebnikov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - as the leading allegation has been removed from the lede there he is starting to revert war to the lede there also - that unsolved murder is the reason for deepdish's attacks here. He has only edited these two articles - this one to attack the subject and the other to leading-ly allege this subject was responsible for the murder. I am at the end of my wiki chances with deepdish. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a ban request at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complete absence of edit warring at Sarah Palin article

Shades of Conan-Doyle's dog in the night here. An editor has recently added a section to the Palin bio regarding the content of Joe McGinniss's new biography of her - including references to an alleged affair with her husband's business partner, and to claimed use of cocaine and marijuana in her earlier life. Though this is sourced to the Daily Mail, a little Googling shows that other, more reliable sources are reporting the story (as allegations by McGinniss, rather than as necessarily factual), see [9] or [10] (and [11] for the allegations of a 1987 sexual liason with Glen Rice, also from McGinniss's book). The odd thing is the complete silence at the article talk page etc. I find it difficult to believe that nobody is watching the article, so what is going on? Have the Palinistas all abandoned her? In any case, I think a few more (neutral, or at least uninvolved) eyes on the article may be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki has lost a lot of editing, and SP doesn't attract as much attention as Rick Perry and others, now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still editing Wikipedia pretty much every day, and (disclosure) I'm not all that fond of Sarah Palin personally. However, I think that any contentious claims about her need to be referenced to high-quality reliable souces. Perhaps the warriors have lost interest a bit because she isn't a declared presidential candidate, but we still have an obligation to maintain BLP standards here. Do you have a specific recommendation, Andy, or is this just a sociological observation? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only recommendation was that uninvolved editors should keep an eye on the article. The McGinniss book seems to be attracting a significant amount of attention in the mainstream media (see L.A. Times review for example[12]), and we will clearly have to tread carefully to find a balance regarding how this is reported. (And BTW, for the record, I'm no Palin fan myself - though I suspect that is fairly obvious). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am no fan of SP, or of editing US electoral politics articles in general, but no amount of overwhelming RS consensus is going to convince me to include that she might have had sex with some dude, a decade and a half before she became notable. That is the very thing that WP:SENSATION wants us to avoid. The other stuff, however, needs to be better sourced. In fact, I am not sure if it should be included at all. We are not a gossip rag, no matter what the subject. --Cerejota (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence about Joe McGinniss's new book per Cerejota's impeccable reasoning and have placed the article on my watch list per Andy's request. The Los Angeles Times review Andy linked casts real doubt on whether this book, or reporting on it, can be considered a reliable source for the SP article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I watch it every day, but I hate to edit without discussion on talk (and even more loathe to revert). I agree with Cullen's recent removal of this section, as it certainly is pure sensationalism. Worse, it's the type that will always inherently lack secondary sources (the he said, she said type). I guarantee it's not the last we'll see this added to the page. Fcreid (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit at issue is a splendid example of the political silly season "this person alleged that John Doe is still beating his wife" level of relevance in a BLP. Collect (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im actually surprised that this hasn't come up earlier, i guess the Palin fever is starting to break ;-). I commented on the talk page that i dont feel this material should be included for more or less the reasons expressed by Cerejota, Cullen328, Fcreid and Collect. Bonewah (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I first posted material to the Sarah Palin article. As this has been reverted, I've now taken this to Talk:Sarah Palin#Joe McGinniss book. I've explained my reasoning there, and very much welcome additional input into this issue. I am unconvinced by some of the arguments above. WP:SENSATION does not appear to apply to me. This is not something merely reported in scandal-mongering papers. It's something being discussed in reputable, reliable source papers. It is not infotainment or churnalism. The above reference to WP:SENSATION appears to be a rather broad interpretation of what WP:SENSATION is actually about.

As I've said on the Talk page, the driving principle behind WP:BLP is the use of reliable sources, and we have those aplenty in this case. Wikipedia is not a gossip rag, and we should not repeat what gossip rags say. However, when a significant scandal is covered by multiple reliable sources, that is something we should cover, in a careful, measured, neutral and, above all, well-cited manner. Let's use all those cites given above! Bondegezou (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that is being covered in reliable sources is the fact that McGinniss made the claims that he did. And, in any event, reliable sources are necessary, but not sufficient for inclusion in a BLP. Frankly, if this material doesnt qualify and sensationalistic gossip, I dont know what would. Bonewah (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't follow how you are interpreting WP:BLP. I've re-read it and I don't see anything comparable to your language of "necessary, but not sufficient". If reliable sources like The Guardian, LA Times etc. are covering the issue, I don't see how it can be dismissed as "sensationalistic gossip" alone. While I appreciate your comments so far, Bonewah, I don't see how they relate to policy or reliable sources, which I understand to be the central principles behind all our efforts here. Could you perhaps re-explain your point with specific reference to policy? Bondegezou (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material includes accusations of felonious criminal activity not sourced to any named person. If that is not almost a textbook definition of "sensationalistic gossip" I wote not what would suffice for you. Collect (talk) 21

01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ive explained my thinking at length on the SP talk page, including quoting the relevant portions of BLP policy directly, I dont know what more you want. Further, between here and the Sarah Palin talk page 8 different editors have rejected inclusion of this material in her biography so far with only you arguing for its inclusion. While that does not preclude further discussion and minds changing, i think you are clearly swimming against the tide here. Perhaps our time would be better spent not arguing in the face of such clear consensus. Bonewah (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the McGiniss book is WP:RS. McGiniss is an author with a long track record of major books, it was published by a major publisher, and it's been widely reviewed.

Whether it's true is another question, which we can't decide. We should include the charges and the reviewers' reactions. That should keep it WP:NPOV.

Whether it's salacious is irrelevant. Unfortunately in the public discourse, WP:RSs regularly publish salacious information (which I don't think has anything to do with their qualifications for office), as they did with Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner.

So now the vote is 2 to 8, and as you know WP:CONSENSUS is not a majority vote. --Nbauman (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations made in the book are currently covered by Wikipedia in Joe McGinniss#The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin, along with analysis of his claims by other reliable sources (which are not supportive). The reviews claim that McGinniss relied on anonymous sources for his claims, this is definitely a big no-no for us per the BLP policy. Unless there's some corroboration for his claims, they should stay out of Sarah Palin and Glen Rice. Kelly ^hi! 17:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rice himself admitted to sleeping with her. It should be included in his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.227.232 (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Kalin

Andrea Kalin has a long history of COI edits by parties unknown, both named accounts and IPs. As a result, we have a long, lovingly-detailed promotional account of her film-making career, but no actual biographical information on the human being of this name. It's not quite a resume, but certainly not a real article about a living person: more a brochure for her production services. Can some fresh eyes have a look at it? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jochen Zeitz

self-marketing of an business major? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.192.148 (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, but certainly a poorly written article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable - and reduced to two specific reliable sources thereon. Feel free to add to it. Collect (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kweku Adoboli

A $2 billion rogue trader story, just breaking, this is bound to attract questions of WP:BLP1E and recentism. His name is now being used by the BBC, WSJ, and FT but hasn't been officially released as far as I can tell. It personally looks ok to me, but it might help if somebody keeps an eye on it. Smallbones (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina (ex-Muslim)

In January, this article was created over a redirect to Faith Freedom International.[13] The article provides little biographical info, identifies the subject as "an apostate", and goes into excessive detail about this person's (an alias) anti-Muslim positions. Even the title is problematic; is "ex-Muslim" the best way to disambiguate this person? My feeling is that an Afd is in order, looking for other opinions. The Interior (Talk) 17:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that strikes me as really inappropriate. I've moved it to Ali Sina (activist) until someone can come up with a better description. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the new title is better, I'm not sure if the old title was really as terrible as it sounds. It looks to me like it would be a name the subject would use to describe himself Nil Einne (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I was getting at was that if we know so little about this person that their defining characteristic is "ex-Muslim", then perhaps we need to look at notability. The Interior (Talk) 22:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Safwat Morsy

A person, by the name of Vilas Pendse, is trying to commit libel and slander against a living person Safwat Morsy. Wikipedia Article Website -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safwat_Morsy

Vilas Pendse goes by himself or sometimes as SFPeaceful. He has committed identity theft first by created a fake Facebook profile of Safwat Morsy and then created a couple fake Yelp profile to slander Safwat Morsy. Here is the San Francisco Police Report number (case number 110700524). More details -- http://www.alsabeel.org/component/content/article/40-nnouncements/136-urgent-message

I am open to constructive and true criticism of Safwat Morsy, but the blog article links have no sourced. Safwat Morsy never had any radical sermons and all sermons are video taped. Please let us know how we can provide links to all sermons that SFPeaceful is really lying about.

I hope wikipedia takes this seriously because a person is being slandered on Facebook, Yelp and now Wikipedia. Facebook and Yelp have taken action. Wikipedia is an interesting project and unfortunately someone is trying to use it for the purposes of slander.

I am requesting a Permanent Lock on Safwat Morsy article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.32.3 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that an administrator investigate and consider blocking the two editors who are attacking this man. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has nothing in it currently that is libelous. However, the article is very poorly written and sourced. I've cleaned up the article and put in a refs tag. I'll also watch the article as it's no long semi-protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis W. Chiu

A case can be made for this guy's possible notability, but the current version combines the worst aspects of a smarmy jobseeker's resume, a political candidate's self-serving autobio and a would-be academic's desperately padded CV. I'm tempted to burn it to the ground and re-build from scratch, but it isn't really a total WP:CSD G11 candidate. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a jobseeker resume feel, so I removed the resume portion in the Law & Business section. Not sure he's a job seeker since he owns his own law office. The "would-be" part of the publications is questionable too, so I removed all "web" published articles from the Publications section. I also took out all words that seem to indicate bias. Chiu doesn't seem to be a political candidate, but his 2011 work for LGBT rights in San Jose during political redistricting and managing a city council campaign in southern California is current. He is also a current planning commissioner in Santa Clara County (aka Silicon Valley) which makes him at least somewhat notable, because of the importance of the area. --Paulsanjose | Talk 21:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a list of reading lists his work with anohter is on. Puff at best. Collect (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article on media bias - it's actually notable because it's the first to find a statistical link between media slant and talking head opinions, but he doesn't need to say its taught at Harvard. Talk 05:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article again. As revised, it doesn't seem to have arguable issues with WP:CSD G11 anymore. --Paulsanjose | Talk 00:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Mattis DOB

An editor has raised an issue with General James N. Mattis' DOB through email:

It seems that on 20 Oct 2010 you updated James N. Mattis' birth date to September 8, 1950. That is incorrect and the source you sited for that date has been :told they are incorrect as well.

