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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:04, 16 August 2012

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.

Remove this page and urls to it - Raymond Hoser

NLT --- Collapsed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Subject: False, defamatory and hate mjaterial about me on wikipedia
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:26:51 +1030
Please remove the entire page at: Raymond Hoser
This material is false, defamatory and incites hatred.
Attempts to edit are continually blocked trolls within wikipedia including users Mokele and User:HCA
Who have automated settings to revert to lies any pages we try to alter.
The webpage also breaches trademarks as does your "snakeman" pages so please remove them as well.
As it is not within your ability to publish truth or abide by the laws of trademarks and misleading conduct, please remove the pages forthwith.
Furthermore remove the words "Raymond_Hoser" from any and all wikipedia url's including non-English ones.
A copy of this e-mail is being sent to my lawyers.
Thank you.
Snake Man Raymond Hoser
Snakebusters - Australia's best reptiles

Phones: (Redacted)

Catherine Chatterley

Re: the supposedly biographical entry on Catherine Chatterley

The paragraph dealing with the Canadian Museum for Human Rights is polemical and not biographical. One might say that she has been a public defender of the CMHR but to make (unfounded) allegations about the critics of the CMHR and to accuse them of anti-Semitism is unfair, potentially libellous.

A biographical entry should confine itself to facts, not the opinions of the author. Wikipedia should not be promoting dubious and even mendacious texts disguised as biographical notes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.54 (talk • contribs)

Simon Walsh

I have just started a biography of Simon Walsh; he was notable before the trial in which he was acquitted today; but given the nature of the offence for which he was charged, and the CPS's outing of both him as gay and of his sexual practices, it's worth semi-protecting; and keeping an eye on. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be worth semi-protecting, but, as written, words like "ill-conceived" and "illiberal" really need to be quoted and cited to their sources. Even then, taking those individual words out of context, and from opinion-based content (an editorial, in this case), is not what Wikipedia entries are designed for. I'd suggest making this tone more neutral and objective, and then look for semi-protection.Stlamanda (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a classic BLP1E and possibly COATRACK. The guy was prosecuted and acquitted he should be allowed to get on with his life rather than to have this one event in his life become the top google search item in perpetuity. John lilburne (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which "one event"? Have you read the article? It discusses his public service work and his role as an Alderman of the City of London. He's clearly notable without the trial, as I noted above. Further, he's voluntarily appearing on national TV (BBC) to talk about the trial. And finally, one of his legal team just tweeted (my empahasis) "Simon Walsh told me he was very pro #porntrial tweets as he wanted accurate record as wide as possible, rather than left to tabloids" . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you not opposed to writing biographies based on the wishes of the subject? What I notice in the article is that 33% of the article text 50% of the references are to do with the trial. There is no extended coverage of the subject outside of this one event, and there are plenty of councillors that don't merit articles about themselves, even some of which that are WP editors. By all means write about the stupid law, or the fact that prosecutors tend to use cases like this to probe where the law's boundaries are. But give the guy a break, and do it in such a way that when someone search for the guy's name in a year's time references to pornography trials aren't the first hit on Google. John lilburne (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very scrupulously written and I can't immediately suggest any improvement to it, but I question whether it's necessary at all. Was Walsh really "notable" (in the odd Wikipedia sense) for anything in particular before this recent silliness? If not, perhaps better to leave him in peace. In the meantime, I for one will be happy to sprotect this article indefinitely at the first sign of idiocy, which experience suggests is likely to come soon. -- Hoary (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references in article other than to the trial are all to self published biographical details mostly "schools I went to" and "committees I've been on", we wouldn't normally allow that in a BLP article. The two independent sources are concerned with the trial and used 10 times. Straight forward BLP1E and COATRACK. John lilburne (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The references... are all to self published biographical details" - that's patently untrue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! First link is to the City Of London members list, contains committee appointments and where I went to school stuff - does not establish notability by external reliable sources. Link used to puff up 6 references. Next link on Legal500 is a personal website profile, mentions real ale (but not movie interests) used to puff out eight references. Then one has his chambers profile used once. Then a mention in an annual report. The other two links are to do with trial and used in 10 references. So 15 references to puffery, 10 links to trail reports, one link to an annual report. Where is the external long standing notability? John lilburne (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to prove the truth of your assertion that "The references... are all to self published biographical details". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the criticism is from the defence counsel - so it likely is not a "notable opinion" in the first place. I rather think the entire bit about the trial should be quite pruned. Collect (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Allen Green is not his defence counsel. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I wrote. Myles Jackman, cited for the opinion as well, was Walsh's defence counsel. Or else he lied in his Guardian article used as a ref in the Walsh article: My client, Simon Walsh, was charged ... Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I wrote. I discussed DAG's role; I did not dispute MJ's. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Matthew Buckland was his counsel, Myles Jackman was his solicitor. TFD (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which affects Jackman's own wording in what way precisely? My client, Simon Walsh, was charged ... seems pretty clear -- and legal definitions of "counsel" include solicitors, TFD. The "solicitor" is also a "lawyer" by definition. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not a "counsel". TFD (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was clearly on the entire section unless my English is that bad <g> how else could one interpret:

Part of the criticism is from the defence counsel - so it likely is not a "notable opinion" in the first place. I rather think the entire bit about the trial should be quite pruned. Collect (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Which rather belies your comment that I had to be referring to Green, indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I wrote. I said nothing to the effect that you had to be referring to Green. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to argue its not BLP1E because of his notability in other areas, see below for why I have removed the contentious material.

(BLP) Avoid victimization - Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. By repeating the details of the court case in which he was acquitted, it could be seen that we are intentionally adding to his victimization by an archaic law. This is borderline for me but seems to apply.

(BLP) People who are relatively unknown - include only material relevant to their notability. As Andy has indicated he is notable not for the court case, so its not relevant and should probably not be included. He certainly falls into the relatively unknown catagory.

(BLP) Persons accused of crime - For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. At no point does it say we should include it if they are acquitted. After serious consideration I dont think this is material that should be included. The fact it went to an attempted prosecution implies that the CPS had evidence to suspect/suggest he had committed a crime.

If you wish to argue that he is notable in part/due to the single court case. Then BLP1E applies.

If you want to argue that as a test case for the law that was being applied, we have precedent for articles on the law itself and cases are used as sources for that. We shouldnt use the BLP to provide info about the law.

I have cut the material I have objections to. As per policy. "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." I notice there was no such consensus after the reversion of Collect's pruning earlier. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said "he is notable not for the court case"; I have said that he was notable before it. Your claim that Walsh is "relatively unknown", given his high-profile career and elected status, is fatuous; your accusation that I am "victimising" a man who has publicly stated that he wishes to raise the rpofie of his circumstances, and yesterday voluntarily chose to appear on national television to discuss the circumstances of his trial and acquittal, is both bizarre and unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note the use of 'we' not 'you' in my statement. 'We' being 'we in Wikipedia's voice' as was clear from the context. So you might want to cut back on the kneejerk reaction next time. Relatively unknown is perfectly acceptable. I dont disagree what you have in the article now constitutes notability, notability however does not mean 'well-known'. And you will need far better sources than there are currently to show that. If he was notable before the court case, then the court case is irrelevant to his notability and should be excluded. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is short on logic. If notability already exists at a given point in time (i.e. before the court case), then it does not mean that all subsequent relevant events are not notable. In addition, you are confusing the criterion for an article existing (notability) with the criteria for including content in an article (verifiability, reliable sourcing and due weight). Your conclusion that the court case should be excluded on the grounds of notability is patent nonsense. The court case is verifiable and reliably sourced, and so any consideration of exclusion can only be made on the grounds of insignificant weight – which case you have completely failed to make. --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not getting into a circular argument about it. I made my position quite clear above. If he is notable regardless of the court case, then as a relatively unknown person - according to BLP policy we do not include info that is not relevant to his notability. If you want to say it is relevant to his notability (And I actually think it is relevant to his notability or no one would have created the article) then the crime section of BLP applies. We should not include info without conviction. We are not a tabloid newspaper. BLP is not ambiguous or fuzzily worded, its quite clear on this. Granted it says 'should not' and not 'never', but it should take more than one (failed) prosecution before we start going against that. Sources that show he is a high-profile and well-known person would eliminate all of my objections above. The current ones do not come close to lifting him out of 'relatively unknown'. BLP policy doesnt use notability for inclusion of material in the sections I quoted above, it only uses phrases like 'relatively unknown' precisely because there are thousands of people who are completely anonymous but notable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A mayoral, political, appointee to a fire authority; and the chair of the police authority of the City of London, is not "completely anonymous". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"according to BLP policy we do not include info that is not relevant to his notability" - absolute nonsense again. Here's what BLP policy actually says:

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article ...".