In a interview General Mattis did with the North County Times published on on June 24, 2007 (audio taped on June 19, 2007) he stated in his own voice and :words that he was 57 years old and proud of it. The audio of that interview has been deleted from the internet, but I have it on my hard drive. I listened to it :yesterday to make sure I was correct. You can read the article which does not recount that part of the interview, but you could contact the journalists and ask for :a copy of the audio. I would not assume that June 19, 1950 is his birth date, but doing the math certainly means that it is impossible for Sept 8, 1950 to be his :birth date because he could have only been 56 on June 19, 2007 if that were true.

http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/perspective/article_ad6c537b-a781-5f9a-8a74-c70b3b1181f9.html

My concern is that citing other internet sources without fact checking makes Wikipedia unreliable. I don't think I'll trust another thing in Wikipedia because of this.

I replied and updated the citation and got another reply -

Well I did annotate the Mattis Talk Page. However, I know the Congressional Hearing Transcript is incorrect and your information about his DOB is incorrect. :Citing two incorrect sources, one that cites the other that is OBVIOUSLY incorrect because of the dispute between his DOB and his MRD. Just because it says :Congressional Hearing (which I listened too again today) does not mean the person transcribing it made an error. It would better not to publish instead of :providing inaccurate information.

So, I'm moving on and will leave this subject and the incorrect data on Wikipedia. However, I'm forever suspicious of anything published on Wikipedia because :of you.

Can anyone assist me here? – Connormah (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave the birthdate as is. I would remove the public background check source, and if you want to add a second source just for the year, use this one. If it were someone claiming to be Mattis himself, I might be inclined to a different resolution, but this is a disgruntled, combative reader.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is another example of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth - as I said in an email to him, if there were more discrepancies in his age, then I'd be more inclined to change it, but all sources I've seen seem to be consistent.

And in this instance, we don't even have a good basis to believe the DOB is inaccurate. So, it might very well be verifiable AND true.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is all laid out for you at this link http://donnadiane.com/?p=502 Now it's documented on line and will be picked up by the search bots Samwest314Samwest314 (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing what people will do. Even assuming you're correct about what Mattis said during the uncitable interview, did it ever occur to you that Mattis either rounded up (he would have been 57 in less than 3 months) or that he made a mistake? I've known many people to round up their age (or round down or even lie). And I've known many people to make mistakes about their ages. I wish you and the bots all the best.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Encyclopedia Britannica: "James Mattis, (born Sept. 8, 1950, Pullman, Wash., U.S.), U.S. Marine Corps general who was appointed by Pres. Barack Obama to serve..." (Source) Published sources far outweigh this self-published original research. Jokestress (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Lane Craig

Recently there is one unique problem with the William Lane Craig article: three users have removed the majority of the content in the article and has repeatedly kept other users from adding more info. From more than 20kb in May 2010, the current article is less than half of that size.

Most notable is user User:Hrafn who began his involvement in this article since 26 May 2011, and has repeatedly deleted important information from the article with such reasons given as "Rm: WP:OR that is NOT IN THE CITED SOURCES!" despite not being familiar with the source in question; "UTTERLY worthless sources on UTTERLY unimportant website" despite the website being a part of William Lane Craig's ministry; and his arguments from the talk page contains things like "You "think you could be a member of an organization without believing in" the whole point for that organisation existing, whilst mouthing that organisation's claims on that subject? I don't think so. The world may not be "black and white" -- but religious conservatives' thinking generally is." (emphasis in original; last line clear indicative of inability to be objective concerning the article in light of its religious nature); "" whilst mouthing that organisation's claims on that subject" -- Craig is not a token evolutionist, and the DI is not Fox News. Think tanks (of any stripe) rarely, if ever, have "token people who disagree with it." And conservative Christians very much tend towards eliminationist groupthink -- see Rightwing authoritarianism for the details of the dynamics. Craig walks with, talks like and acts like a creationist -- so I see no reason whatsoever to pretend that he's not one when the subject comes up." (emphasis in original; also another indication of failure to be objective); and a whole list of anti-theistic views posted on the talk page clearly reveals that this user should be barred from making any further edits due to his inability to be objective about his edits.

The second user responsible for the vast reduction in information is User:PeterTheGreat (formerly Theowarner2, editing the article as User:Theowarner since 19 June 2010) who began on 18 May 2010. His responses on the talk page includes things like "Do a brutal edit and just eliminate everything that isn't covered by third-party sourcing. I'd love to see what that looks like." Mostly not notable edits, but he does make a large number of edits over the years which accumulated into this issue.

Lastly, there is User:Mann jess, who began editing the article on 5 June 2010. The problem with the user may not be bias or even objectivity, but rather a plain disregard of many sources with the false impression that primary sources must be avoided at any cost, and that even the Official Channel of the White House on YouTube cannot be considered as a reliable source.

An obvious problem with the way these three users handle editing on the William Lane Craig article can be seen in the way they removed a quote by prominent atheist Sam Harris about William Lane Craig, stating that he is "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists"; while one user has given a Fox News report as a source, Hrafn went much further when discussing about the Sam Harris quote by saying "It is indeed a lousy source. The publisher isn't exactly known for being "Fair & Balanced" (no matter what their slogan may say), the writer appears to be a featherweight & the story is just a piece of publicity-seeking fluff. Speaking for myself, I can't understand this Christian obsession with Dawkins. In this instance he's the wrong choice for a debating partner -- Craig would be better off seeking a raconteur like Stephen Fry -- who would most likely make for a far more interesting and memorable debate. But Dawkins seems to be their Moby Dick." Mann jess takes the opportunity to outright remove the quote from the article ("Per forming consensus here, I've removed the addition.") despite the "consensus" simply consisting of Mann jess, Theowarner and Hrafn. All this in spite of the video of the source of the quote, which is the second installment of "The God Debate" hosted in the University of Notre Dame, being made available on YouTube since April 12, 2011, and the full transcript of the debate made available as early as May 3, 2011. This indicates either lack of fact-checking or outright denial of facts, which, either way, would be indicative of their incompetency and thus the main reason why they should be barred from making any further edits on the page.

In addition to the above, more details concerning the trio's bad faith in their editing of the William Lane Craig article are explained in this video. Maiorem (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you're proposing I be topic banned, even if on the wrong noticeboard, it would have been nice if you'd informed me of the discussion. Some of your quotes are out of place, and your depiction could have been a bit more forthright. This dispute was started after consensus formed to trim the article based on its high reliance on primary sources (notably the subject's CV). A while after that had been taking place without objection, a quote (which brought this discussion here) was proposed for removal on the talk page, and was supported by nearly all the regular editors on the page, due to weight concerns. In the meantime, someone else decided to start canvassing on an external forum, found here. It appears this is where Maiorem was drawn into the discussion, and a week after the quote proposal had died down, he jumped in to give his opinion. That discussion can be found here. Maiorem's responses attempted to defend the reliability of a youtube video, to be used as a source, and so that's what our conversation centered around, but it concluded when he insisted that his intention was to demonstrate a supposed lack of good faith, not to change the article content. I'll let the rest speak for itself. All the best, — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, this is the right noticeboard to discuss an issue with the BLP. I have already asked prior to the making of this report if I should bring the matter here, in case you do not notice the timestamp. If you claim that my quotes are out of place, please show why. As it is, the current report is already overworded and if I need to include every single detail it would have dragged on even more. And no, three persons do not constitute a "consensus". Reliance on primary sources for a BLP is acceptable according to such criteria per WP:SELFPUB:

it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Just because something took place without objection does not mean there was a consensus. As it is, Wikipedia relies on lay people to edit its articles, and most of the time people are busy instead of tending to this article, thus the false impression of "consensus" is simply due to silence and self-serving among the three users. Silence does not equal consent. The WP:Weight concerns are unjustified and based on User:Mann jess' personal interpretation of Sam Harris' quote rather than a face-value evaluation of the quote's weight. I was not even aware of the forum. The reason why I contributed to the discussion of the proposal one week after it has died down is because I only visited the William Lane Craig article for the first time in months and was appalled by the sudden lack of contents compared to its previous state, confirmed by a comparison of the article's history. My defense of using a YouTube video uploaded by the University of Notre Dame as a live recording of the debate between William Lane Craig and Sam Harris where the quote originated is only part of my response and the discussion is not centered around that one issue. However, it is true that my intention is to prove that there is no good faith edit being made by the three users and thus I request that they stop themselves from making any further edits, which has future impact on the article content. Maiorem (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This report is long on chat and short on examples. What is the specific BLP problem? Give a passage included or excluded wrongly. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided one obvious example in the report, and for other examples I have already pointed to the video which gives an analysis of some of the problems with the handling of this particular BLP. Maiorem (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read your report again. Please give a passage that is included or excluded wrongly. I am not watching your video. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the example in my second-to-last paragraph in the initial report, but for your sake I'll duplicate it here:

An obvious problem with the way these three users handle editing on the William Lane Craig article can be seen in the way they removed a quote by prominent atheist Sam Harris about William Lane Craig, stating that he is "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists"; while one user has given a Fox News report as a source, Hrafn went much further when discussing about the Sam Harris quote by saying "It is indeed a lousy source. The publisher isn't exactly known for being "Fair & Balanced" (no matter what their slogan may say), the writer appears to be a featherweight & the story is just a piece of publicity-seeking fluff. Speaking for myself, I can't understand this Christian obsession with Dawkins. In this instance he's the wrong choice for a debating partner -- Craig would be better off seeking a raconteur like Stephen Fry -- who would most likely make for a far more interesting and memorable debate. But Dawkins seems to be their Moby Dick." Mann jess takes the opportunity to outright remove the quote from the article ("Per forming consensus here, I've removed the addition.") despite the "consensus" simply consisting of Mann jess, Theowarner and Hrafn. All this in spite of the video of the source of the quote, which is the second installment of "The God Debate" hosted in the University of Notre Dame, being made available on YouTube since April 12, 2011, and the full transcript of the debate made available as early as May 3, 2011. This indicates either lack of fact-checking or outright denial of facts, which, either way, would be indicative of their incompetency and thus the main reason why they should be barred from making any further edits on the page.