The subject is a magistrate, an Alderman, and the former chair of the police authority of the City of London. You clearly have no idea what constitutes a public figure. --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bit less condescension please. None of the above make him a well-known personage. They may be indicators, but if 1% of the population of London know what an Alderman is, I will eat my hat. Being a public figure does not automatically make them well known. Likewise fulfilling one criteria of the BLP policy does not invalidate the rest of it. Since you quoted above, feel free to explain why the court case is noteworthy & relevant to a biography on him. I am waiting to be convinced. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does London have to do with this? I'll wager that far more than 1% of the City of London know what an Alderman is; and who he is. As to the relevance to him of the subject that he just voluntarily appeared on national TV to discuss, which has cost him his livelihood for the last year..! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TV is ephemeral, newspapers are ephemeral, WP is permanent and usually the first hit for a subject's name. If he adds this to his CoL alderman profile, his web forum profile, and his chambers profile, we'll know that he wants this prosecution to be the foremost thing recorded about him. Until then stick it in the article about the Act. I think we are done now. John lilburne (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said "…I have removed the contentious material [because] Wikipedia editors must not act… in a way that amounts to… victimization". Since I and I alone have included what you refer to as "contentious material", then your insinuation of victimisation clearly refers to me. I have not argued that "notability means 'well-known'". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your cut and paste paraphrasing omits large sections that both explain and give context. Perhaps you would rather address the objections I raised rather than taking things out of context and getting offended. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you didn't post false insinuations. I also notice that you removed from the article the cited fact that Walsh's work "includ[es] actions against the police". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jintara Poonlarp

You still have wrong biog info on Jintara poonlarp lukting and morlam singer from Thailand. Firstly nobody ever spells her stage name 'Chintara' and certainly never her. And you still have her DOB wrong. She was born on 6th March 1969 and NOT 12 march 1971. To confirm see bottom of her facebook page -or phone her up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.162.153 (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Plotkin

The article on Plotkin, a convicted inside trader who spent about 3 years (?) in federal prison has been subject to various deletion attempts since Plotkin was released. The first involved a flock of socks and special purpose accounts, removed material, and then started an AfD, which was speedily closed after the sock puppet report came in. Note that the material on Plotkin is very well sourced, the story was covered in dozens of national and international reliable sources, and even had its own episode on American Greed. While the American Greed episode seems to meet the current standards of US television news, it is not used as a source, and our article does not report the sensational aspects.

A new campaign by SPAs has started to fairly subtly remove material, e.g. Eugene's middle initial, a link to New York Magazine which has a photo. Also the time spent in prison has disappeared and the story has shifted so that Plotkin's co-conspirator David Pajčin, who was also convicted, seems to be blamed for everything. The material added on DP is certainly of concern here because it is not as thoroughly sourced. He cooperated with the Feds and might be viewed as having gotten off easy.

In any case, I have reverted back to my last edit and will watch the article when I have the time. I only ask that others take note and watch it as well. Smallbones (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Andrade

This is one of those cases where it's hard to make a balanced article. She did get a 2-game suspension from the Olympics for punching an American player, Abby Wambach, and about the top 50 google hits on her are about this incident. I'm wondering whether there might be some non-English sources which would give a more balanced article; I wasn't even able to determine what team(s) she played for before the Olympics. Pak aran 15:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a clean up of the article. Giant Snowman 15:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Nicole Kach

Saw it on BLP prod, very easily found multiple new sources, but still of concern. I'd appreciate another opinion. My personal opinion is there was sufficient continuing coverage & discussion with respect to similar events. I'd consider Do No Harm, but she did write a book about her experiences which is in over 220 libraries. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Over 220 libraries? I'd never guessed that a vanity publisher could have such clout. I notice that, rightly or wrongly, both Natascha Kampusch (not of obvious significance aside from having been kidnapped) and Wolfgang Priklopil (her kidnapper, seemingly of no other significance whatever) have an article. Incidentally, the (unsourced) last sentence of the current version of Priklopil's article looks to me like something excitable nitwits could take as a suggestion or invitation. -- Hoary (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I commented, if doing so made it less likely that anybody else would.

Yes indeed, the fact that she has published a book on the experience suggests that she's happy to be known for it.

I'm sure that the sources you've already found (let alone others) allow the article to be amplified and improved. However, I'm in no mood to amplify or improve it; it's not at all my area of interest. -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Professional titles

When do we use professions as descriptions such as "zoologist", "anthropologist" etc. For example Desmond Morris is trained as a zoologist but has published about humans using the framework of sociobiology, but he is sometimes called "anthropologist" by the popular press inspite of not having a background in anthropology or ever held a position in an anthropology department or published in anthropological professional venues. What are our guidelines for referring to people as professionals? Can we call people who wrote popular books about animals for zoologists even if they don't have any qualifications as such?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be one of those situations where VnT will cause us trouble. I think we'd really want to invoke a criterion of some sort: either the person's degree, or their job/profession. But we'll surely get people arguing that because Marginal Regional Newspaper calls the person an anthropologist that's what our article should do as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal Dokes

He passed away from Cancer i updated the page but i did it sloppy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.194.147 (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated it. Also, please remember/note that per WP:EUPHEMISM, we discourage wording such as "passed away", etc. Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Usamah

A new anonymous editor, 86.166.64.42, has added claims of sexual harassment to this cleric's article based on a news report. Some other edits were blocked by the abuse filter.[1]

This article needs neutral supervision and assessment. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been restored to before the harassment allegations, but it needs some work as it is wholly unsourced. In looking for sources, I mostly saw criticism pieces.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Swamy

Arvindswami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been inserting unsourced or unreliably sourced information contrary to what the reliable sources in the article have said. He cited "imdb" (that's all, not the IMDB page on Arvind Swami, just "imdb") for some changes, despite being told that IMDB does not meet WP:RS. One source states that he was adopted by VD Swami, which he removed and replaced with a citation to wordpress blog that does not disprove the adoption.

I need some other editor to help with this, because he does not care what I say at all, and no one else has tried to deal with him in over a month. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have constantly been editing this article on me which is poorly sourced and am willing to provide a copy of my passport or any document that will give you the required proof. If there is a constant referral to some badly sourced or incorrect articles or news items and to insist thereafter that we cannot change the same nor accept proof is beyond common sense. Many articles/ news items must have referred to wikipedia and i understand that there could be circular sourcing regarding birthdate, childhood.