And that is not my video. Maiorem (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, your problem is that the article excludes a quote from Sam Harris saying "William Lane Craig, is 'the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists,'" is that correct? Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is incorrect. The problem is that these three users have repeatedly demonstrated lack of good faith and/or incompetency in their editing of this BLP, this Sam Harris quote being merely one example of the bigger problem. Maiorem (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide specific examples, using WP:DIFFS and brief explanations of instances where said users were damaging the BLP. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See for yourself. Maiorem (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A brief review of the "before" and "after" versions shows the "before" uses totally unreliable sources, like www.reasonablefaith.org, and www.closertotruth.com. The after version appears to use published books. I can understand why a hagiography might be your preference, but honestly, the baseline short version is far better than the unreliably sourced version. Propose specific incremental changes to the article that improve it and see what happens. Hipocrite (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, how do you justify your view that ReasonableFaith.org is an unreliable source? In fact, why is Closer To Truth not considered a reliable source either? Secondly, you have ignored the removal of published sources such as The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (2007) by Quentin Smith, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by William Lane Craig, the blog of Brian Leiter, Access Research Network, and even Whittier Daily News, all of which have been removed in the current version. These are a total of seven references which contribute to much of the removed content. Please explain why these are considered unreliable sources, as the reliability of these sources were not even discussed in the article's talk page. Maiorem (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orson Scott Card

Prolific Sci-Fi writer Orson Scott Card apparently disagrees with the LGBT movement on a number of levels. Needless to say that has been causing a flurry of editing on both sides of the aisle. Some extra eyes and rational voices would be helpful. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above summary is not particularly accurate or helpful. A recent article in the Guardian (8 September) has highlighted a furore in the media and on the web with the reissue of Card's novella Hamlet's Father, whom according to that article is portrayed as a "gay pedophile". The question is whether Card's political/religious stance, in particular his opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage, should be mentioned in the lede. That prompted a discussion in which many editors, some of them newly arrived, have commented and that issue now seems to have been resolved. Mathsci (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that a Mormon actually follows the teachings of that church, all of it is really unneeded in the BLP. Rather like adding that a Southern Baptis opposes abortion, it is in the realm of Captain Obvious. It would be more noteworthy if he opposed the techings of his church. Collect (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heck - even removing the Captain Obvious line that he opposes same sex marriage seems to be required by the POV folks there! Cheers - I think I may add that he believes in sex after death - after all that is a Mormon teaching IIRC. Collect (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State the obvious. Will Beback talk 22:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it goes beyond the obvious. If any article merits a discussion of the subject's religious beliefs, Card's article is it - practically dominates his life, based on what I've read.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Card's membership of the board of directors of National Organization for Marriage is reported in secondary sources and is notable. It is not a Mormon organization. Mathsci (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The initial mention did not include the organization (NOM) in the lede, and was clearly a Mormon triviality, as is much of the article's emphasis on homophobia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was an explicit discussion on the talk page about whether or not to include that in the lede and you deleted the compromise solution. Please read that discussion before making further comments. Mathsci (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snark here as well? I read the whole discussion page, if you please. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That explicit point was discussed and the consensus solution took a long while to work out. Your comments on the talk page brought in Catholicism and the Virgin birth but did not mention the previous consensus. [14] Mathsci (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused about where exactly on the talk consensus was established that the NOM association should be mentioned in the lead. Can someone please point that out to me? The homophobia discussion has gotten pretty disorganized so I may have missed it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Apick

IMBD is referenced as Mary being born in 1954. Somebody keeps changing her birth year to 1961 with no reference. Ericsean (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to find something besides IMBD. The Interior (Talk) 01:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have removed the birthdate until another source (reliable) is found.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe McGinniss

It appears someone has edited this page to attack him.

I just checked back and the attack language at the top of the article is gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.175.53 (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably someone quoting the Washington Post book review of his work on Palin [15]. McGinniss is not being taken seriously by the NYT or WaPo to say the least. Collect (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Polanski talk page

On the talk page of Roman Polanski I believe there are some slanderous comments about his victim. Here the relevant edits [16] and [17]. If every single source out there says she has stated from the beginning it was not consensual, should he be allowed to suggest she said "yes"? Dream Focus 02:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the comment I made in response to a claim that Polanski should be included in the Child molester category, and its vague and not slanderous in any way. User:Dream Focus wants to add polanski to the Rapist cat and is simply attempting to demean my position with rubbish libel claims. Off2riorob (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care to not violate BLP on this talkpage - This has been well hashed out massively - I suggest if you were not involved in the prior discussions please read the archives Personally I see your comment about child molester as close to a violation itself. Its hair splitting personal opinion, stat rape is fine in this case. At least that was the previous consensus. Rapist suggests the person did not say yes, whereas in this case is was not a bit like that." - Off2riorob (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rapist suggests the person did not say yes, whereas in this case is was not a bit like that. Not a bit like her not saying yes? What? How is that not slanderous? And the rest of the conversation isn't relevant here, I'm here to discuss only that comment, and the discussion about it that followed. It says to link to the offensive bit, not to copy it here. Dream Focus 02:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your ? .. ? say it all. You don't know what I meant only that I said, its not a bit like that. I disagreed with your portrayal thats all. Off2riorob (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the issue here. Answer the question about what you said and stop trying to divert attention from it. Do you believe she consented? Is there any reliable source out there that says she ever changed her story once about being raped by the guy? Dream Focus 02:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page - I don't care if she consented or not, all I care about is attempts to unduly categorize the living subject of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other opinions please. Is his statement suggesting that she lied about being raped, and actually wanted him to have sex with her, slanderous? Doesn't that violate the rules about comments about living people? Dream Focus 02:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words into my mouth, your portrayal is of your opinion about my comment and not about my comment itself. Off2riorob (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? Everyone state how you interpret his comment please. "Rapist suggests the person did not say yes, whereas in this case is was not a bit like that." Dream Focus 02:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hell yourself, get over yourself, and go do something creative. Off2riorob (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know you did something wrong. You are trying to portray the issue as something unrelated. Your comment is there, there is only one possible meaning. Arguing back and forth with you is pointless. I'll try to ignore you until others come and read what was said, and then state their opinions. Dream Focus 02:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong is like your claim that I have broken the rules .. we have guidelines and policy here, not rules - done something wrong is not my resisting your attempts to add undue categorization to a living persons wikipedia biography, it is not remembering my mothers birthday. Off2riorob (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, Off2riorob's comment is well within reasonable bounds if you consider the information contained in this New York Times article from 2009. The 1970s were rather extreme in one direction, and today's societies are rather extreme in the other. (From my personal experience: A friend of mine owns a sexual education book printed at the time with a respectable German mainstream publisher. I once read it and found it curious, in part misguided, but not particularly concerning overall. Later I learned that it has since been outlawed by the Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons.) It helps to remember that consensual sex between two children of approximately the same age and maturity is by far less of an issue (in fact, it should not be an issue at all, although some jurisdictions are broken) than asymmetric cases. The difference is of course entirely due to socially constructed reasons, and in 1970s' Bonobo culture these did not apply to the same degree.

Polanski's claim that the sex was consensual is not at all implausible, to the limited extent that sex with a 13-year-old can be consensual (sexually experienced or not). He wasn't convicted of more than that. And his probation officer said it was likely consensual. That's more than enough reason for the article not to claim or imply that it wasn't consensual. Hans Adler 19:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia Tchoumitcheva

Xenia Tchoumitcheva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). This is a BLP of a young European model/actress. It would seem to be established on the talk page, using various sources, that there are two competing birth dates. The earlier date seem to be backed by sufficiently reliable sources. The later date is backed by the models agency and agency controlled releases. The later date was apparently asserted in an OTRS email from the subject or a representive (see top of talk page). The conjectured explanation is that the agency has fabicated and pushed a later date to increase the marketability of the model. There is a foreign language source reporting the model being questioned about it, and I think she claims ignorance about some mistake and a need to check with her agents (see here). There is now a long history of slow edits whereby associated SPAs or IPs were inserting the later date into the article. Following substantiated challenge, IPs now resort to removing the earlier birthdate, leaving birthdate unmentioned. Other editors would like to keep the earlier, more reliable, date in the article. The options would seem to be:

Insist on stating the earlier date, contrary to the agency official data.
Allow the agency official data, knowing it to be likely incorrect
As above, but explicitly state something along the lines of "Agency asserted birthdate"
Include in the article information about competing birthdates in different sources.
Not make any mention of birth date.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's date insert/remove slow edit war continues. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. WP:BLP, or specifically WP:DOB says "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." That doesn't help - the person isn't that notable, but simply listing the year is exactly what she's objecting to, she has no objection to day and month. Also the subject's official web site includes day and month, right in the title: "Xenia Tchoumitcheva born August 5th, 1989 official website". I'd say go with something like option 4: born August 5, 1987 [ref],[ref] or 1989 [ref],[ref], but unless we have some fairly good sources commenting on the difference, we shouldn't either, just state the facts that reliable sources disagree. --GRuban (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issue over at ANI