For example, There are many recent news articles which states that I was at a school reunion with grandmaster and world chess champion Viswanathan Anand ^[1]and it also states that he was my classmate. it also states that it was a 25th year reunion. The article however does not say how old I was when i finished school and therefore I cannot refer the same in my edits. But I guess this is where common sense comes into play; Surely I did not finish school when I was in my twenties!! to say that there is an article which states the name of my father, but this does not disprove adoption is beyond stupidity. If my parent's names are going to be wrongly stated, how can I disprove adoption???? I can only offer to show you proof, if u dont want to see it or dont have a way in which I can send it to you then what option do I have but to cite sources that are available and continue editing ...Can someone please help and escalate this so that we dont need to waste time disputing facts?--Arvindswami (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Alan Rekers

While looking up some past conflicts between other editors, I stumbled on George Alan Rekers replete with allegations, innuendo, OR etc. and quite likely a violation of UNDUE to boot. It is far too messy for me to work on now, but it dang well should be noted as a very bad case of making a BLP into a series of allegations and accusations which were never brought to any court at all. And made into a very large proportion of the BLP. Collect (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there were no court cases is neither here nor there, as they are not matters that would constitute crimes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are contentious claims and allegations based substantially on rumours and innuendo, placed in a BLP at length - and all you can say is "they are exempt from BLP rules because they are not allegations of crimes" or the like? Sorry - fails to wash as far as I can tell. WP:BLP covers allegations as far as I can tell, and has for some time. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a diff indicating where I say "they are exempt from BLP rules because they are not allegations of crimes"? I'll be ever so grateful, as I really can't remember saying that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Must one quote your diff right above his response while you say it is "neither here nor there" to show that you feel "they are not allegations of crimes" "are exempt from BLP"? :) Arkon (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such silly games. I didn't say "exempt from BLP" because I didn't intend "exempt from BLP". Perhaps when you're ready for a sensible discussion... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't and I was going to edit to that effect, but that's why your "neither here nor there" on a BLP board, while requesting a diff to you poo-pooing the situation is so silly. Arkon (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Then why say that the material issue is "neither here nor there"? Should looked like you intended to say the material did not fall under BLP strictures ... I consider rumour and innuendo (even using an op-ed column for "facts" FGS) to fall under WP:BLP strictures for sure. Collect (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point stands: it is neither here nor there that there were no court cases about these issues, as they were not the sort of things that would be considered crimes. If there are other angles from which to discuss BLP issues, then do let's make points in sensible ways. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are contentious claims based on rumours and allegations - including even an op-ed as a "source" for "fact." For starters. Then we get on to whether having a third of a BLP devoted to the single "issue" is rational weight. Collect (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It just sounds like you only consider court actions to be BLP worries worthy. You really haven't supported your stance with sources, yet. Keep it out. Arkon (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you haven't even raised any issues on the talk page. So why are we having this discussion here? If you had found some actual BLP violation, presumably you could have done something about it. I'm having trouble identifying which third of the article you think is unduly emphasized. You might get more traction if you explained that, and explained why you think the emphasis is undue. Abhayakara (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta agree, this section has been super vague. Arkon (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As always, it's useful to refer to what policy actually says. Rekers is a public figure. WP:BLP says of public figures: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
This allegation is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented (New York Times, CBS News, BBC, The Independent, etc., etc. I'm not seeing a BLP issue here, and the original post is, as others have noted, unhelpfully vague. MastCell ^Talk 05:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Miami New Times" is not RS for contentious allegations for BLPs. The op-ed from Frank Rish is not RS for claims of "fact". He also talked about how he believed that Rekers was, in fact, homosexual is clear speculation and rumour. As of June 4, 2010 (2010 -06-04)[update], NARTH seems to have removed this statement from the NARTH website is blatant OR and speculation. As a result of the scandal, gay rights advocate and sex columnist Dan Savage coined the terms "lifting his luggage" as a euphemism for sexual activity and "whatever lifts your luggage" as synonymous with "whatever floats your (sexual) boat."[ is not properly related to the BLP - it is an editorial comment by Savage. In subsequent interviews, Roman said Rekers had paid him to provide nude massages daily is pure tabloid rumour-mongering. Enough examples yet? In short - a real BLP issue, and violative of the policy on its face. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those specific examples, which are helpful. The Miami New Times is borderline at best, and if it were the sole source for these allegations, then I would support its removal. But in this case, the New Times broke a story which happened to be true (that Rekers hired a male prostitute from rentboy.com as a vacation companion), and that story is covered in multiple independent, reliable sources. I agree with you that the Dan Savage line is outside the scope of a biography of Rekers. As for the specifics put forward by Rekers' hired travel companion, it's probably relevant to note that he alleged they had sexual contact (sourced to CNN and/or the New York Times), but perhaps not in the lead. MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amira Hass

Resolved

Amira Hass, a reporter for the Israeli paper Ha'aretz, reported that Palestinian eyewitnesses said they saw a group of Israeli settlers in Hebron defile a Palestinian body. She was sued by the settlers, and a judge ruled in favor of the settlers. Her employer, Ha'aretz, said they would appeal the decision.

Currently, the article says Hass had falsely reported Palestinian eyewitness accounts of Israeli settlers defiling the body of a Palestinian militant killed by Israeli police. Nobody is disputing that the judge found that the accounts published were incorrect, however nobody is saying that Hass made up those accounts, which the article currently does say. Is the phrasing Hass falsely reported ... acceptable? nableezy - 19:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerusalem Post reported that Hass was convicted for libel for reporting wrong information -