Over at WP:ANI#Dispute over lawsuit sources at Porter Stansberry, we're having a discussion about BLPPRIMARY and its use as a citation for the allegations against Porter Stansberry. There's quite a revert war going on, and there definitely seem to be severe disagreements about whether BLPPRIMARY constitutes a blanket ban against using court filings as a source, or whether it merely prevents sourcing claims and assertions in BLPs. I just thought you guys would probably be able to shed some light on the subject. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 04:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since an "assertion" simply means "a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason", any claim pulled from a court document necessarily falls under this prohibition. I think it applies equally to statements including "Bobbert is a murderer", "Bobbert was charged with murder," and, even "Bobbert is 46 years old and employed by Bobbert's Rent-a-car". Nothing in a BLP should be sourced to court proceedings, court filings, or court transcripts. Am I wrong? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". In this case it is being argued that the assertion is not about a living person but is about a complaint filed by the SEC. Thincat (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The next edit to this page removed an edit I had just made, I expect in an edit conflict. Again: There needs to be a reliable source saying why the SEC complaint is in any way pertinent. Without this there is an implicit assertion that the primary source is indeed relevant to the person. As is being said at Talk, a secondary source for the whole matter would be preferable. Thincat (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that court documents are not reliable sources is that they require a legal opinion, which is by definition POV. When that opinion is rendered by a reliable source (i.e. a court reporter), it is then usable as a reliable secondary source. Once again, any editor's opinion about the meaning of a court document is on its face POV. A further issue that I have with using court documents is that they rarely encompass the totality of the issue. An arrest record for murder will not show the results of the prosecution and thus can be unduly prejudicial, and this is yet another great reason for not allowing court documents as sources.Jarhed (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes we have to step back and look at the underlying rationale behind policies and guidelines. In the case of primary sources, I agree with Jarhed that the danger is most assertions require interpretation by the editor, which is not necessarily non-neutral, but is certainly OR. Generally, the best course is to cite to a secondary source and back it up with the court document. In that way, the assertion in the article is based on the secondary source, and the secondary source's interpretation is based on the court document - and the reader has the benefit of both cites. All that said, sometimes primary sources do not require interpretation, in which case, although perhaps not best and technically contrary to policy, citing them could be reasonable. For example, if an appellate court issues an opinion saying clearly that it affirmed the lower court's ruling, citing it for just that proposition shouldn't be a big deal. In addition, we often cite primary sources in articles about cases themselves. Some might think that's not a problem because it doesn't involve BLPs, but often a court makes findings that impact living people, even if they are not the subject of the article. This is another example where having a policy is, of course, a good thing, and complying with policy is also a good thing, but we shouldn't forget that editorial judgment often comes into play.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase, "if an appellate court issues an opinion saying clearly that it affirmed the lower court's ruling" is a term of legal art that requires a legal opinion in order to determine what it means. I am flatly against the use of any legal reasoning anywhere in WP, but *especially* in BLPs. The phrase I quote might, just might, be appropriate for the BLP of a federal judge. Everywhere else: unacceptable as per BLP.Jarhed (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually another big reason besides intepretation is the fact we have no guide or reason to believe there is any significance if it hasn't been cited in RSS. Nil Einne (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed as a matter of general concept, but in some instances, you have a notable event that is reported on by secondary sources, but a primary source provides a detail that is sufficiently important to the article but has not been reported on by secondary sources. If that detail is not susceptible to interpretation (and I realize that itself can be a matter of interpretation), the primary source might be citable. Although the general prohibition against use of primary sources is sound, exceptions may be made on a case-by-case basis, particularly if there is consensus for doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I flatly disagree with the use of any court document for a BLP in any way. The "details" you mention might be salacious and unproven allegations that are thrown out by legal authority. More than any useful purpose, court documents are more frequently used as a back door way to get salacious details into a BLP that are flatly prohibited otherwise.Jarhed (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Court and trial documents cannot be used singularly; you can only use them to augment a reliable source that comments on them without the reliable source itself becoming a primary source in the process of reviewing the court documents (for example, an op-ed/opinion column of a reporter is unacceptable; see examples of primary in PRIMARY). Please do note that consensus reached to the contrary on any talk page will be immediately overturned in case it goes against these core policies. Wifione ^Message 16:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the policy, and I understand that consensus cannot override policy. However, as a practical matter, the issues are more complex than you and Jarhed make them out to be, and non-controversial policy violations abound. It's only the ones that not only violate the policy but violate the rationale behind the policy that generally come to light and are corrected. I refuse to equate "salacious details" with a statement of affirmance, and it is not true that every statement in a legal opinion requires a legal scholar to interpret it. That might be Clinton's view when he argues over what "is" means, but it's not mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable secondary source considers a detail of a court record too unimportant or salacious to include, that is also a great reason for keeping it out of the BLP. The only "complexity" I have ever seen are arguments to include salacious details from court documents that otherwise do not appear in a reliable secondary source. Not that I am saying that your case is one of these, I am just speaking from experience.Jarhed (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence, I believe, is a repeat of an argument you made earlier. I tend to agree that your second sentence is often true. I'm not sure I understand your last sentence, specifically my case - what case is that? Ironically, depsite, my quibbling with the policy, I just enforced it vigorously today in an article that came to my attention on this page. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1)Yes 2) Thanks 3) Just doing my best to be collegial. Cheers!Jarhed (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is all well and good, but most of this argument seems to ignore the actual BLPPRIMARY guidelines, which states that primary sources can be used to augment a secondary source covering the matter. BLPPRIMARY says absolutely nothing about court documents needing a legal opinion or references to them being OR, which makes me think that it has nothing to do with the matter at all. So, given that BLPPRIMARY says "it may be acceptable to rely on [a primary source] to augment the secondary source", under what circumstances is that the case? Second, how can we have better guidance on what constitutes an "assertion" under BLPPRIMARY, and what does not, seeing as that is the question that undermines this entire incident? Van Isaac_WS^contribs 07:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Hari

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

A flurry of edits over the last couple of days has given rise to headings like "Professional disgrace", and "Admissions and apologies", and other misuse of an article to push a point. Some of the excitement possibly follows from the text "using Wikipedia to make malicious attacks on others" which appears in the lead. I came across this article when reverting an attempt to highlight the event with an addition at Sockpuppet (Internet). Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This editing is the direct result of reports and commentary published very recently in several leading British newspapers following an internal inquiry by The Independent, the results of which have not been made public. However, an apology from Hari was published in that paper yesterday, which describes his editing of BLPs on wikipedia; he refers to some of those edits as "juvenile or malicious". [18] Some of the articles, particularly that of Christina Odone, mention his editing of wikipedia and his username. Mathsci (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I just stumbled across the user name and the ANI discussion where the user was banned, and I see that this may be a case where pointy headings are appropriate. It looked like the usual pile on when I encountered it from the edit at Sockpuppet (Internet), but some strong text that is properly sourced may be warranted. I still think there should not be a record of every sockpuppet at that article. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointy headings are exceedingly rarely appropriate - and are not appropriate here. "Plagiarism" is the taking of a person's words and thoughts and presenting them as one's own, and is a specific legal wrong. In the case at hand, there is a valid issue as to whether taking a person's own words and ascribing them to that same person is "plagiarism" or just "lazy journalism." Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - there are direct examples of Johann Hari doing this, which were outlined in exhaustive detail in an earlier version of the article, and which are still referenced in the current article. Yonmei (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Hari took a quote (word-for-word) which interviewer Matthew Todd had got from rugby-player Gareth Thomas, in an interview published in Attitude. Copyright for that published article belonged to either Matthew Todd or to Attitude: Hari did not attribute the quote he took to either the writer or to the magazine, but simply republished it as if it had been said as part of Hari's interview with Gareth Thomas. There were other examples in other interviews: the specific example which began the professional crisis was of Hari having taken verbatim quotes from Negri on Negri: in conversation with Anne Dufourmentelle, first published in 2002 as Du retour : abécédaire biopolitique. Hari had used the English text from the 2003 translation by Malcolm DeBevoise but had presented the quotes from the work authored by Anne Dufourmentelle and Negri, translated by DeBevoise into English, as part of Hari's own interview with Negri, without crediting the authors or the translator. This is plagiarism, and has been rightly identified as such in every single source I have personally seen aside from Hari's own self-description of his actions. However, I have invited editors to contribute sources disputing that this is plagiarism on the Talk page of the article, since obviously if there is public dispute about whether this constitutes plagiarism, it should be recorded in the article.Yonmei (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though this should resolve it: The Independent, Independent columnist apologises for plagiarism- "Independent Print Limited (IPL), the owner of The Independent, said that Hari had acknowledged embellishing quotations in articles and plagiarism following an examination of evidence by Andreas Whittam Smith, a former editor of the paper." Yonmei (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche Movement

Is this article at all subject to WP:BLP? One editor at [19] and [20] has asserted:

:::::::So? The man is not the movement. This article devotes very little space to Lyndon LaRouche

and

While Girvin was being interviewed on a sidewalk by a TV reporter, someone walked behind her and said "Polly, you're going to die" which the reporter said sounded like a threat.^[1] Due to that and what she said were other threatening behaviors, Girvin went into hiding, gave up her practice, sold her home, and left the state.^[2] *LaRouche said that a U.S. Attorney who was investigating the movement's fundraising, William Weld, "does not deserve to live. He should get a bullet between the eyes", according to a statement given to the FBI by LaRouche's security consultant, Roy Frankhouser.^[3] According to one report, experts stated that LaRouche's involvement in the matter allowed his phone solicitors to raise money by saying they needed contributions to fight child abuse in Nebraska.^[4] An editor delete these three passages with the explanation: actually - WP:BLP and the ArbCom decision apply.[21] Could he or another edit point out which part of the BLP policy and which part of which ArbCom case applies to these passages.

Whilst I consider that any article which makes such claims directly impacting a living person is absolutely subject to WP:BLP and that these claims would absolutely disallowed in, say "Kennedy Administration" etc. I further suggest that the ArbCom decision of just a week or so back, and in which Will was active, makes such Wikilawyering actionable. I further suggest that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy requiring, among other things, that all biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy. is clear. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision. is also clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a BLP violation here. Could you specifically detail who the living person is, what the problematic content is? Are you arguing that the statements are

Unsourced negative or controversial content
Rumors and gossip
Defamatory
Provided Undue Weight

or that they are

Violations of personal privacy?

Clarity would be helpful. Hipocrite (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You find absolutely no BLP connection in LaRouche said that a U.S. Attorney who was investigating the movement's fundraising, William Weld, "does not deserve to live. He should get a bullet between the eyes", according to a statement given to the FBI by LaRouche's security consultant, Roy Frankhouser ? Astounding! I would have thought it a contentious claim requiring extremely strong sources. Collect (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. I said "I don't see a BLP violation here. Could you specifically detail who the living person is, what the problematic content is?" Are you saying that content is unsourced? Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation is ascribed as fact relating to a living person. In fact, allegation of a capital felony. One for which no conviction ensued. The person involved has an "interesting" background. (Roy Frankhouser seems to have been one of the most arrested liars in US history). The allegation therefore was, and is, specifically contentious, and not "reliable source", and the use of a source reporting an "allegation" of a capital offense by such a person does not rise to the level of being "beyond rumour" by a mile. Thus the edit was, and is, subject to WP:BLP and the claim that the article is not abot a living person was, and remains, ludicrous. Is this sufficiently clear? LaRouche may be the most despicable man on earth, but all articles containing claims about him (or anyone) must adhere specifically to WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a succinct list of things that are violations of BLP above. Could you explain which of the various options was violated (Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial content, Rumors and gossip, Defamatory, Provided Undue Weight or Violations of personal privacy), and how, exactly, it was violated? You appear to be arguing that something that the sentence is in the wrong order as opposed to saying "Subject said something according to person quoted in report" it should read "According to person in report, subject said something." Is that accurate? Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading above, I think I should be more clear. I read your argument and was unpersuaded. It is not a rumor that Frankhouser said those things - they are, in fact, part of a federal indictment. I consider the Houston Chronicle to be a reliable source - and it's, by far, not the only source to report the quote in question. While LaRouche denies the quote (and his denial should be included), a federal indictment saying something is not merely an allegation that the thing is true made in the press, it's a fact worthy of note. Hipocrite (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Nope - it is repetition of an allegation of a capital crime - the assassination threat of a federal officer -- by a specifically unreliable informant. I trust everyone else can see that. Cheers. And let's still to a non-refactored discussion, please. The remaining sections you just-re-added are of zero utility here. Collect (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important that you explain how the things you removed as BLP violations which I believe are not even remotely BLP violations, are, in fact, BLP violations, or, of course, you could put them back. If there are sources that discuss Frankhouser's unreliablity in the context of the widely reported allegations in the federal indictment, those sources should also be included - however, it appears at this point that you are unwilling or unable to support your position that items directly reported by Time, the Houston Chronicle and the LA Times, among others, are BLP violations that should not be included in our article. Hipocrite (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to not even see an egregious violation as a violation - why not let others weigh in and give their opinions? I am sticking to one example for the simple reason that you deny teven this example - the other examples were, and remain, contrary to WP:BLP but it would overtake this whole page tto handle the semantic arguments which would ensue on each of them individually and as a group. Hence, the rational position to stick to one of the three here. I trust you understood that reasoning, and only used the rhetorical "unwilling or unable" as a "Wikilawyering mode of discussion". Cheers. Now Let's hear from others and not continue this colloquy! Collect (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd very much like to hear why you reverted the other two examples out. Let's hope that someone uninvolved with this issue, like me, shows up to comment here, and perhaps comment on those other two "examples." Hipocrite (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a sub-issue, I'd like to understand more about the two sections you neglect to mention - in this edit, you removed not only the Frankhouser allegation, but also the Pauline Girvin death threat and the Nebraska sex abuse phone hoax. I've provided sections where you can explain how those are BLP issues below. Hipocrite (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Frankhouser was an admitted liar, informer and infiltrator, with a self-confessed history of telling people what they wanted to hear (which included LaRouche; Frankhouser made up lots of memos addressed to LaRouche, purportedly from a high-ranking US intelligence source, but in fact based on a media contact he had). I have some sympathy for the view that he is not a reliable source for what LaRouche did or didn't say. By the way, re Hipocrite's edit, Frankhouser was a government informer before he joined LaRouche. Having the denial there certainly helps, but without telling the reader a little more about Frankhouser I think the passage is still dicey. --JN466 15:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add whatever info about Frankhouser you think is appropriate. Please be careful when using the phrase "reliable source," - while Frankhouser is a source in the journalistic sense, in the Wikipedia nomenclature, the "reliable source"s are Time, the Houston Chronicle, and the LA Times, among others. Hipocrite (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And rumours reprinted in "reliable sources" remain rumours. And when a rumour is from a convicted felon, there is a remote chance <g> that the "rumour" is, indeed, "contentious." See the Palin discussion above where rumours from a non-felon were dismissed as violating WP:BLP fairly overwhelmingly. And the bit about me "reverting" anything out -- others should note the two "sections" you added are quite notably empty per the discussion above. I was unaware it was heinous to remove empty sections. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Let's hear from others and not continue this colloquy?" It's not a rumor that the indictment quoted the felon. I'm discussing your reversions to the article. Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IOW, a rumour started by a felon becomes usable in any BLP as long as a reliable source reprints it? Despite the WP:BLP strictures on rumours and allegations? - that appears to be your position? Cheers -- I think the others see your precise stance clearly, as well as my stance. Collect (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it's not a rumor, it's a report of a conversation he was a part of. Secondly, it's not just a random reliable source reprinting it, it's a federal indictment, reported on my multiple major newspapers and one of the largest weekly magazines. Thirdly, there is no BLP stricture on "allegations," in fact, the only place the word "allegation" appears in the entire policy is "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Oddly, that sounds a lot like what we have here, dosen't it? Hipocrite (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and you then felt obliged to edit so that the actual original BLP clear violation was fixed? The violation was, if you have not forgotten it, a clear statement that LaRouche had made a death threat made as a matter of fact. Sorry if I feel that allegations of a capital crime require substantially more than "a reliable source reprinted it" sort of logic. And it clear that you did as well, else you would have left the original wording intact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get it clear - your problem with this whole passage was sloppy editing, and I fixed it? Let's move on to the other two. What's wrong with them? Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The allegation was, and remains, a violation as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation in question was described in sworn testimony by an FBI agent. That's not really gossip in the usual meaning of the word. Will Beback talk 21:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that the allegation was serious and remarkable enough that it was the subject of an news article:

"Extremist's Ex-Aide Disclosed Alleged Statement FBI Tells of Threat by LaRouche:" Ostrow, Ronald J; Roderick, Kevin. Los Angeles Times 10 Oct 1986: 19.

It's also mentioned prominently in several other news accounts. Further, the threat against the prosecutor, William F. Weld, was consistent with other actions taken by the movement, including picketing the Grand Jury proceedings, passing out leaflets calling him a drug dealer, and singing a song about Weld that advocated his public hanging and ended "When his tongue and eyes stick out, then justice will be done." Other than denials from the movement, there was no evidence that Frankhouser lied in any of this statements to federal officials regarding the case. Will Beback talk 21:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many times has Frankhauser been arrested (including for lying)? I suggest it is sufficiently high and the fact that there was no conviction for that death threat as far as I can tell (I am unsure any actual charge was even brought to court on it) that it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to abet the furtherance of such sensationalist gossip. Cheers. I await your answer about Roy's arrest record. Collect (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI agent found the allegation credible enough to testify to it in court. If you think that Frankhouser's arrest record is germane we can add a sentence or clause about it. Have you read the sources? Will Beback talk 22:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting claim -- as the charges as reported in the news did not include the threat. Nor was LaRouche found guilty of something he was not even charged with. LaRouche may be totally despicable, but WP:BLP even applies to despicable persons. Collect (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We report many things that are not the subject of judicial activity.[22] Will Beback talk 23:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might be missing something here, but I don't particularly see how an FBI agent recounting a factual encounter and conversation, when asked under oath, as actually lending credibility to the statement itself. Arkon (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that FBI agents would testify to something they believe to be untrue, and if they did they would say so. Will Beback talk 01:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IOW - they specifically testified to the truth of something which was not charged based on what a convicted liar told them? Somehow I doubt it - on what evidence in a reliable source do you base your claim that they gave such interesting testimony? And how does that make the hearsay evidence which was not apparently used probative of anything beyong the price of eggs, if that? Cheers if you can work your way past this query! Collect (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your questions. Was Frankhouser ever convicted of perjury? Have you read the available sources? I'd be happy to send you copies if you'd like. Will Beback talk 02:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the impact and importance of the testimony, one source says it may have been the reason why some of the defendants were refused bail. Will Beback talk 03:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'May have been"? The strech marks on your argument are exceedingly evident. Absent ACTUAL FACTS, the use of Wikipedia as a means of spreading rumours which were not tried in court, and for which the person was neither charged nor convicted of, is, in my opinion and the opinion of a great many others, a gross abuse of Wikipedia. By the way, a person with multiple convictions, including for "obstructing justice" [23], conspiracy for the KKK by destroying evidence [24], convicted in 1975 for dealing in stolen explosives in connection with a school bus bombing, [25] synagogue desecration destruction of evidence etc. is quite reasonably categorized as a 'convicted liar.' Unless, of course, you find routine destruction of evidence, and telling others to destroy evidence, and lying about it not to be lying? I suppose you could find a person involved in a school bus bombing incident to be a paragon of virtue, but I do not. Collect (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that Frankhouser was a "paragon of virtue". If you're going to resort to hyperbole and straw man arguments then it looks like you're not interested in a serious discussion. Will Beback talk 22:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False umbrage != solid discussion. You appeared to contest my disbelief in Frankhauser's veracity. I provided you with what I consider to be sufficient grounds for so doubting. Supopose, for an example, that the FBI agent was of the same level of veracity as Richard Egan [26], who was named by Ramsey Clark Judge Keeton found that the F.B.I. case agent Richard Egan had improperly destroyed documents "in plain violation" of representations to the parties and the court -- would you still aver that the FBI agent would not conceivably back someone who was lying? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave the umbrage and hyperbole out of the discussion. The Schiller Institute and a letter from a lawyer for the defendants are not reliable sources for issues concerning the trial. Anyone can conceivably lie, so that's not a particularly useful standard. Egan was never found guilty or even accused of perjury. Getting back to the material in question, it was testified to in court by an FBI agent, and was considered a significant matter by journalists covering the case. I have no objection to mentioning that Frankhouser was convicted of aiding the bombing of a school bus, or whatever. But the material is not a BLP violation. Will Beback talk 00:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