"The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court yesterday ordered Ha'aretz journalist Amira Hass to pay NIS 250,000, plus NIS 18,000 for court costs, to the Jewish community of Beit Hadassah in Hebron for publishing false accounts that vilified the residents..." and also says "Judge Rachel Shalev-Gartel concluded in favor of the residents' claim that the report - disproven by several televised accounts of the incident - damaged the community's reputation." Crystalfile (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Jerusalem Post reported that the actual accounts were false, not that Hass falsely reported those accounts. nableezy - 19:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit before this current one, which I agree with and support, is "Hass had published what she claimed were Palestinian eyewitness accounts." I feel that's the best one, as a judge, JPost, and an opposing side said this was not true, and clearly these "eyewitness accounts" are called into doubt. Journalists should strive to check up on all the facts. She claimed that what she wrote were eyewitness accounts, and a judge ruled against that as well. --Activism1234 20:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ill wait for uninvolved opinion before responding to the frankly ridiculous proposition that either Hass published (I thought you understood this point by now) anything or that her report was what she claimed were Palestinian eyewitness accounts. nableezy - 20:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guys post some links to new articles about this case? This article requires an account and this article is an opinion piece. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any link I could post of the first would be a copyright violation, sorry. I can say that if you were to google "to the Jewish community of Beit Hadassah in Hebron for publishing false accounts that vilified the residents." in quotes that you could quickly find such a reprint of the article. nableezy - 22:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New suggestion - pls discuss this - Nableezy says above that "the Jerusalem Post reported that the actual accounts were false, not that Hass falsely reported those accounts." I am proposeing that we write "Hass reported false Palestinian accounts of..." Crystalfile (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haaretz has challenged that view, saying as a fact that the reports are false violates WP:NPOV. All this avoids the point. Is it acceptable to say that Amira Hass, an international renowned journalist, "falsely reported" this information based on the sources provided? nableezy - 23:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haaretz have said they will appeal the court conviction. This should and is in the article but doesnt chnage that she was found guilty of libel as source reports. And their saying an intent to appeal doesnt question the falseness of the reports. Crystalfile (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Nabllezy - Are you saying every time convicted party says they will appeal conviction, you cant report that they did something wrong? Thats ridiculous! Crystalfile (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested not to write the accounts as false, but rather as claims. A claim may or may not be true. And in this case, the ruling of a judge, TV reports, and an opposing side who deny that it happened and ruled against her should be sufficient to make it clear that these are claims, not factual eyewitness accounts (of course, they could be - that's the beauty of that word). Now Nableezy, we live in a democracy, so feel free to respond, but understand that repeating the same arguments on the talk page won't lead to an agreement here, and it's best for an uninvolved person like A Quest to review the claims (see what I did?) of each side and decide. --Activism1234 23:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have on the one hand a mainstream source reported that she published false accounts. On the other hand we have Haaretz saying they will appeal the conviction of libel. Are you serriously saying that this stops us reporting the source clearly saying she published falsness? Crystalfile (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has descended into incoherent babbling, so I'll ask for uninvolved opinions once more. Currently, the article on Amira Hass says that she falsely reported material that no source says she made up. Yes, one source, a competing newspaper, says that the actual content of the Palestinian accounts that she reported were false, they dont however say that those accounts were manufactured. Is it acceptable, under WP:BLP for the article to claim that this reporter falsely reported these accounts? nableezy - 23:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I have sugested compromise. See above. I say: Nableezy says above that "the Jerusalem Post reported that the actual accounts were false, not that Hass falsely reported those accounts." I am proposeing that we write "Hass reported false Palestinian accounts of..." The source for this will be "The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court yesterday ordered Ha'aretz journalist Amira Hass to pay NIS 250,000, plus NIS 18,000 for court costs, to the Jewish community of Beit Hadassah in Hebron for publishing false accounts that vilified the residents..." and also says "Judge Rachel Shalev-Gartel concluded in favor of the residents' claim that the report - disproven by several televised accounts of the incident - damaged the community's reputation." Crystalfile (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, you're playing it as an all-or-nothing game. Even if what an editor says is true or has merit, you're making it as either it's the current version or it's the previous version, rather than taking what the editors here say and arriving at a different, more accurate version. --Activism1234 23:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I am looking for is somebody to revert the straight forward BLP violation that is still in the article. Once that is done a discussion on what to do next can take place. But what matters right now is that there is a violation of basic Wikipedia policy in the article on a living person. That is something that requires more urgent attention than answering each of the other baseless propositions that have been brought here. This is, lest the two of you forget, BLP/N. Not Talk:Amira Hass. Or, for that matter, NPOV/N. I am here to deal with a BLP violation that is currently in an article. Anything that comes after that can, you guessed it, come after that. nableezy - 23:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing to move forward and new suggestion has been proposed.Please comment on y think "Hass reported false Palestinian accounts of..." is not backed by "The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court yesterday ordered Ha'aretz journalist Amira Hass to pay NIS 250,000, plus NIS 18,000 for court costs, to the Jewish community of Beit Hadassah in Hebron for publishing false accounts that vilified the residents..." and y Haaretz appeal for conviction means we mustnt talk about this? Thank youCrystalfile (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source says clear;y the eyewitness reports was false and disproven by several television accounts. Y does the appeal mean we mustnt call them false. Crystalfile (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"BLP violations are in the eyes of the beholder." It'd be much easier to revert it to the final, proper correct form, rather than open up another section on this. That is, if the editor/admin who looks at this is able to make such a decision. If not, then the story is different.

Also interesting to note that a competing newspaper's "claims" need to be viewed with skepticism, but the newspaper covering its ass from the ruling of a judge is to be raised on a pedestal and be the truth. --Activism1234 23:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a tag at the top of the article's talk page. Read it, internalize it, then try again. BLP violations need to be dealt with post haste. Not "oh lets figure out a final solution and then we can fix the problem." Got it? nableezy - 23:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well please comment y you dislike the new proposal. The source says the accounts were false -Yes? The court convicted her. Yes? So let us report this and stop saying isleading things about Haareztz dispute this because all it says is they will appeall. It says nothing about them claiming reports are true.Crystalfile (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ryan

Brown Noser trivia

Since his nomination by Romney, there has been some trivia which the left blogosphere finds absolutely hillarious. That Ryan was voted "Biggest Brown Noser" by his senior class. I fail to see how this cannot be a BLP violation as well as a piece of minor WP:TRIVIA which wouldn't survive even if it were not a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRIVIA is an editorial call, not something to be discussed here (ie., not a policy call). As to WP:BLP, the brown-noser reference is from reputable secondary sources (LA Times and New Yorker). The word itself is described by Merriam-Webster simply as "to ingratiate oneself with : curry favor with." That is not pejorative in the sense of WP:BLP. And we are talking of a public figure here. Churn and change (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if the NYT calls him a shithead and he is aware of it, it is ok because the NYT is a RS? Arzel (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the word, tell me this is not a pejoritive. from the implication that servility is equivalent to having one's nose in the anus of the person from whom advancement is sought Arzel (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is sourced reliably and that it is defined in the dictionary does not change the fact that it is always, without exception, a pejorative and to claim otherwise is really unproductive. Furthermore, according to WP:BLP with regards to balance, " the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Considering that this juvenile vote was amongst Ryan's senior high school class and constitutes an opinion, it therefore qualifies as an opinion held by a tiny minority and should not be included in the article. It's really quite unbelievable that we are even having this discussion over such a term. If it isn't pejorative, I challenge you to find a single person that wishes to be described as a brown-noser. A.S. Williams (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're being a bit literal about "brown-nosing". Its etymology is indeed as you describe. Most if not all people using it are surely aware of this meaning. Some may intend the meaning. But I've heard it so often that I think it's something like "bastard": it's often lost its original/literal meaning. Whether it's routinely pejorative or grossly pejorative, undoubtedly it's also silly talk. But it's not obvious to me that it's sillier than most such grade-school estimations ("most likely to" whatever, etc). Do WP BLPs normally allow these? -- Hoary (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a BLP violation and it may be trivial. However, the edit to which you point sources it to this article in the New Yorker and this one in the LA Times; and yes, it does indeed appear within both. -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be out of line to suggest a mirror of the Obama page? Arkon (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What (if anything) do you mean? -- Hoary (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As in, super biographical, the rest goes to sub articles. Arkon (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with comments above that it's ridiculous to even think about putting it in the article. It's a view held by a few of his classmates as a joke in the yearbook. Who cares? I don't. Neither does anyone else. Not important for a Wikipedia article. And yes, "brown nose" is used in a negative, pejorative way. --Activism1234 05:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? I don't. Neither does anyone else. The authors of pieces published in the New Yorker and LA Times seem to care. -- Hoary (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great for them. They daily publish tons of stories that aren't suitable for Wikipedia. --Activism1234 13:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing at opponents is fine for blogs and such, but is not suitable for Wikipedia—the encyclopedia is not a place to record every tidbit (positive or negative). Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can agree with this. -- Hoary (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is considered relevant by reliable secondary sources, and that is one major criteria for WP notability. And, yes, brown-noser is the exact word they both use. Here is the Random House take on the word: "Despite the scatological inspiration of the term brown-nose, it is not considered to be very vulgar or offensive. Some people, unaware or unsure of its origin, don't consider it offensive at all, but at worst I would say that it is only mildly offensive. It is definitely slang, though, so may not be appropriate in many circumstances. "