then simply remove all the umbrage and hyperbole from your posts - that is where it lies. You asserted that the FBI would never condone incorrect testimony. (I don't think that FBI agents would testify to something they believe to be untrue) Do you stand by that assertion? Do you have a reliable source that such a claim was backed by any FBI agent during the trial? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing Richard Egan, a former FBI agent and presumed living person, of committing perjury, a felony? Will Beback talk 01:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As anyone can read that I made no such assertion, I fear your "question" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Perhaps that is the problem you have here? You do not seem to answer the actual and real question I posed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egan either lied or told the truth. I assume he did the latter, since he was a federal law enforcement officer testifying under oath. Do you have any evidence that he did not tell the truth? Will Beback talk 01:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point at all. I think we all assume that Egan told the truth about what Frankhouser told him (although there seems to have been some minor confusion about who Egan actually spoke to, and who he didn't [27] – while some errors were found, Egan was not found to have engaged in pervasive or deliberate misconduct). The point is that Frankhouser made a living out of misrepresenting himself, and that even neutral observers found him not very credible [28] ("It is little wonder. Frankhouser has switched sides repeatedly, cutting deals to stay out of prison. 'He is intelligent in a strange way. He is a good talker. He is cunning as hell,' said a Reading official.") In addition, LaRouche was convicted for engaging in illegal conduct that Frankhouser had advised him to engage in, with Frankhouser claiming that the CIA was supportive of that course of action. So what we have here is an untested allegation from an unreliable informer, an allegation that was strongly denied. In many such cases, editors have taken the view that including such allegations, even if reported as an allegation in several reliable sources, is not compatible with BLP policy. --JN466 11:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the uninvolved regulars here appear to have opined on this discussion yet. Do any of them have any input? Cla68 (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I get that Will and Collect don't seem to like each other, but... what was the question? MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is about whether it was compatible with BLP policy to include the statement "LaRouche said that a U.S. Attorney who was investigating the movement's fundraising, William Weld, "does not deserve to live. He should get a bullet between the eyes", according to a statement given to the FBI by LaRouche's security consultant, Roy Frankhouser" in the article LaRouche movement. [29]. Current status is this version. --JN466 12:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General Comment The problem described here is one that comes up with some frequency across the encyclopedia. Here's how it works. An individual makes a claim about another individual that would never, in a million years, pass BLP on its own, attributed to the source even. This claim then gets reported by the NYT, mentioned in a book, recorded in congressional testimony, or whatever and all of a sudden people here start arguing that it passes BLP because a reliable source has repeated the claim with attribution. The reliable source is only on the hook for the fact that the individual made the claim and nothing else. The nature of the claim remains the same. If the claim was a BLP no-no prior to being mentioned in an RS as having been made then it remains one now. We don't backdoor contentious claims by attributing them, simply because other sources have reported on those claims. We have our own standards of inclusion and they do not mirror the sources we use. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a useful essay about this topic, WP:LAUNDER. --Slp1 (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pauline Girvin death threat
Nebraska sex abuse phone hoax

What's going on here? Clearly the movement has been plagued for decades by cult-like intimidating behavior, wild antics, and general strangeness so it's not as if somebody's reputation is suddenly sullied. Obviously, anything has to be sourced as having happened, and being relevant and of due weight. Typically, the making or reporting of a criminal allegation is too uncertain, unreliable, etc., to include, either sourced to the allegation itself or news reports covering it. Giving a blow-by-blow account of a federal criminal case and the testimony and charges is typically not encyclopedic, BLP or no BLP. However, if many sources cover the allegations not for the fact that they were made but that they are of significant weight and relevant to the subject, then it's usually worth including. John DeLorean is dead for instance, but if he were alive and it were a BLP issue, surely the fact that the feds brought a case against him and he got off on an entrapment defense is one of the salient points of his life. My quick reaction is that the threatening and spooky tactics of the movement, in aggregate, are significant and there is already a huuuuuuge section on that. Each specific incident is typically disconnected, though, and few of them by themselves are all that important. We should wait for very strong sourcing before adding yet more stuff on that pile. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comments. Good points. I'd be fine with summarizing this and similar threats more briefly, I just don't think they should be deleted outright simply because the subject was never prosecuted for them. This particular alleged threat is consistent with other movement responses to the investigation, which included explicit death threats, and with the responses to other investigations or criticisms, which also included death threats. Rather than going into more detail, about the previous crimes of Roy Frankhouser and the reliability of Richard Egan as a witness, I think it'd be better to say less. Something like, "People in the movement are also alleged to have said privately that the prosecuttor should be killed." Any objections to that shortened version? Will Beback talk 23:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... unnamed people accused by unnamed sources of making a threat of a capital crime for which no one was prosecuted nor convicted? Looks like an item for the daily gossip page in a tabloid. Sorry -- that is likely the absolutely worst possible sort of tripe to be added to an overlong article in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mason (darts player)

Chris Mason (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article could really do with some experienced BLP editors going over it. It is being edited by (probably) the subject, and some administrators. For the last year it has flipped between a bit of whitewashing, and restoration of the referenced 'controversies'. The referencing is poor (in places non-existent) and mainly to local papers, and the controversy section is over-dominant in the article. The details in the "hammer attack" section are out of proportion, and possibly misleading because of it. The "benefit fraud" section relates to dates in a span of three months, not two years, and it's "when applying", not "while claiming" which implies more continuity. The most recent diff looks like this. If some experienced editors could take a look, I am convinced it could be improved. The bloke is upset and complaining and saying some things are untrue. He would probably prefer some things never happened, and probably pushing too far the other way. But if he's suggesting the article is unbalanced I think he's probably got a point. It could do with some editors who can really reflect what the sources are saying, in good proportion. 199.167.132.119 (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ken boyd (politican)

Please help to resolve edit war between anonymous user with multiple IP's.

Continuously inserting information which is not sourced in any way and false. User is linking to sources which do not verify claim. User is refusing to address these concerns even after the article was locked. I have laid out step by step why some portions of article need to be changed on talk page but other editor will not discuss any of them outside of two and will not compromise. Help resolve this PLEASE.

Rules state I am not allowed to list the unsourced and false material here. Where should I? Escytherdon (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article has some real NPOV issues. I tried reading the discussion and my eyes crossed. You guys are all over the map with what you're talking about. So I don't know who is trying to put what in, but it's obvious that the current version has a lot of POV material in it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The three revert rule allows me to remove information of a bis and unsourced nature placed by sockpuppet or banned accounts. I will be doing that now and would LOVE for community involvement in rebuilding the page. Escytherdon (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some edits to the page. Most of the "anti" material is sourced, it seems. --BweeB (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being sourced doesn't mean it isn't being given undue weight or being presented in a POV way, agreed? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOOO< I had so much info written here and when I submitted it Wikipedia stated that another editor had posted and it deleted it. x.x

Please consider the following:

He has been noted for his strong support of developers and sprawling developments. (Where is the citation for this? No he has not)
He says he did not serve in the Vietnam War because injuries from an automobile accident prevented him.[1] (Saying he 'says' that he did not is almost accusing him of lying. Why include it?)
In 2009, he told C-Ville Weekly he would not run for reelection to his Supervisor seat in 2011.[1] (This is actually a flat out lie. He did not say he wouldnt, he said he would consider not but wasnt sure. This is referenced earlier in the article, why state it a second time?)
There is no Hollymead controversy. This received two days worth of media attention and is now gone. If it was worthy of note in Wikipedia it would be an issue in the current election or even in the previous ones, it has not been. What makes it worthy of note in a biography? It is also very badly misrepresented here.
Boyd did not play a central role in the bypass decision, he has had the same vote for it for ten years. He did not even bring it up, another supervisor did and another one after that changed their vote giving the pro people the majority.
The OLD bypass was listed as wasteful by the taxpayers for common sense, not the new and re-designed one. This is misleading and false.
The source for the bypass being unpopular is a closed facebook group. How is this even a source?
the editorial was not unprecedented. The daily progress is not conservative, and why is only one side of the issue being represented? Best to simply state facts about the issue rather than messing with quotes from both sides.
Why is cynthia neff a non-notable person for Wikipedia (her page was deleted) yet she is given reference in the article and her website listed at the bottom?
Stating that during the congressional run he wanted the DoE abolished is a lie. Reading the article, he says he wants it to operate at the local and state level and not the federal.

Thoughts and THANK YOU 20:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your response gives the appearence of a bias of your own. And trying to address 10 points all in one post.......well, that makes it pretty difficult for anyone else to assist. Slow down a little. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I do NOT want to be bias. As I have stated before if I could write a page for Cynthia Neff I would but it was deleted. I only want this to be accurate. I will rely on more experienced editors to help with this. If we could address the first two points I would appreciate it.

He has been noted for his strong support of developers and sprawling developments. (Where is the citation for this? No he has not)
He says he did not serve in the Vietnam War because injuries from an automobile accident prevented him.[1] (Saying he 'says' that he did not is almost accusing him of lying. Why include it?) Escytherdon (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon[reply]

Could we please discuss this more? I know the community must be busy with other things but the bias is bothering me.

Escytherdon (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the above text int he article. I have made some more clean-up edits. --BweeB (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clean-up edits. Would you mind looking at the changes I have just done and my explanations (I think I am starting to understand HOW to edit in Wikipedia now) and give community input? I tried to make small changes each time and keep neutrality and well-sourced info alone.

Escytherdon (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at my changes and make sure that the page is now neutral and non-bias. If you see any evidence of bias and/or information requiring source material please let me know. Escytherdon (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shira Lazar

I am literally in and out of the door but this needs eyes - some weird edit war going on - I have absolutely no time to get to the bottom of it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Darst

Came across this wiki bio and found it with many unverified links, written like an advertisement with little personal details and backstory (no perosnal life, no birthday, etc.) Most of it lists TV appearances and Books.

Not even sure if it should be listed as wiki bio, maybe should be removed. Can someone take a look at it and edit or make a decision on it. --Cohen2011 (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bit resume-ey. I've trimmed it a little and removed some unnecessary adverbs. I'm never sure about notability with these businessmen bios, but if the NYT financial people are quoting him, it's likely he meets the WP:GNG threshold. The Interior (Talk) 23:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relson Gracie

According to the Article, Relson is an 8th degree black belt.

On the IBJJF (International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation) website, he is not listed as an 8th rank black belt in neither the IBJJF, USBJJF, FPDJJB, nor CBDJJ official rankings.

the website is http://www.ibjjf.org/blackbelts.htm

The IBJJF is the governing body for international Jiu-Jitsu competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.76.81 (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One major problem in all the martial arts rankings of "degree" is that there has been no uniform list for any of them. Lacking anything approaching uniform standards, there is really no way to ascertain exactly how proficient any given person is. Collect (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacque Reid

born in or around 1967. Was on Bet from 2001-2005, prior to that completed and Masters then worked in Brunswich in the early 90's age is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugbit (talk • contribs) 15:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Ferreyr

(RVT- WP:NOTNEWS Not a biographical issue at the moment, and using primary court documents is WP:OR) Please check the Revision history of George Soros in order to find this justification. copied from Loonymonkey

Copied from User talk:Karthikndr -

This pesron user William de Berg continues to commit vandalism on wickepedia and it is compromising its integrity to true factual unbiased information. He is citing references that do not prove the accuracy of his stamentes-- they are misleading and not factual. He is trying to gain an ufair advantage for George Soros by portrying Ms. Mr. Ferreyr in a bad light. Please read the refences to see that they do not prove his claims. This is a person working for Mr. Soros that is trying to misrepresent Ms. Ferryer in order to gain an advantage for him. Is there any way to prevent his behaviour which falls under the category of slander and defamation. This in in regards to the page Adriana Ferreyr Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hap791 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sirs / mes dames, With regard to my contribution to the article of Ms Ferreyr. I have quoted what she herself has submitted to the New York Supreme Court in her own testimony. You will understand that this is neither slander or defamatory. It is how Ms Ferreyr describes herself. The secondary quote comes from Reuter's news agency.

The above user is also wrong to imply that I am in anyway connected to or representing Mr Soros. I have never seen,communicated with, spoken to or met Mr Soros, nor anyone representing him. I am merely adding to a biography to give a balanced view of the subject. Unfortunately no one is perfect. William de Berg (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my concerns about this biography.

As has previously been noted this biography is little more than an advertisement. The article is full of hyperbole and superlative commentary.

As regards the referencing within the article. Most references are to web pages which have merely referenced elsewhere for their facts. Unfortunately these sites have either referenced IMDB or Linkedin. Let us critique those sources now. Linkedin. Linkedin is self written. Or in this case it has been written in the third person. None of the linkedin claims are verifiable. This wiki quotes verbatim from the linkedin profile. IMDB. Again the facts contained here are not verifiable. The biography written on IMDB is written by a Lucas Almeida. Yet again, nothing is verifiable.

There are very close similarities between all 3 biographies.

I will add further to this in an attempt to have this biography removed.

William de Berg (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't report the legal claims from the court records - also the claimed assault was written a bit weighted against the subject - I would leave it out. Its a bit tabloidy - and they had a row and the police were called and nothing happened. Wait and allow the separation suit to develop a bit - and then report the result - the content could be improved but doubt if it would be deleted according to policy. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the material you added to the article about her lawsuit, it cannot be used. The first material cites to a court proceeding and violates WP:BLPPRIMARY. The second material is not supported by the source as the person who said the police investigated was Soros's lawyer - and that puts aside the issue of whether the material belongs in the article in the first place.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William insists on reinserting the material. I have reverted it, posted a warning on his Talk page, and edited the article to improve the tone and wording.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have removed myself. Now please tell why...

A court submission is inadmissible when it is th actual person's testimony. They are obviously relying on it in court. They will obviously swear it to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So why is it not permitted in a wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William de Berg (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing it (not sure how I missed the reinsertion). You have been told here and on my Talk page what is wrong. You have been cited the policy (WP:BLPPRIMARY) more than once. It doesn't matter what you think - the policy is as clear as any Wikipedia policy ever gets.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good now at this version - the simple main issue. Off2riorob (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is definitely improved, although as my and your tagging indicates, there is a fair amount of unsourced material. However, I'm trying to figure out if she's even notable. As far as I can tell, she was a soap opera actress in Brazil (don't know how long it lasted) and then became Soros's girlfriend. That ended badly, and she sued him. Is there something I'm missing? Certainly, the Soros relationship and the lawsuit don't establish notability. Is the former soap opera deal enough?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its on the cusp imo - shes a circular redirect on the Portuguese wiki on the nouvela , soap she is/was in. translated google diff - If she is redirected/deleted I would be more open to supporting a small comment in Sourus's bio. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. My gosh, the soap played for only 7 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Soros

(RVT- WP:NOTNEWS Not a biographical issue at the moment, and using primary court documents is WP:OR) Please check the Revision history of George Soros in order to find this justification. copied from Loonymonkey

His ex-girlfriend is Brazilian Actress and entrepreneurAdriana Ferreyr.[18] [19]. He is currently being sued for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery among other claims. (New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 109256/2011)[20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hap791 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Sorus's life it is as yet of limited note - there are press reports that would support a single comment.. but it is much more notable in her life that his. -Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely enough reports in the US press including [30] NY Daily News [31] ABC News, [32] Reuters, and a bunch of Brazilian and German sources as well. As long as it is not presented in any salacious manner, or presenting rumours as fact, I suspect the material properly belongs in the Soros BLP. Collect (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, there's that word again - "salacious". How could something like this not be salacious? It has all the earmarks of juicy gossip. I agree, though, both about the sources (there's a ton I discovered when editing the Ferreyr article), and that it merits inclusion in the Soros article. At the same time, I agree with Rob that it doesn't merit more than a sentence or so.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth mentioning unless it has sustained coverage. Collect, you routinely object to the inclusion of "salacious" stories about American conversative personalities that have received broader coverage and wonder if you could explain why we should apply lower standards to Soros. TFD (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the posting of the details of the charges - I suggest that the existence of the lawsuit meets notability requirements at this time. If you read my post, you should note that I specifically stated that the material must not be posted in any salacious manner as I seek to be consistent in my positions, whether the claims are about Soros or Hari. I assume you think Johann Hari is some sort of conservative, like Chris Hulme, Alex Sink, Ray O'Connor and all the other five hundred BLPs I have edited. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Burry

if someone has the time to de-puff and change tone, take a look at this investor bio. I was looking for some bio on him but didn't find much, seems more of a promo for his book.

Other than some notoriety around some investment calls a couple years ago he seems to be living a private life. Maybe someone can decide it it's necessary to have a bio on him. Thanks. --Cohen2011 (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael bishop son Derek bishop

I do not have a son at all. I would like to have this lie taken off asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeb71998 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement seems to have been a good faith assumption based on the similarity in name. However, I've removed it, since the source given doesn't say anything about Derek Bishop being your son. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sheker suman

Conflicting date of birth of the person within the same article.

In the beginning of the article, it says "Shekhar Suman (June 14, 1960,, Patna, India)"

whereas the panel on the right with the image shows "Born December 7, 1956 (age 54) "

Please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.144.28.234 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed all of the birthdates as unsourced. After considerable searching, my guess is he was born in 1960 (some allusions to his age in years, although not his actual birthdate, in Indian newspapers), but I found nothing I was comfortable with.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Crosby

Can someone take a look at Rob Crosby? There's some sort of slo-mo edit war where IPs keep sporadically removing his full birth name even though it's sourced to a reliable work. THis has been going on practically since the article was created 3+ years ago. I posted this before but nobody did anything. Ten Pound Hammer and company • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I can't see the cite for the birthname because it's a book. However, I noticed that allmusic also says his birthname is Hoar, so I added that cite to the infobox and am watching the article. The fact that a user by the subject's name is editing the article is a bit troubling. Assuming he is the subject, maybe he doesn't like his birthname. If it's pronounced phonetically, I can see why.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We went through this before with Mark Wills. His publicist kept removing his real birth name from the article even though it was sourced to Allmusic and other reputable sources, but eventually they just gave up. Ten Pound Hammer and company • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can only hope that history will repeat itself (the give up part). I put a conflict notice on the robcrosby editor talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala Lopez

This article reads like a fan page, and seems to have been created and expanded by someone very close to the subject. Webberkenny (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monstrous amount of puff and "notability by including as many famous names as possible." Poorly sourced, but removing the puff should help. Collect (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raoul Peck

Resolved

– reporter blocked as a block evading sockpuppet - disputed content removed

Wiki editor User:Dayewalker repeatedly reverts factually incorrect information about this entry and then blocks out/deletes relevant links on the discussion page. Why is this?

Briefly:

Article currently states:

"Raoul Peck served as a Haitian Minister of Culture under President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, but later became disillusioned of Haitian leftist politics and frequently criticized the former Haitian leader. [4] [5]"

This is factually incorrect on two counts. Peck served as Minister of Culture in the Haitian government of René Préval from March, 1996 until October, 1997. This is attested to by both this article from Haiti Democracy Project Director James R. Morrell - http://www.haitipolicy.org/archives/Publications%26Commentary/peck.htm - this article from Haiti Libre http://www.haitilibre.com/en/news-1178-haiti-social-raoul-peck-is-pessimistic-for-the-future.html and and by Peck's own autobiographer, Monsieur Le Ministre.

Aristide's first term of office ended on 7 February 1996. The so-called reliable sources Dayewalker cites nowhere claim Peck was Minister for Aristide! Did he even bother to read them before restoring the inaccurate entry? He must now admit that he did not.