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19990723

As to appropriateness, we take our lead on that front from our reliable secondary sources. The question to be discussed on this board is the WP:BLP one, not the WP:TRIVIAL one. Churn and change (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some seriously determined efforts to include in an encyclopedia that a few high schoolers called Ryan a brown-noser. Think about that for a moment. Why could that possibly be? A.S. Williams (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're correct about the motivation here, the solution is simple: let's include it... but not until after the election. If anyone still feels strongly about. Which they won't. In the short term, I agree with Johnuniq; there are any number of reliably sourced factoids about Ryan. This particular one doesn't seem noteworthy enough for a serious encyclopedic biography. MastCell ^Talk 05:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the term brown-noser belongs on any WP:BLP period. It's the same thing as calling someone a sycophant and yes that is a pejorative too. A.S. Williams (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the brown-noser thing is included, then the context ought to be provided in the same sentence. The context strongly suggests that the designation was a joke. As The Washington Post explains (in the same sentence), he was also voted Junior Class President and Prom King.[2] Jokes about the subject of a BLP seem less suitable for inclusion than serious material, IMHO. But if this joke is included, it seems only fair to include Ryan's joking response: "At least I didn't have a

mullet."108.18.174.123 (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Churn and Change that this material may be excludable as trivia, but that's not a question for this board. To the editors opposing this because it is pejorative: that's irrelevant. The BLP guideline does not contain a prohibition on reporting the use of pejorative language. Formerip (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where editors are getting this belief that it being a pejorative is irrelevant. WP:BLPSTYLE is clearly relevant to the presentation of material within a BLP. It is not the purpose of WP to attack a living person, and it should not be the purpose of editors either. Furthermore, there BLP also deals with trivia, thus that this is minor trivia can be also considered. Arzel (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of BLPSTYLE tells us not to report the use of pejorative language? BLP doesn't really deal with trivia, it only prohibits trivia sections. What I think this noticeboard can say is "don't include this if it is trivia". Formerip (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the intersection of BLP and UNDUE and it certainly is UNDUE-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tone. Read up on BLP. Furthermore, minor trivia should only be included if it follows basic BLP guidelines of tone and balance. In other words, if you have a list of crap like this, it doesn't make it any better to put the crap into the middle of a paragraph. Perhaps I could ask you, what is the encyclopedic value of including the insult the editorial board of his high school yearbook imposed onto him? I worked the yearbook in my school, and there wasn't even a vote for the lists in the yearbook outside of the few of us that actually worked on the yearbook. It is quite possible that this was one or two of his classmates. The editorial control of a school yearbook is....pretty much non-existant, kids are inserting shit like this into them all the time. If anything it tells us a lot more about the editors that think this personal attack must included. Arzel (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that it was intended as a personal attack by his fellow students, just as it's not intended as one now. The fact that these highly reliable sources are comfortable using the term is a strong hint that we should be, as well. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Show me some examples of being called an "ass-kisser" being used in a non-perjoritive form. No rational person can claim it is not being used as one now, and that it is was not used as one then. The sources using it today clearly understand what it means, please don't play this obtuse game here. Arzel (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it was not intended as an attack although some editors here may read it that way. The Atlantic published an entire story (which I personally dislike) about Wikipedia's inclusion and omission of this one thing from Ryan's high school years. Why on earth does our article include the trivia of every single club the man ever belonged to in high school, and not say that he was voted biggest brown-noser? To omit it makes our article out of balance and biased. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

inappropriate inclusion of some trivia should not be "balanced" by the inclusion of MORE inappropriate trivia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(and re the Atlantic aritcle, i think it is quite an accurate analysis of the life of political articles) -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except I don't like it that the writer takes edit summaries for granted. The author seems to consume them but never attribute them to any editor by user name. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds almost right, The Red Pen of Doom. I would say though to avoid introducing more bias into this article, that either we omit high school clubs or else add brown noser. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material is inappropriate, full stop. In all of the RS reporting, the context makes it clear that this sobriquet was nothing more than a juvenille prank. There is no relevance - none - to Ryan's current tenure in office. No responsible journalist would characterize Ryan's career as "brown-nosing", quite the opposite - in fact the press has so far characterized him as serious, purposeful, and articulate. Including this pejorative trivia now is demeaning and does little to advance the reader's understanding of Ryan's past and how he got to his present position. Ronnotel (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it and the Prom King part should be included. His page is not only about "Ryan's current tenure in office" but his life and this is one part of his life. He even jokes about it in one of the referances. 90moredays (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

♦ It seems to me that most of the objections over the inclusion of "brown noser" is centered around the fact that the term is allegedly pejorative in nature and constitutes an attack on Mr. Ryan's character. In addition, a few also question the credibility of an award given by his high school peers.

If so, then the question is, do these reasons infringe upon WP:BLP? More specifically, are they in conflict with WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability and/or WP:NOR?

Consider this as well: WP:BLP/Public Figures

I think the issue has turned into a farce, and to be perfectly frank, embarrassing. For many Americans, this is their first glimpse on the inner workings of Wikipedia. There should be a speedy resolution to this. Personally speaking, I think the term should be included on Ryan's page. However, as another editor has mentioned, we could also place it on hold until after the election. --Misha Atreides (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there was a huge discussion at the Village Pump way back in 2005, about whether insults against the subject of a BLP are worth including. I tend to agree with an editor who basically said that one important criterion for inclusion is whether the insult is a really interesting and artful one, especially if it includes an interesting and artful response. Examples:

About Disraeli: "You, Sir, will die either on the gallows or of a loathsome disease". Response by Disraeli: "That depends on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
About Gladstone: "Do you know the difference between a misfortune and a calamity?" "No what is the difference" "Oh it is a vast one. Now if Mr. Gladstone, say, were to fall into the Thames, that would be a misfortune, but if someone were to pull him out..."
About George Bernard Shaw (after he told an unfriendly audience at one of his plays, "You are Philistines who have invaded the sacred temple"): "Yes, and you are driving us forth with the jawbone of an ass."

Calling someone a brown-noser is just not very unusual or creative, though Ryan's response was more so. Let us establish once and for all that a conservatively-written BLP does not include garden variety insults (serious ones or joking ones) except in extraordinary circumstances. For the inquisitive among you, Disraeli died of bronchitis, and his WP:BDP calamitously does not include any of the gems quoted above (the Gladstone snark was his).108.18.174.123 (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read about this in The Atlantic. I agree that the "brown-noser" reference is not appropriate. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands now looks much better. A summary replaced the detailed list of clubs (and the grade score needed to enter one of them). I think this discussion has become moot. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been resolved one way or another or is the discussion remaining open for a period of time?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amadscientist, in my opinion, yes we have resolved this. We can agree to leave out brown noser in the context of the current article. After this discussion started, most of the detail about Ryan's high school years was removed, so there is no reason to include it. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We ought to close out this discussion as consensus to not mention brown noser. I think it's fair to say this award should not be mentioned unless for some reason the article rises back up in useless details. Arzel? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pema Rinchen

There is another Pema Rinchin - a writer and political dissident in eastern Tibet. Info from a blog: "Tibetan writer Woeser wrote on her blog about Pema Rinchen, 25, another Tibetan writer from Ganzi prefecture, Sichuan province, who was recently detained by police, who reportedly beat him savagely. Here’s a rough summary translation Woeser’s description of this sad case: Pema RInchen was taken away on July 5 [2011] by the police of Luhuo County, Ganzi prefecture. The young writer was reportedly beaten savagely by the police. On the second day, he was sent to the Luhuo County Hospital for emergency treatment. When family members heard the news, they rushed to the hospital in tears, but there were several members of the People’s Armed Police and police standing guard outside his hospital room, who prevented his family members from seeing him. At present, it’s not known if Pema Rinchen is alive or dead.

"As a child, Pema Rinchen was a monk for a period of time, and he later took up writing. In eastern Kham, he’s considered one of the better known of the new generation of Tibetan writers. At the beginning of this year, he used his own money to publish a Tibetan language book titled Look. The book included reflections and commentaries on Chinese communist polices and implementation of these policies in Tibetan areas, the suppression of Tibetans during the protests in Tibetan areas in 2008, as well as government actions in Yushu during the earthquake. Furthermore, Pema Rinchen also interviewed some of the Tibetans who were tortured in 2008.

"Two thousand copies of Look were printed and before he was detained, Pema Rinchen traveled the entire Tibetan region distributing basically all the books.

"On the afternoon of July 6, the Public Security Bureau of Luhuo County sent a notice of detention to the family of Pema Rinchen, saying that he was suspected of fanning hatred among minorities, and that he was currently being held in the Luhuo County Detention Center. He has not been seen he was taken away.

On June 2, a court in Aba Prefecture, a Tibetan dominated area of Sichuan province, sentenced Tashi Rabten, writer and editor of banned magazine Shar Dungri (Eastern Snow Mountain), to four years in prison on unspecified charges." http://woeser.middle-way.net/2011/07/75.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjdksla8 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. David R. Hawkins

Most of Dr. David R. Hawkins' Biography on Wikipedia is incorrect. Please remove this page. Thanks!

You will probably need to be more specific. What is incorrect? Which bits are not incorrect? Formerip (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The actual biography is only 5 sentences. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection - and I am not a member of OTRS - is that the article has been protected and/or deleted several times due to complaints to OTRS by the subject. The early history of the article was dominated by florid promotional language. I don't think notability has ever been demonstrated. Skinwalker (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Fusion / LENR Userspace BLP issues

This list of researchers appears to be a major BLP issue where scientists etc are claimed to be cold fusionists: User:POVbrigand/list

Is this a BLP issue? Thanks.--Insilvis (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this subject was previously discussed at BLPN.[3] Also note that the list is up for deletion.[4]108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously discussed here, and it is being to rediscuss now. So what is the problem?

The list is being discussed for deletion for BLP violation, according to the proponent. Hence it should be discussed in the proper way and in the proper place which is HERE, where BLP violations are discussed.--Insilvis (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I just thought people should be aware of background. I do not have any opinion about whether the list should be kept or deleted, but I do think it would be very wonderful if the listed researchers would succeed in their (alleged and controversial) quest. Cheers.108.18.174.123 (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Thanks for your point.--Insilvis (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at it a bit more, but only from a BLP perspective (i.e. putting aside topic bans and user space issues). To me, it seems like the most pertinent policy is WP:BLPCAT#Categories.2C lists and navigation templates:

“

Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.

”

The Wikipedia article on cold fusion says: "By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science." So it seems like to me that either the list should be deleted, or else it should be trimmed to include only people whose notability is related to cold fusion (i.e. someone could be notable only for other things, and yet dabble in LENR, in which case they shouldn't be on the list).108.18.174.123 (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the world "cold fusion" is used it should be trimmed down in favour of "LERN" and it must be clear that all the persons in the lists classify themselves as researchers in the LERN field.--Insilvis (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LENR (note spelling) stands for "low-energy nuclear reactions". It means the same thing as "cold fusion", and is kind of a euphemism to avoid criticism.[5]108.18.174.123 (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I posted on the MfD, I don't consider this a BLP violation per se. It is possible to research cold fusion without being fringe, or it having negative connotations in terms of reputation. It is only from the extreme point of view that all cold fusion research=fringe that leads to the implication of BLP violation. It's possible to research a topic that is frequented by fringe science without being part of fringe science yourself. James Randi himself would be a shining example of that sort of thing. Gigs (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've had researchers complain about being called a cold fusion/LENR researcher on wikipedia, he is on the list as well with 8 references (McKubre). It's not well sourced either, look through the references in general and see if they directly support the addition and are reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POVBrigand emailed me to say that McKubre said "I have never complained about it (or its content) to anyone in person, by email or in any other way." I can't vouch for the veracity of this hearsay, but there you go. Gigs (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Michael McKubre directly if there is any truth in IRWolfie's claims.

McKubre's reply was: "I have never complained about it (or its content) to anyone in person, by email or in any other way." and he told me I could quote him.

I find it very disturbing to read such utterly false claims on the BLP/N. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Coy

I've just looked at the article about musician Steve Coy. Much of the information that I tried to check appears extremely dubious such as the fact that he has a record contract with Virgin, has released three solo albums in the 2000s and as won Grammys for two of them. The website listed doesn't exist. I think most of the article is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaMS (talk • contribs) 03:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A banned user was adding nonsense. I've redirected the page again. Fences&Windows 20:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Bain

David Bain was convicted of murder. Many years later, after numerous appeals, he was retried and found not guilty.

However, the article contains a huge amount of irrelvant minutiae of the offence case against him - which is now nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation. David Bain is a living person and wikipedia is not the place for the evidence to be examined in such detail. Most of this material should be removed.Offender9000 (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're already working on it, so I'm not clear on what sort of assistance you are requesting here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was seeking confirmation that my perspective is valid and that most of the minutiae should be removed. Offender9000 (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Marie Psaltis

I'm wondering if I'm correct re the dispute at this article Talk. I'm not a BLP expert. It seems obvious to me however, that a Youtube video cannot be used as RS, to accuse the BLP subject of a misdeed, that could harm their reputation. (That the Youtube video was made by the alleged offended party, seems immaterial to me.)

An IP user reverted the add, and was reverted. When I reverted the re-add and opened a Talk section, my revert was reverted without discussion. Subsequently another editor added an additional ref, which looks like a blog news site, whereby a contributing member to the blog site reports that the Youtube video exists, then adds his own feelings and postulations about the accusation in the video. My simple understanding of BLP policy is that refs of this nature can damage the BLP subject, and WP, and s/b removed immediately (even w/o edit summary). The only discussion at the Talk section I opened after being reverted, is ad hominem personal attacks. The whole thing makes no sense to me. Am I missing something? Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I missed the last part of your message indicating that you opened the discussion here; I responded to your message on the article's talk page. I'm thinking that maybe we can try to resolve it there before taking it here? Nightscream (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

valerie adams

The biographical information heading Valerie Adam's wikipedia page states that she is from Australia. She is not from Australia. She is a New Zealand citizen born and living in New Zealand. She's always competed under the New Zealand flag in every international event. I've followed her career for a long time and she has NEVER identified herself as being Australian! Please, someone somehow clear this mishap, this is a very important issue to New Zealanders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriemhild85 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been changed back to reflect the correct info. Giant Snowman 10:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mata Amritanandamayi

This is regarding the Controversies Section of Mata Amritanandamayi. From reading the guidelines of BLP, I feel that the entries do not belong in a BLP section. I have given reasons for this in the Talk Page. My feeling is this:

1) "Accusations on fraudulence and suspicious deaths" This should be deleted because it is akin to accusing Amritanandamayi with homicides. No one has ever even pressed charges for these. It is a fringe theory by politically motivated groups. According to BLP guidelines, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and a BLP should not accuse the person of a crime they have not been charged with.

2)"Demand for probing source of foreign" This should be either deleted (as all sources are just reports of statements made by various politically motivated people or editorials) or at least moved to the Mata Amritanandamayi Math page. It is basically accusing Math/Amritanandamayi with a crime.

3) "Nurses' strike demanding wage hike" This should be moved to the Mata Amritanandamayi Math page, as Amritanandamayi is founder of AIMS but not a manager.

4) "Mysterious death of attempted assaulter" Mysterious death of attempted assaulter should be deleted. It is a controversy of the mental institution wherein the person was beaten to death. The culprits have already been arrested. Neither police nor news are implying connection with the Amma or the Math. LanceMurdock999 10:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanceMurdock999 (talk • contribs)

Kenny Rogers

In addition to his many other talents, Mr. Rogers published a book of celebrity photographic portraits called Your Friends and Mine in 1987. Wikipedia doesn't mention it in their entry, but I've seen it (out of print) on Amazon.com. It's a lovely book, and in the interest of thoroughness, perhaps Wikipedia ought to include it in their biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.30.157 (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done (though not really our department).108.18.174.123 (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot goblet

Having read through the wiki stub on Elliot Goblet, a.k.a Jack Elliot Levi, I feel it bears more than a passing resemblance to the advertisements for Mr Goblets performances displayed on the walls at Brisbane Domestic Airport.

The article reads like an advert throughout and in some paragraphs actually lifts sentences directly from the airports advertisements.

Wikipedia is a knowledge base Mr Levi, not a source of free advertising, please treat it with the respect it deserves and update the stub article to reflect your character more objectively.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.147.45 (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fareed Zakaria

If someone could take a look at the current structural/content problems with this rather sensitive article, that would be good. One new editor came in and made one edit, where they added more negative material. Then things mushroomed by another new SPA editor, who has stayed in there, making various structural changes to the article, some of which are okay but others not so good. Then another editor, who, although not brand new, has had very few edits since registering in January, came along and made things even worse, if nothing else from a formatting standpoint. There's a discussion on the article Talk page now, and I've commented there.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done what I could.108.18.174.123 (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John D'Acquisto

The information you post in referenced POST Career of John D'Acquisto although it is from the LA Times is incorrect and damaging to me John D'Acquisto because I have the actual court document that you keep avoiding that states differenes in what you are publicizing. So either change it or delete it from the publication and also in my playing career there are a number of mistakes in that also.. Please check your before printing something incorrect. here is the iformation and I mean all of it. read it is from the court and is the accepted document for the court of the United States a 39 count indictment was taken down to two counts in a plea bargin and you need to note what it says. especiall the part were it states all money were recovered. https://docs.google.com/?pli=1# Thank you John Francis D'Acquisto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastballjohnd (talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Lozada

There's been news about Chad Johnson's arrest for allegedly assaulting Lozada, his wife. It's reported in the Johnson article. The identical material is now in the Lozada article. I removed it from the Lozada article based on WP:BLPCRIME. Another editor reverted saying that Johnson is a "public figure" and therefore BLPCRIME doesn't apply. First, BLPCRIME is a line-drawing exercise. One has to determine how well-known the figure is to decide whether we can report accusations, charges, arrests, etc. I don't know much about football, so I have no idea how well-known Johnson is. Second, unrelated to BLPCRIME, this is the Lozada article. Is it important to have the same information that's in the Johnson article in the Lozada article? It's slightly amusing - because it's exactly the same, it refers to Lozada as "his wife" as opposed to Lozada. By the way, the divorce material (other than the TMZ ref, which is disgusting), is not at issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TABLOIDish details were not needed there. Collect (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks, and thanks in particular to RedPen. We'll see what fallout may come from the removal of the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this brings up the question, What would be the procedure to get TMZ on a blacklist? i cannot think of any situation other than the TMZ article where it would be an appropriate link anywhere in wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:BLACKLIST and the section "Requests for listing". I think you'd have trouble getting it listed, though. My guess is that for a fair amount of material it's considered a reliable source. You might check for discussions at WP:RSN. I don't like citing TMZ in general, but this particular cite brought up such an ugly, tabloidy looking "article" it was offensive. Besides, it was unnecessary as there was another ref that was perfectly acceptable - TMZ added nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony J. Fernandez

Hi, Please remove my Wikipedia biography effective now as it has been vandalized twice this week and I do not have the time nor the desire to be checking it everyday of vandals. Thanks, Tony J. Fernandez Http://www.professorfernandez.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.6.101 (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rm contentious unsourced claims, SPS stuff, puff etc. Collect (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Misha B & Misha B

I have requested a WP:NPOV/N partly over the issues following an earlier DRN that did not get a response.

Background Misha Bryan (born 10 February 1992), known as Misha B, is a British singer-songwriter who came to national attention in 2011 when she was a contestant in the eighth series of the The X Factor (UK), during the series the was a controversy, on live TV in front of 11 million viewers, where she was accused of being a bully. This was taken up the tabloid press, gossip mags and internet forums in a heavy media circus kind of way and the are many folks who hate Misha Bryan for it. The Accusations themselves where without verified evidence and most likely groundless.

1. Talk:Misha B Should these be removed.

This relates to lots of unsupported bully accusations on this artists talk page, it has not been affected by revision history.

Bias about bullying

DRN

Why does the Misha article read like a magazine article?

Too much information and way too biased

2. Misha B

My general feeling, as it was most likely a false allegation, surely it's better to not even include it. Relevant for the article about that particular series of The X Factor (where it is included), but not for her biographical article.

But because majority insisted, I added the conspiracy section, because I had a good knowledge of the sources and if it had to be there then I wanted to make sure the whole truth was there.

To briefly mention a strongly believed/but false allogation would merely gives the false accusation and rumours undue weight, making them a viable belief option (espicially considering the exposure the accusations had on prime time TV and the Gutter Press/Gossip Mag/internet circus that followed) if the section is not fully covered with and supported by verifiable evidence.

But does it conflict with BLP.

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 04:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that material from a reality show should get anywhere this much weight in a BLP at all. Wikipedia is not yet a TABLOID. Collect (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I went too far, the idea was if the publicly made negative accusation had to be included, then it should be balanced with the truth and witness accounts. I may have gone too far, esp with the Misha B quotes. I am happy to see its removal. A co-editor is questioning its removal though....Zoebuggie☺whispers 19:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is also here Controversy I have edited it down but should it remain or be edited further while keeping NPOV

What about the talkpage incidents?...Zoebuggie☺whispers 19:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party Movement

User Collect, a semi-frequent contributor here on WP:BLPN, removed 10k+ of material yesterday from the article Tea Party Movement that dealt with allegations of racism at Tea Party gatherings (specifically the racial epithet allegations involving slurs during the health care protests and the Springboro Tea Party founder using a racial epithet on twitter). The material has been in the article for 2+ years. Collect explained in his edit summary that it violates WP:BLP. I had a polite conversation with him on his Talk Page here to ask him for specifics as to how the material violates WP:BLP, and he provided his take on it, but it still isn't clear to me as to how the racism material violates WP:BLP in the context its used on that article. I told him I'd make a posting here on WP:BLPN so that we can hear from other BLP-experienced editors. Can anyone else explain what aspects of WP:BLP policy make the racism allegations material BLP-prohibited in this context? For ease of viewing, you can see the 10k of material that was removed here under the subsections "Reports of slurs at health care reform protests" plus "Response". Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note my statement at [6], [7] and [8] including my concerns about contentious claims being sourced to anonymous people, etc. as well as weight concerns for the claims. Collect (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Note that this is inaptly stated by the OP here -- if a BLP violation has been in an article for 20 years, it remains a BLP violation. If it is 10 words or 10,000 words, it remains a BLP violation. And my concerns had nothing to do with "racism" in the claims. Collect (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question for AzureCitizen: would you like to modify your statement in view of Collect's assertion that "racism" was not the issue? Collect, would you like to say here what was the issue? AzureCitizen, was this thing just between you and Collect, and if not then why just name Collect?108.18.174.123 (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to 108.18.174.123) Racism itself is not and has not been the issue here. The material deleted by Collect just happens to be on the topic of racism; that is its only connection to the subject of racism. The sole factor I'm focusing on here at WP:BLPN is the removal of the content by Collect on the grounds that the 10k of material violates WP:BLP. Collect's edit summary for the removal was "let's observe WP:BLP for contentious claims about living persons first - which is an absolute requirement by policy". When someone claims a WP:BLP violation, that issue needs to be resolved first before all others. You can see the resulting Talk Page conversation between Collect and myself in it's entirety here. Here on the noticeboard, Collect additionally states that he or she also objects to it on the basis of weight, but the issue I brought here to WP:BLPN is whether or not the 10k+ of material seen here under the subsections "Reports of slurs at health care reform protests" & "Response" actually violate the Biography of Living Persons policy. Does it really violate that policy? How so? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AzureCitizen, one of the things in the BLP policy is this: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association". Do you think this is relevant here? Is having a big section about alleged stuff that has been disavowed and condemned by the Tea Party really a proper thing to be in this particular article, even if the section is well-sourced? Yesterday, for example, a man who has been a volunteer at The DC Center for the LGBT Community, allegedly went on a shooting spree; shall we describe it at the Wikipedia article about the LGBT community?[9]108.18.174.123 (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've referenced a sentence from the paragraph on balance, which states that criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Although the shooting incident/LGBT community article hypothetical might be a good example for implying guilt by association in that scenario, the analogy breaks down and doesn't match up well with the deleted material connected to the health care protests. The allegations of slurs received significant attention and happened at a high profile Tea Party Movement event. Editors can disagree on whether or not it's notable and relevant in the TPM article, but it's quite a stretch to say that the material was a Biography of Living Persons policy violation and summarily delete it on that justification. AzureCitizen (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most thinking editors would have difficulty with the proposition that Faux News is a sufficiently neutral RS on any remotely R-vs-L topic. Strangely their coverage on this Johnson shooting story is better than normal, approximating this Washington Post article. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that once more Fox (note spelling) News reporters opine in favor of liberal causes, then its reputation will improve as an accurate and neutral source. I'm glad you agree it is in this case.108.18.174.123 (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be almost as bad. Reporters should not opine, they should report. It's journalism 101. Editors who catch them opining should warn them once, then fire them on the second instance. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it ought to work like that, but doesn't on both sides, of late.108.18.174.123 (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My hunch is that a radically shortened version of the deleted material might satisfy the BLP policy against guilt by association.108.18.174.123 (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My hunch was that the original material was never a BLP policy violation to begin with, which is why I brought it here. This really shouldn't be this hard; if there is a legitimate reason for why the material should be considered a BLP policy violation, it should be explainable with a straightforward and clear cut rationale. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be clear-cut enough: BLP has a policy disfavoring guilt by association. Jamming the Tea Party article full of alleged misdeeds by a tiny fringe of them has the effect of disparaging the Tea Party by association.108.18.174.123 (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamming the TPM article full of alleged misdeeds by a tiny fringe would obviously be a problem. That's not the case here; please take a careful look at the material in question and explain how it is "jamming the article full of alleged misdeeds." AzureCitizen (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 10k removed by Collect is a lot of stuff. And it was all about "Reports of slurs at health care reform protests". The slurs (if they occurred) were insufficiently common at the event to have been picked up by any recording device, and the organization says it condemns such things. So, I agree with Sceptre about this, and won't have more to say about it. Cheers.108.18.174.123 (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having involved US Congressmen at a major protest event in the capitol, it was widely reported and the issue of racism in the TPM garnered national attention. Whether or not there were recording devices or condemnations by TPM leaders, the relevant material wasn't "jamming the article full of alleged misdeeds." AzureCitizen (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is not a detergent that we use to scrub anything we disagree with that happens to involve a living person. The material on the slurs and the Springboro guy is reliably sourced, and that's what WP:BLP calls for. (The Springboro guy seems like a rather local incident to include, but that's not a BLP question.) What isn't adequately sourced - is the junk on Breitbart sourced only to him, but I suppose that's okay because it doesn't make conservatives look bad. Take it to NPOVN or DRN. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with Collect's removal; we're making way too much out of a few tea party activists caught being racists. Even if we all know the tea party is full of racists, I don't think we have any non-partisan sources discussing the problem of racism in the movement as a whole. That's what's important here. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with the removal on other grounds is fine by me; I'm trying to get to the root of whether or not its inclusion was a WP:BLP policy violation. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a higher policy, Azure, would be our pillar of "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." WP:BLP is merely a subset of this. If there is a consensus here that some of this material *may* be out of line, we should probably re-work it before returning it, if at all, to the article. Any material about a living person can fall under our WP:BLP policy. And that's what makes this relate to BLP. In addition, just because a person utters a supposed slur, can we immediately characterize them and their motives? I don't doubt that some Tea Partiers are racist. Some may only have 'implicit race bias' ( link or an unconscious bias that manifests as extra bias against Obama or Democrats. Some may just not like 'socialism'. Who knows. The point is that most mainstream media sources or pundits don't take the time to look at nuances or distinctions, they don't try to understand the opposing side, but often simply paint with a very broad brush. This is why you end up with a lot of Occupy people who say they dislike capitalism, when they really mean corporatism. But we need to get the article right, not resort to simplified generalizations that don't tell the story accurately. -- Avanu (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Avanu. WP:NPOV is a better approach by which to assess and gauge the material for its suitability and inclusion (or deletion in this case, as the material was in the article for more than two years). It's not like the text in question concludes with "Ergo, most tea partiers are racists." It still seems to me to be a pretty big stretch to say that the reporting of alleged slurs at the TPM health care protests violated BLP policy, of which I assume you read the material at issue. If it only vaguely and indistinctly relates to BLP, isn't it more appropriate to entertain the issue of WP:NPOV than to characterize it as a BLP violation, something for which we are accustomed to accepting as a justification that can be repeatedly employed to delete something without regard to RR restriction? AzureCitizen (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that focusing so much on racial slurs does constitute guilt-by-association. Someone tried to do the same for Occupy, using the American Third Position Party's support as a way of attacking Occupy. Thankfully, we resisted that attempt. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Javed Miandad

There is a mistake in the 4th line of the first paragraph of the biography of Javed Miandad. It says 5 runs were needed on 1 ball, whereas the fact is that 4 runs were needed on 1 ball in the ODI played in 1986. However, in the description given below it has been stated that 4 runs were needed on 1 ball. This discrepency is needed to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laiqwp2012 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rob Enderle

Just noted, and wondering. A random "has a medical faux-pas" from an IP editor on a subject's talk page. I'm surprised it has been there since March. But maybe random anon notes like "I heard Bieber's pet name for his fazula is 'Elsie'" is actually uncontroversial? Shenme (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:TPG for guidance, but in a case that blatant, just revert the anon.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/leisure/article3746321.ece

[1] ttp://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/leisure/article3746321.ece

[1]

@@ Line 327: / Line 327: @@
 :We've had researchers complain about being called a cold fusion/LENR researcher on wikipedia, he is on the list as well with 8 references (McKubre). It's not well sourced either, look through the references in general and see if they directly support the addition and are reliable. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 14:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 ::POVBrigand emailed me to say that McKubre said "I have never complained about it (or its content) to anyone in person, by email or in any other way."  I can't vouch for the veracity of this hearsay, but there you go.  [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 21:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
+:::I have asked Michael McKubre directly if there is any truth in IRWolfie's claims.
+:::McKubre's reply was: "I have never complained about it (or its content) to anyone in person, by email or in any other way." and he told me I could quote him.
+:::I find it very disturbing to read such utterly false claims on the BLP/N. --[[User:POVbrigand|POVbrigand]] ([[User talk:POVbrigand|talk]]) 22:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 == Steve Coy ==

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