Why does Dayewalker repeatedly insert factually incorrect material as saying that Peck was a Minister in Aristide's government and then blocks/deletes the links that prove otherwise. Does he care to explain himself here?

Also, the statement that " became disillusioned of Haitian leftist politics" is completely untrue as Peck himself is more or less a Marxist (see his film Profit and Nothing But!). HaitiObserver (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't notified of this discussion, thanks to Rob for notifying me. To start with, this is almost certainly another sock of MultiWorlds, who was indef blocked yesterday here [33] for operating at least ten socks. Several of his socks deal with removing links from Context23's user page, although they never actually stop and explain specifically why the links (including one to a Wikipedia page) are "libel." [34] [35]

As for the edits on the Peck page, I reverted them yesterday because blocked editors are not allowed to edit Wikipedia, especially not indef blocked editors pushing a POV and edit-warring on another user's page. If someone else would like to do the research on this and take responsibility for the edits, I certainly have no problem with that. Dayewalker (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am disturbed that User:Dayewalker does not address the fact that he has repeatedly inserted factually incorrect information into this entry without bothering to check it and refuses to acknowledge his mistake. The links are all above. I thought it was important that Wiki editors verify the accuracy of the information that they include in an entry. The links that User:Dayewalker say confirm that Peck was an Aristide minister do nothing of the sort, so either he did not read them or is for some mysterious reason not being fully upfront here. HaitiObserver (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I only undid your reversions as a sock of a blocked editor. That section was initially added by Context23, an editor this sockpuppeter appears to have a problem with judging from the way several of them have deleted content from Context23's page (as above). Dayewalker (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what is your explanation for including - and then defending - factually incorrect information into a biography of a living person? Wouldn't it be a good idea to check the links first, as they don't prove what you say the do? It is easily provable - as has now been done - that the claim that Peck was an Aristide minister is false. Why quibble when the evidence is plainly there? I am confused. HaitiObserver (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the reporting editor has now been blocked as an obvious sock. [36] Dayewalker (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the block evading sockpuppet has made an edit which appears to be accepted, or at least , not reverted. Perhaps User:Context23 , the original additioner of the content needs to take a little more care. I have rescued the removed references to the External link section as the article is short on reliable externals. Hopefully this will be the end of it. Off2riorob (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Pena

Someone continues to insert in Mr. Pena's biography that he owned land near and/or around the new airport and therefore profited from its construction. This assertion is false and libelous and must be deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.14.82 (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Disputed and uncited content is currently removed from the article. I warned the editor that was adding it and added the article to my WP:Watchlist - Off2riorob (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ina Garten

Several editors (including myself) are attempting to include information from a recent news story about Ina Garten, where she repeatedly declined requests from the Make-A-Wish Foundation before ultimately being rejected after she reached out to the family in question. This content dispute has been active since March 2011, but recently resurfaced due to an appaearance on the Crackle.com home page. The story has been reported by the following sources: ABC News, Business Insider, Salon, TMZ, Mediaite, Slate, AOL, The Los Angeles Times, The Daily Mail, Yahoo!, E!, Huffington Post, and OK! Magaine.

Citing previous consensus, several editors have repeatedly reverted any mention of this controversy in the Ina Garten article. The reasoning behind the reverts have been violations of WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and WP:UNDUE. The editors have questioned the reliability of the sources, and pointed out that the incident is a minor event that is not relevant to Ms. Garten's biography or career.

Arguments for inclusion cite the uncontested verifiability of the claims, as well as the reliability of the sources (LA Times, ABC News, Slate, Salon) and the well-documented coverage of the issue (including both secondary and primary sources, from Make-A-Wish and Garten's PR team). The subject of the article is well known, meaning that if the write-up of the incident is modest, and written in a disinterested tone, it would not contravene WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE.

Note: a prior posting to the BLP Noticeboard went "unresolved" here: [37], and talk page discussions have not been productive. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it is time for an RFC. Bring in more editors, have a straw poll, see where things stand. Gamaliel (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems to be complete trivial low quality attack trash, add my vote to keep it out of the article completely. The distorted weight given to such titillating crap in wikipedia biographies is disgusting. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Junk, plain and simple. Frankly, I fail to understand why anyone would devote so much effort to trying to get trivial nonsense like this into Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Off and Andy. --BweeB (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Its a WP:featured article from five years ago , (one of wikipedia very best articles) looking at it I don't think its of that quality now. It looks ready for a review. - Wikipedia:Featured article review - Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above, I don't see a reason to include this information. Yes, it happened. That doesn't mean it deserves a place in a BLP. Dayewalker (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed adding this gossipy stuff back in June, both here and on the article's talk page. This faux, whipped up controversy consists of the fact Ina Garten (a person famous enough to receive far more requests from charities than she can possibly honor) didn't respond to a specific charitable request. Some editors are claiming that we should report what she didn't do, somehow implying that she is heartless. I thought consensus was clear against this in June, but a few tenacious folks have made it their personal campaign to add this "information". I will put the article on my watch list and encourage others to do so as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A posting on Crackle.com has given this issue new life -- the "tenacious" editors lobbying for the inclusion of this material in March have already been properly stymied and shooed away. I was under the impression that the criteria for inclusion was verifiability, not fairness, or even truth. Ina Garten is a public figure, outspoken in her philanthropy efforts. Whether this story is trashy, disgusting, whipped-up, junk, or totally unfair...it's reliably sourced, verifiable, and relevant (though "relevance" is admittedly a debatable aspect). It's rare for a celebrity to be criticized for failure to participate in philanthropy, but it's not entirely unheard of -- Lady Gaga came under criticism for not recording a charity song for the 2010 Haiti Earthquake (the snub has a one sentence mention in her article). But I can see how editors would interpret this story as irrelevant gossip, so I will happily abide by consensus. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Diamond

Why is there no edit option for this page? Also previous information regarding himself releasing a sex tape which was reported by numerous news outlets has been removed from the page? This is still relevant in the sense that information concering Tom Sizemore's sex tape is on his own page? Im not sure why the mention of the sex tape was removed from this article, when it had already been stated by Dustin himself including and an article featured on E! television about this prank with a dirty sanchez? It is referenced here : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?entry_id=9287 and http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2006/10/screech-sex-tape-guest-stars-revealed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasow187 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Article is semi protected - the tape allegations were removed as not being supported by WP:RS wikipedia reliable sources -as the user that removed them commented, a sfgate blog post and celebrity gossip dot com are not reliable sources to use to add content to a en wikipedia biography and if you can source the tape reliably, it can be added. Off2riorob (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Costello

I wanted to alert the powers that be to the page of sitting U.S. Rep. Jerry Costello. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello) I have just added and cited a "Controvery" section to Rep. Costello's page that acknowledges a trial that was widely reported in the 1990s.

The history of Rep. Costello's page indicates that the controvery has apparently been added and stripped from the Wikipedia page in the past. That seems inappropriate. The event led to formal ethics complaints. The congressman himself has responded publicly.

I am not a resident of his district, nor am I a regular Wikipedia contributor, so I am not likely to stick around to monitor this situation. I will probably check back over the coming days, but wanted to alert somebody better situated than I am. For what it is worth, I came across the controvery while reading my Criminal Law textbook, and was sufficiently alarmed by the blank Wiki profile that I researched and added the Controversy element myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musskel (talk • contribs) 03:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I boldly removed it as undue coverage/weight - Costello was not indicted in the incident and an ethics complaint was submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the matter - and nothing happened, just about sums it up as undue coverage of something that was only attached in a minor way to the subject being written up to assert all sorts of crimes and evil doings, nothing of which was brought to court in regard ot this person and nothing of which appears to have had any affect on this persons career. If local editors think it is worthy of a mention I will rewrite it and replace with less weight. Off2riorob (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I have more information: Rep. Costello was required to testify to a grand jury in this matter. Citation for that information is below. He was accused in court by a sitting judge, as well as both suspects in the case, one of whom the best man at his wedding. There was ample press coverage about this scandal, and it continues to be mentioned in voter guides about him. My citations included articles from the Chicago Tribune and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, two of the largest papers in the Midwest. Here's an additional article from the Chicago Tribune which suggests the scandal affected the congressman politically, as it derailed a planned attempt to run for the Illinois Secretary of State's office. (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-12-01/news/9612010046_1_aide-leak-white-house). If you have other qualms, I'd be happy to address those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musskel (talk • contribs) 11:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Man who calls Queen a pusher worries town; By MATTHEW WALD. The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Apr 14, 1986. pg. A.1.FRO)
^ 'VERY FRIGHTENING' FOES SPEAK OF HARASSMENT FROM LAROUCHE CAMP Ken Fireman. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Mar 30, 1986. pg. A.4
^ "Indictment says LaRouche wanted to smear official to block probe" Houston Chronicle 17 December 1986, p. 14
^ Chronology of the Franklin Hoax Casey Set Sex-Abuse Rumors in Motion; Omaha World - Herald. Omaha, Neb.: July 21, 1991. pg. 6.A

[1] Man who calls Queen a pusher worries town; By MATTHEW WALD. The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Apr 14, 1986. pg. A.1.FRO)

[2] 'VERY FRIGHTENING' FOES SPEAK OF HARASSMENT FROM LAROUCHE CAMP Ken Fireman. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Mar 30, 1986. pg. A.4

[December_1986,_p._14-3] "Indictment says LaRouche wanted to smear official to block probe" Houston Chronicle 17 December 1986, p. 14

[4] Chronology of the Franklin Hoax Casey Set Sex-Abuse Rumors in Motion; Omaha World - Herald. Omaha, Neb.: July 21, 1991. pg. 6.A

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 534: / Line 534: @@
 [[User:Escytherdon|Escytherdon]] ([[User talk:Escytherdon|talk]]) 00:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
+Please take a look at my changes and make sure that the page is now neutral and non-bias.  If you see any evidence of bias and/or information requiring source material please let me know.  [[User:Escytherdon|Escytherdon]] ([[User talk:Escytherdon|talk]]) 14:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 == [[Shira Lazar]] ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards