Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Mwai Kibaki

Certain sections of the article on mwai kibaki ,the president of kenya are libelous .The article does not meet Editors standards of not being biased or malicious .The article is clearly pushing an agenda and biased point of view. The third-party published sources are cleverly picked from government critics and news sources that have a history of being biassed such as the bbc when it comes to african issues.The writers of the article are representing their views and misrepresenting them as a majority view.sections of his personal life that state he has a second wife are of concern and of damaging repute to the president . i also take issue with the highlighting section concerning 2005 dismissal of the cabinet . though the event of the sacking did take place most of the insinuations in the article are false and clearly aimed at damaging the reputation of the president . most of the claims are infact out rightly false eg 2005 constitution- the article claims that "Though strongly supported by Kibaki, the majority of Kenya's citizens rejected it". what exactly constitutes a majority ,referendum results clearly showed that though the president was for the constitution it was defeated with a narrow victory for the opposition a 47% loss to a 53% win.

On the 2005 dismissal of cabinet- this events hadly qualifies as a major incident in the presidency of mwai kibaki its importance is grossly over blown.the article goes further to state that "The Cabinet was appointed, but some MPs were offered ministerships but did not take up posts" which also is a fabrication one agin aimmed at the presidents reputation.The laterst entry that On 15 November 2006 he reinstated Kiraitu Murungi as Energy minister, accused of corruption in the Anglo-Leasing scandal, and George Saitoti as Education minister, previously accused in the Goldenberg scandal.is infact misleading Kiraitu Murungi Energy minister, was never accused of corruption in the Anglo-Leasing scandal but rather he was accused of slowing down investigations into anglo leasing as justice minister a huge difference than the implied actual involVement in the scandal

Dave Ramsey Continued

I have vigerously removed comments made by User:170.252.11.11, who now goes by User:70.129.156.204. He seems to have changed his IP after I tried to contact him through his talk page. He will not speak to me directly, but has made grandios claims on the talk page that I am a "Dave Ramsey lover" and that I am vandalizing the page by not allowing this person to "reveal any kind of criticsm about Dave Ramsey." I don't know what controversy he is referring to other than the one he seems so intent to invent. Ramsey himself admits to being criticized by some in the financial industry, but the only thing I can find to support that is in his books, in two blogs, an Amazon.com member review, and a Myspace page. This person has cited his sources as that Amazon.com member review, three articles that don't even talk about the arguement he was making in the statement, and a form on Dave Ramsey's site allowing listeners to enter a contest to win a free TiVo. He also repeatedly adds an uncited comment that Ramsey makes derogitory statements against women by calling them "Darling." When I revert his comments, he reverts them back stating that I am vandalizing the article and either twisting wikipedia policy to support my actions or making up wikipedia policy to forward my "Pro-Ramsey agenda." I admit I'm fairly new to this, and I'm pretty much learning this as I go. This isn't exactly the only article I contribute to, I just have a fair bit of knowledge about it. I'm not really sure what stage to take next with this guy. If any of his statements had any strand of truth, I'd cite it properly. (and believe me, I've been using every resource I can think of to try and verify any of it-Besides the rediculous nature of some of it, really the only thing I can find validity to is the comment about other financial professionals, and according to Wikipedia BLP guidelines, the only usable source available is his own books) So what do I do? Or can I get some help in the area? Should some sort of block take effect? It seems like if he's changing his IP that won't do anything. I'm going to look into requesting this be protected. But could someone maybe look over the history page and see what should be done? I saw something about removing this stuff from the history as well, but I'm not even sure how to do that. Anyway, any help would be greatly appreciated.--Arkcana 03:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternate theories regarding the Plame affair

The neutrality of this "article" is disputed (as tagged for some time). It contains rumors and innuendoes about two living people Valerie E. Wilson and Joseph C. Wilson. It presents rumors and other information (POV, "theories") which are not verifiable and is not following WP:BLP and WP:Reliable sources. The very nature of the subject is against Wikipedia's own guidelines with relation to living persons. The existence of the article appears to be a kind of ruse for including information in Wikipedia that otherwise (according to editing policies) is prohibited from inclusion at all in both the main article on the Plame affair and the main biographical articles of living persons prominently figuring in that affair. NYScholar 21:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Free Republic

Many editors wish to include a section in this article claiming that a particular Free Republic contributor is in fact Chad Conrad Castagna, a person recently accused of sending anthrax letters to various public figures. These implications rely on dubious claims made on blogs based in original research and lack verifiability. One source of tenuous reliability has linked to this original research and this is being cited as a reliable source. It cannot be verified that this poster is Chad Conrad Castagna and such claims could constitute libel--RWR8189 22:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

David Westerfield

196.15.168.40 is spreading tales about David Westerfield. WAS 4.250 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after reading "Thirty-eight-year old James Selby. San Diego police dubbed him the Banker's Hill rapist, after he was linked by DNA to a series of vicious rapes in the summer of 2001. Selby also attacked women and children in other states. Convicted murderer David Westerfield says Selby may be the real killer of Danielle Van Dam." from LOCAL 8 News Exclusive: David Westerfield's Letters From Death Row Part 2 I don't care anymore. WAS 4.250 05:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is about the last place I would have expected an edit to be vandalized, but my edit was vandalized (by being removed) so here it is again:

The David Westerfield article contained the statements:

"His computer contained child pornography."

and later, in the Notes

"According to the police a large part of his pornography consisted of legitimate images."

I quantified this by adding:

" - only 1% were considered “questionable” "

with the reference

Bean, Matt, Court TV (June 25, 2002), "Jury sees graphic child pornography taken from Westerfield's home". http://www.courttv.com/trials/westerfield/062502_pm_ctv.html

Someone objected to this addition, and watered it down to:

"A fraction of this contained material that could be considered child pornography"

I then added the statement:

"Some members of law enforcement, such as Detective Chris Armstrong, went further, and concluded that this was not child pornography."

with the reference:

Mudd, Judge William (July 9, 2002), Unsealed trial transcripts, page 6 of document (page 7664 of transcripts). http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/documents/westerfield17.pdf

The same person promptly removed that statement.

I am not happy about this. Wikipedia is supposed to be NEUTRAL, which means presenting the truth - the WHOLE truth. Furthermore, possession of child pornography is an extremely serious charge and very damaging to someone's reputation. To comply with Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons, Wikipedia readers should be made aware that there is considerable doubt over whether Westerfield in fact had any child pornography.196.15.168.40 19:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to WAS 4.250‘s comment about Selby. There was a wealth of unidentified evidence in the van Dam home and at the body recovery site: DNA in blood stains on Danielle’s bed, fingerprints in her house (especially two palm prints outside her bedroom door), a hair under her body, a variety of fibers with her body (especially red ones with her fingernail clippings), and footprints and tire tracks at the dump site. All the San Diego police had to do was to check these against Selby, and also determine if he had been in San Diego in early February, e.g. establishing if he had any family there (such as at the ice cream parlor). I can’t get over the fact that the police ignored DNA found on the very bed the victim was abducted from when they discovered it didn’t match Westerfield.196.15.168.40 04:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

ooooooh unidentified blood and prints Westerfield must be innocent. <sarcasm> <sarcasm 196.15.168.40 MOST crime scenes contain things that can not be identified. The Van Dams bought the home used, not brand new. The small blood spot on Danielle's bed could have come from one of her friends, friends of her brothers. Danielle was not stabbed otherwise there would be a trail of her blood all over the house. It means absolutely nothing. The palm prints outside her bedroom door might have been there, ever since they bought the house. Doors are not clean ALL the time. Fibers with her body or in her fingernail clipping means nothing as well. SHE was a CHILD. Children run around and play and get dirty all the time. Do you seriously expect a 7 year old to clean her fingernail clipper everytime? It means nothing. You have nothing but mindless conjecture in defending this man. You are badly mistaken if you think any of this is going to exonerate David Westerfield. It will have to be connected to someone, for starters, and next the person has to be placed at the scene of the crime. Fighting for Justice 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Fighting for Justice:

That evidence won’t be connected to anyone unless someone TRIES to do so, and the police DIDN’T, neither for Selby nor anyone else, not even prior to Westerfield’s arrest and conviction. They had already decided, on the first day they met him, that he was guilty. Much of that evidence I listed WOULD place the person at the scene of the crime.

Your arguments show signs of desperation: YOU are the one guilty of “mindless conjecture”. In particular, the van Dams had been living in that house for nearly 4 YEARS, but you believe the prints were older than that and had survived for so long! You think the unidentified blood on her bed might have come from her brothers’ friends. Why were they bleeding on HER bed? And their blood MIXED with hers. Interestingly, “there was a yellowish stain that was observed on the inside crotch area of the [Danielle’s] underwear” (Annette Peer, Preliminary Hearing, March 12), which is “a fairly common source, for example, in sexual assault cases” (prosecutor George Clarke, March 12). So it looks like Danielle was sexually assaulted in her own house. By whom? One of her brothers’ friends? It actually wouldn’t be too surprising if the children were imitating the sexual behavior of the adults in that house. You might think that “Fibers with her body or in her fingernail clipping means nothing”, but you are WRONG. Let’s see what the criminalist Jennifer Shen said (trial testimony, June 25): “The fibers that I collected from on and around her would have come from whatever environment she was last in.” Obviously it WASN’T Westerfield’s environment. Which, contrary to what you said, EXONERATES him (especially coupled with all the other evidence, such as the entomology). And yes, she WAS a CHILD. And children don’t only “run around and play and get dirty all the time”, they also explore INTERESTING places - such as their neighbor’s unlocked RV.

Are you a sockpuppet of TripleH1976? Your personal attacks are so similar to his, your vandalism is the same, and your arguments are just as emotional and fallacious. It didn’t take you long to get round your indefinite ban.196.15.168.40 04:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. Are you for real? A sexual assault right in the bedroom? I'm dying of laughter over here. Yes fingerprints can stay there for as long as 4 years, however, let's say it wasn't there for 4 years. All it means is that someone touched the door anyone from a long time ago or a short time ago. So they have to find the owner of that fingerprint? The whole world is going to be fingerprinted. Listen I don't know why the blood was there or why it was mixed. What I do know is that an actual sex assault would have YIELDED way more then a little blood and a yellowish stain. Even if she was digitally penetrated in the vagina or anus, there would have been more of a mess. It would have been painful and she would have been screaming/crying, or at least fighting with the assailant. Oh and now you're defaming the deceased victim and her brothers. But you have to fight about a quote describing the convicted child-killer's child pornography. "It was defamatory" according to you. Yet you've proven that you have no problem defaming children. I hope you're proud of yourself. If any of the evidence exonerates Westerfield he wouldn't be in jail RIGHT now. Jennifer Shen, yes, wow, some statement. Too bad it is easily negated, since the girl was found nude; I view her statement as an hypothesis. Do fibers know time then? Who cares that they weren't found to be from Westerfield. She was outside and things must have gotten on her body by the wind. There is a mountain of fiber evidence proving Danielle was in his environment. A brief cookie sale isn't going to yield so much evidence. Fibers such as the dog hair shouldn't have been there because the dog didn't go into Westerfield's home. The length of Danielle's hair, in the RV, was the same length as her new haircut. The blood and fingerprints, no good alibi, and his pointless trip make him guilty. I don't believe his RV was as opened as the defense would have one to believe. The print they lifted off of it was not in such a way to indicate a child was playing there. Oh, don't, fault the police for their investigation. Westerfied acted like a guilty person. What was with his overly cooperativeness? Opening things up that the police were not even interested in. Not telling them about his jacket. The trip where he did more driving then relaxing. The police stated Selby wasn't in the San Diego area when Danielle disappeared. The guy once confessed he murdered Jon Benet Ramsey. He was a class nut. Moreover, if he wanted the police to believe he was the perpetrator why did he do it in a unconvincing fashion? Like how did he find the Van Dam family? How did he get inside? Where did he first see Danielle? If he was the actual murderer he would have answered all those questions. They were on the right track once they knew Westerfield had no concrete alibi for the entire weekend. They knew child abductors are into child porn. It was found on his computers and CD's. Gas receipts and cell phone call records are not concrete alibi. A good alibi is a person, who could vouch that you were with them during the moment the crime was committed. He had squat for that. We don't really know if Westerfield was really alone that entire weekend. We have no idea what he was doing at night. The police were right on the money with this pervert. Where there is smoke there's fire. And, no, I am not a sockpuppet for TripleH1976. But I am grateful that he thwarted your plans on making this article a pity party for David Westerfield. I'm more than happy to continue his legacy. :) Fighting for Justice 07:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Fighting for Justice: How did all this start? I added two short statements made by members of the police, true statements, with good sources quoted, but you removed them simply because they cast doubt on Westerfield’s guilt and even though Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. So you are clearly in violation of Wikipedia policy. I don’t know why you have now broadened the discussion so much, except perhaps to draw attention away from the fact that you obviously don’t have a leg to stand on: your action is indefensible and you know it. Your belief seems to be: Westerfield had child porn, therefore he murdered Danielle. That is an unjustified standpoint, it’s based on emotion not reason. And it means that no child porn being in his possession implies he didn’t do it. But you have too much emotional investment to accept that, so you have to suppress the truth. I’m sure you’re not the only person who “thinks” that way, making it all the more important that the article contain the WHOLE truth whether you like it or not. Thankfully, Wikipedia rules are on my side196.15.168.40 04:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

ha ha ha Wikipedia's rules on your side that's hilarious!!!!! omg! That's even funnier then your statement Danielle was sexually assaulted in her bedroom. I didn't know you could top that one, but you did. Congrats! Your comments are defense spin. You misquote and you put your own interpretation on the evidence. James Watkins did not say only 1% was questionable. Someone else did, but you make it seem like it came from James Watkins. You make it seem like a fact. THAT'S A LIE! You can't do that here. Armstrong's statement was discussed during the preliminary hearing. The article is on the TRIAL. The judge previously determined Armstrong's statement won't count. It will be determined by the jury if it was child porn or not. You are misleading people and you are minimizing the evidence of child pornography. If you want to spin go on a ferris wheel, don't do it here. The U.S. Assistant Attorney you quote about what is his name? You don't provide it. I went to the reference and I didn't find page 85. I had to sift through a mountain of pages, and some had no numbers. But even if I did find it it doesn't matter. YOU CAN'T QUOTE DIRECTLY FROM TRANSCRIPTS! How did he arrive at that conclusion? is it his personal opinion, or professional opinion? Perhaps, he's a pervert like Westerfield and liked what he saw. Your description for the media discrepancies that's your POV. You are the one violating policy. You are not here to analysis things for people. Like it or not the jury believed it was child porn and found it very disturbing. It would require a person made of steel to not be disturbed by it. No, I don't think Westerfield killed Danielle because he had child porn. Other evidence convinces me of that. What it does prove is that he fantasized about child sex. Because no normal man, in this world, would have it if he wasn't getting some type of pleasurable experience from it. It would not be there, not even in 1%. What for? Congress knows it's on the internet. No this case is not about emotion, it's more about common sense. It is clear to me that you do not care about children, otherwise you would not be defending this man. You had no problem defaming the deceased victim and her brothers. Accusing them of having sex; that's pretty twisted. You see nothing wrong with child pornography. In fact you think it shouldn't be considered graphic. You object to the word "graphic" when describing it. As a result, you have no credibility with me. I didn't think you were capable of defaming the victim, but thanks so much for revealing the real you. Fighting for Justice 05:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to “Fighting for Justice”:

So you agree that a member of the police declared that this is NOT child porn. And it’s obvious that you believe these images have considerable evidentiary value. The logical conclusion is that the Wikipedia article MUST contain the whole truth about them. Thank you.

I don’t know why you were unable to find my reference. It is in a PDF document so you need Acrobat Reader to read it. It doesn’t matter if the individual pages aren’t numbered: you use the number given by Acrobat Reader. In case it helps, the relevant page is part of Attachment D, which was an affidavit for Search Warrant 27830.196.15.168.40 04:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no you are wrong on ALL counts as usual. Evidentiary value is for the court room. Wikipedia isn't a court room; try to drill that into your head, ok? David Westerfield is a criminal. What wikipedia owes him is an article that is neutral in language. Wikipedia does not have to cast doubts about his guilt. Wikipedia does not have to make defense-like apologies for him. I know all of that is very painful for you to understand. What "whole truth" are you talking about? The "whole truth" is only known by the convicted child-killer David Westerfield. Since, you are a big fan of his perhaps you can visit him at San Quentin and ask him about it. I know he must be really unhappy in prison right now. He doesn't have anymore porn or child rape videos to keep him occupied; poor thing. You might be able to cheer him up. You can tell him that you defend him on wikipedia. THe article is very neutral, more so then many other articles on child-killers. You should be happy by now. Leave the article alone and find some other child-killer to defend. I'll suggest a couple: Scott Erskine, Alejandro Avila, Charles Ng, Kelly Ellard, Clifford Olsen, John Evander Couey, Wayne Williams, Westley Allan Dodd, Brandon Wilson, Richard Allen Davis, and finally Scott Peterson. There you have a HUGE list to choose from now. Fighting for Justice 05:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to “Fighting for Justice”:

If the article shouldn’t contain information of evidentiary value then what should it contain: trivia? How should Wikipedia report on court cases? Seems to me you are so eager to oppose everything I say that you don’t stop to think if what you are saying is sensible or not. Where do you get the idea that Wikipedia articles should be neutral in language but not in content? The latter is more important. Any quality academic publication, and not just Wikipedia, should give both sides of an argument, without fear or favor, unless it is expressly stated to be an argument for a particular point of view. The Wikipedia article should not read like it was almost written by the Prosecutor. The only way you can KNOW that Westerfield is a criminal is if you were his accomplice, in which case you should hand yourself over to the police so you can join him on Death Row. In fact, to fit the evidence, the only way Westerfield could be guilty would be if he had an accomplice. That would explain why the police couldn’t find any evidence he had been at the scene of the crime, why there was no evidence Danielle had been in his RV that weekend, and why he had a strong alibi covering the calculated date window during which the body was dumped. What’s relevant is not what’s painful to me but what’s painful to you. I have never deleted anything, whether I liked it or not, I have merely pointed out flaws in it or added missing information. You, on the other hand, regularly delete what you don’t like. That’s vandalism. It was video CLIPS that were presented as evidence, in other words very short, not full length videos. If you want to attack anyone, then choose someone against whom the police were actually able to find evidence of a crime: in the Westerfield case, all they were able to do, after MONTHS of trying, was to prove that they were neighbors who had contact with each other - which we already knew. With regard to the other cases you mention, my question would be: in any of them, was law enforcement in effect told by experts they consulted that their suspect was innocent, but they ignored this advice and continued to prosecute him? Because that’s what happened in the Westerfield case (Faulkner, Goff, Armstrong, etc.), and I find it extremely disturbing. If you were genuinely interested in justice, then so would you.196.15.168.40 11:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Replying to 196.15.168.40

I know David Westerfield is a criminal because a jury of 12 people said he is one. Are you then saying those 12 people were his accomplice as well? You are so laughable. You want to point out flaws make a website! Use your imagination and create an online journal, about the case, instead of coming to Wikipedia and being a disruption. You care nothing about wikipedia besides defending a child-killer. Wikipedia does not owe anything to his defense. He does not have a strong alibi for that weekend. He spent many, many hours alone. The Entomology is an inconclusive science at best. The entomologist themselves say their science can't determine a maximum time a body is out in the elements. Since when did wikipedia get created so you can point out flaws? If she wasn't in the RV, the weekend she went missing, then why does anybody have to believe she was in there uninvited BEFORE the weekend since there's no evidence to support that. Blood on your jacket from a child you barely know is evidence of a crime. Blood that is not yours and you can not innocently explain away IS evidence of a crime! Particularly so if the owner of that blood is missing. Westerfield had all 3 against him. They don't require evidence that he was in the home, because the blood evidence alone is damning enough. What don't you understand about that? The article is the nicest article about any child-killer article in wikipedia. What more do you want? No one said Westerfield was innocent, not even his lawyers. All they merely did was challenge the evidence. Experts can be paid to testify positively for the defendant. No one gives a d@mn what you find disturbing. Like I said before, make a website supporting the child-killer for all I care. Just stop dumping your malarkey in wikipedia. It's not your soapbox. Fighting for Justice 07:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply to “Fighting for Justice”:

So you DON’T know Westerfield is a criminal: juries make LOTS of mistakes, as can be seen in the Innocence Project. If there are flaws in ANY article in Wikipedia, then they SHOULD be corrected, it most certainly should NOT be left to an independent website to do that. What I want is a more informative and balanced article, like I’m sure most Wikipedia editors, and you are disrupting that. So I am trying to raise the standard of Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn’t owe anything to the prosecution either, what it does owe is to the truth. Of course Wikipedia wasn’t created for me personally to point out flaws: anybody and everybody has a DUTY to point out flaws, and I am happy to oblige.

Westerfield did have a strong alibi for the weekend. You can’t look at just the amount of time he was alone: he was far away from the body dump site, especially given how big and slow his vehicle was. Furthermore, it’s not just a case of having an alibi for that weekend, but even more so for when the body was dumped, and there would have to be around a 100% error in the entomological dates for him to be guilty. I’ll leave you to produce other cases in which entomology was so badly wrong (especially four entomologists, and even more especially, entomologists brought onto the case by law enforcement). And because this was a circumstantial case, and given that guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt (a high standard), it wouldn’t be sufficient to produce just one or two examples of such a huge error, you would have to prove that such enormous errors are common. There are specific circumstances when entomology can’t determine a maximum time, such as a sealed container or the body was moved. No evidence was produced of such circumstances in this case.

If the handprint in the RV and the blood spot on the RV carpet are valid, then she was in the vehicle at some time. The failure of the police dogs to alert to her scent shows she wasn’t there recently. Therefore she must have been there uninvited PRIOR to that weekend. A SMALL amount of blood (you conveniently left that out) on your jacket from a NEIGHBORING child (you also left that out), even one you barely know, is NOT evidence of a crime, as it CAN be innocently explained. If the police had processed it properly - such as examining it for spatter and photographing it BEFORE part of it was cut off for testing - then I would give more weight to that evidence. Evidence he was in the victim’s home (the scene of the crime), when he said he had never been there, would be very different: THAT would be damning. But it was lacking. We didn’t hear from the children that they had never been in the RV.

In his closing argument (August 7), Steven Feldman, Westerfield’s lead attorney, said “IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR WESTERFIELD TO HAVE DUMPED THE BODY”. In other words, he’s innocent.

You haven’t responded to my question about the other cases you mentioned, so I presume NONE of those defendants were in effect declared innocent by law enforcement experts, and that this is reflected in their Wikipedia articles. Are you seriously claiming that an INDIGENT man paid a PROSECUTION witness to testify positively for him? So YOU don’t find it disturbing that law enforcement ignored their own experts’ considered professional opinion: that tells us a lot about you, and it isn’t flattering. Clearly you are NOT genuinely interested in justice.196.15.168.40 04:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sylvia Nasar and related articles

User: Mikeeverest1 (contribs) has been making defamatory edits to Sylvia Nasar, no sourcing except for reference to a discussion in a forum and insists on inserting a quote from a book review by her which apparently (to him) reveals anti-Chinese bias. He refuses to discuss his edits and apparently does not like using talk pages or edit summaries. He has already been cautioned (and reverted) by Charles Matthews to explain his edits User_talk:Mikeeverest1.

I had previously run across this same editor (based on similarity of user names) as User:Mikeeverest and User:MikeEverest. In all these edits, he clearly has an agenda and bias for including certain kinds of material.

The other current article besides the Nasar one that he seems to like to edit is Manifold Destiny, where he basically inserts the same content. In addition to BLP concerns, he likes to insert quotes that are arguably POV and represent only one side of a debate.

Based on his lack of response, I don't hold hope for any kind of fruitful discussion. I believe a clear message needs to be sent that this behavior is not to be tolerated. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 07:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Britney Spears

Britney_Spears picture has been replaced with one of a man being lynched. Inappropriate, possibly liabelous.

on Jimmy Wales

Seems to be an edit war brewing at Jimmy Wales over whether to include criticism by Larry Sanger. I'm not involved so can't comment, but one editor is arguing that WP:BLP precludes mention of it. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 23:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be me and User:Margana. See Jimmy Wales section above. I am going to the mattresses on this one. Crockspot 23:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael E. DeBakey

I don't know who removed the Category Arab American on the article of Dr. Michael E. DeBakey. As a Lebanese American, wether he is Christian or Muslim, he is also Arab American. I've added the category again.

I've removed both the Lebanese and Arab categories from him. Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality requires an external source to clasify someone into an ethnic group. You are not allowed to say "his parents are Lebanese, therefore he is a Lebanese-American". And you're certainly not allowed to claim that he's an Arab-American without a source; Demographics of Lebanon says that "most" of the population of Lebanon is considered Arab, and even gives examples of some groups who don't consider themselves Arab. Ken Arromdee 02:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, but nevertheless he is Lebanese American and nevertheless he is considered as an Arab. I think I will find the source, but it should be clear, that if he is the son of Lebanese parents, that he is a Lebanese American. This information doesn't need a source! Veritémaster 06:45, 16 October 2006 (MET)

Well, I have looked on the Homepage of the local Arab American Institute, where MD Michael DeBakey is shown as an Arab American. Thus, he is Arab American and Lebanese American! Here the link: [1]. Veritémaster 07:00, 16 October 2006 (MET)

Al Gore III

Into a debate on whether the article can ever be expanded beyond a stub, or whether it should be merged, the following [2] comment was inserted by an anon. While defamatory and unsourced, the comment is a personal opinion, and therefore probably privileged in the United States. Does this cross the line for deletion of talk page comments, or am I overreacting? Robert A.West (Talk) 17:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is defamation of a living person. It has nothing to do with making the article better. Delete it without a second thought. WAS 4.250 18:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have deleted it from the article without hesitation, but wanted to make sure of my ground on the talk page. As it happened, someone else did it for me. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are for discussion of the article, and they most emphatically are not free speech zones. Feel free to remove anything defamatory/attacking. FCYTravis 18:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about whether traffic citations and arrests not leading to conviction belong on this bio of a non-public living person. One user's proposition is that subject is NOT non-public, yet same user posts that he's only aware of the figure because of arrests. I'm not sure what's kosher, but seems like dark territory (and weak reasoning) to me. BusterD 20:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please check out the article. It's whole purpose seems to be an political attack on his dad, the more famous Al Gore. I will vote for deletion, however the nomination process is beyond me. I tried to delete a couple before and messed it up. Steve Dufour 04:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Flame war continues even after consensus has been reached. One user using various abusives and pushing strong partisan POV, while winking slyly at discussion. BusterD 18:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, this seems to be a continuing issue. Now that it's pretty certain that the article isn't deleted and there isn't consensus for a merge, it has moved to a discussion as to whether well-sourced information about his arrests, arguably a major reason for his notability beyond his heritage, belongs in the article. My personal opinion is that this isn't a BLP issue at all, but more eyes to clear this up will only help and not hurt the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Badlydrawnjeff and I agree in every specific except for my view the arrest and birthdate material stay out as BLP vio, and Badlydrawnjeff's view it remains (if I've mischaracterized that view in any way, it's entirely unintentional). We agree as Wikipedians 100%. Badlydrawnjeff's behavior throughout this discussion has been exemplary, even though we disagree on the merits. Sunlight=disinfectant. BusterD 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And, I think that the problem is one of undue weight, because the marginally-notable-by-inheritance make good copy when the event is negative, while the majority of their life is apt to be hard, if not impossible, to verify. This is in marked contrast to the genuinely-notable, whose positive accomplishments (if any) are of some interest to reliable sources, and for whom a lack of positive copy creates a fair inference that there is not much positive to say. In cases such as this one, the lack of positive copy can create an unfair inference, hence I question whether articles such as this one can be made NPOV, which I believe to be a BLP issue of some generality. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm still of the opinion that this all belongs in the Al Gore article, if anywhere, since Gore III hasn't done anything particularly notable in and of himself. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what the Bush twins have accomplished in and of themselves?--Getaway 15:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not as yet a great deal, but when I just looked in, the articles had no negative content whatsoever, so I am not sure of your point. Are you arguing to add negative information or for deletion as fluff pieces? If you want to add an appropriate and measured reference, I suggest the Reader's Digest's formulation about Jenna: her partying antics provided endless fodder for gossip columnists in her college days. Short, avoids undue weight, but communicates the information. Perhaps a similar sentence in Al Gore III would do: a series of brushes with the law in his late teens and early twenties were well-publicized and caused his father substantial embarrassment. We would need a source for the embarrassment, but I do not doubt that one exists. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(response to Hit bull, win steak) My point exactly. If the arrests were mentioned briefly in the father's article, the undue weight would be reduced, because a reader would not expect a complete picture of the son's life, and there would be context. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we do another AFD nom with a suggestion of merge and delete? --plange 00:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

An AFD is not needed, because the article can be merged and changed to a redirect, if that is the consensus, without administrator intervention. A good first step would be to put the material in Gore, Jr's article. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, cool :-) My vote is for the merge, if you're trying to gauge opinion. --plange 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

We've had the discussion already, and there was no consensus for a merge. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

So, it's too late to join in the discussion? --plange 02:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose not, but I'm not sure of the point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Article has stood five AfDs, so merging sort of violates the spirit of those FIVE decisions. IMHO, we need to solve the problem through some mediation, and deal with the two central issues so that consensus is apparent and BLP guides are upheld. BusterD 03:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Spooning, Wino (slang term) and WP:AFC

• Rrm0110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 24.128.73.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)- User:Rrm0100 is inserting libelous statements about living people into the articles Spooning and Wino (slang term). Probable sock User:24.128.73.134 is doing the same about the same person to Wino (slang term) and to WP:AFC (see diff). I've reverted the libel, but some admin will probably need to rollback the histories and block the editor. //Aaron 02:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Jamie Lee Curtis urban legends

Jamie Lee Curtis#Intersex Rumor - There is a long-running (and sourceable) urban legend that Jamie Lee Curtis was born with some undescribed intersex status, but the talk page discussion has never been able to agree on whether to discuss the legend on the main page. On the one hand, it is a widely known urban legend, and I'm sure people come to wikipedia to see what evidence exists regarding it. On the other hand, it's a fairly nasty rumor, and there is no serious evidence that it's true. I've started a talk page discussion here and would appreciate any thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 13:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a really good example of where the line is between derogatory gossip that should be removed from talk pages and legitimate discussion of what sourced material to put or not to put in the article. According to the snopes source, it is only gossip. Wikipedia living person bios shouldn't contain mere gossip - either good or bad. WAS 4.250 15:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Larry Craig

Apparently, some radio show "outed" this Republican US Senator yesterday, and it is being inserted into his article that he is gay, based on left-wing blogs as sources. I don't have time to take care of this right now, but it needs immediate attention and monitoring. Blatant violation. Secondary sources need to be found before this should even be mentioned at all in the article. Crockspot 11:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Watch the categories on this one too. Other editors have been cleaning it up, but they missed three gay categories that I just removed. I'll try to keep an eye on this today, but my time is limited. Crockspot 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been reported in the mainstream media and I have properly sourced the incident and Craig's denial. Gamaliel 19:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you're a lot of help. Are you planning to sit on this article all day and revert the unsourced statements that anons have been adding every few minutes? Because, frankly, I'm fricking done with it. :( - Crockspot 19:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already put it on my watchlist. Gamaliel 19:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well good luck, Gamaliel, because if you think wild allegations that give no supporting evidence from bloggers, (irregardless of the fact that the subject issued a denial in a reliable source), is appropriate to add to the article of a US Senator, then you are opening a huge can of worms that is going to have your normal watchlist items buzzing like a hive of africanized bees. I don't think you are working in the best interest of Wikipedia here. Crockspot 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If the story is appropriate for the mainstream media, I don't see what interests are served by keeping it out of Wikipedia. I'm really tired of insinuations from people that by reporting information that professional journalists think is appropriate to cover that Wikipedia editors are somehow acting on some sort of agenda or against the interests of the encyclopedia. Having the full story properly sourced is in the best interests of the project: it makes the article complete and accurate and it provides a disinsentive for drive-by anons to add a half-assed version of the truth, or worse, an inaccurate one which includes him in inappropriate categories such as those you removed. Gamaliel 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a breaking news organization. The blogger has offered no evidence, and three days from now, the claims could be retracted or disproven. But the damage to the Senator will have already been done. That opens the door to any blogger making wild claims that happen to get picked up by a reporter fair game for insertion. But fuck it. It's all your baby now. I'm finished babysitting for today. Crockspot 20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right, we are not a breaking news organization, but like it or not, editors will continue to add brand new information and readers will come here to read our articles about people and incidents freshly in the news. So how do we deal with that? Do we insure that the up to date information is as accurate and reliable as we can make it, or do we simply keep deleting it over and over again? Gamaliel 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Let the dust settle. I'm out. - Crockspot 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's controversial, negative, trivial and in a Bio, delete it. This particular view, espoused by one person, not a crime but has only salacious attraction could be deleted on undue weight grounds. But regardless, tabloid items have no business in WP and should be deleted. --Tbeatty 21:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this really the kind of crap we need in an encyclopedia or do we let WP become unwitting dupes for poltiical election strategies? Here's the current entry in this bio: "In October 2006, gay rights activist Mike Rogers alleged in his blog and on the syndicated radio program The Ed Schultz Show that Craig had engaged in consensual homosexual relationships. Rogers has produced no evidence to support his claim and refused to identify the source of his information. However, he has said, "I have enough information and corroboration of my sources to protect myself." Craig's spokesman said the allegations "have no basis in fact" and "The senator says the story is completely ridiculous."

Is this really what Wikipedia is striving to become? A collection of blog quotes from political opponents? --Tbeatty 22:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Crockspot is right, we need to Wikipedia:Let the dust settle on any article, esp. a BLP-- it doesn't hurt WP to wait until things have solidified. Just revert and kindly suggest Wikinews or current events portal. This goes for anything like this from the right or left side of the aisle. --plange 23:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. How do we merge the "dust settle" policy with the removal requirements of BLP? There are editors actively trying to expand that section by adding rebuttals and denials and rebuttals of denials ad nauseum. We should actively be removing this information UNTIL the dust settles and not waiting for the dust to settle for deletion.--Tbeatty 23:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We're outside the scope of BLP now that the item is properly sourced. Use the article talk page to discuss this issue with other editors. Gamaliel 23:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's see: Biography. Living. Person. How is it outside the scope? This is a BLP issue. It's an undue weight NPOV issue. It's a Wikipedia is NOT issue. Wikipedia:Let the dust settle before this type of content is added. One persons allegation in a tiny tabloid newspaper does not an encyclopedic news item make. --Tbeatty 23:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm not even going to respond to this patronizing and inaccurate post. Gamaliel 23:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and this type of thing is more appropriate at Wikinews or current events portal, where it will drop off if it turns out to be nothing, whereas, with an article on WP, it's risky to assume someone will come back to this article to clean it up/correct if it all turns out to be nothing. If it does settle down to the fact that he is, I'm sure someone will be sure to insert that. And just so no one thinks I'm POV-pushing, I'm not, I'm BLP-pushing. I happen to be a left-winger :-) --plange 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Current news has long been covered by the encyclopedia and the existence of Wikinews or the current events page have never prevented that. If there is no followup to this, I have already state on the article talk page - where this discussion should be going on - that I support removing the small mention of this issue. Given the current interest and mainstream - not tabloid - news coverage, I think it should stay. Gamaliel 23:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

By consensus here, this is still a BLP issue, and also by consensus here, the information should come out until the dust has settled. Crockspot 13:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This is still a hot issue, currently being discussed on the talk page. So far no national news outlet has reported it as a news story, but editors are still insisting it should go in. I'm almost wishing it will get picked up by the NYT so I can stop arguing with them :-P --plange 22:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Larry Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Will somebody please explain how WP:BLP allows for an article about a living person to have a full-blown section entitled "Unconfirmed Rumors"? This edit warring on this article is really starting to go too far. --Aaron 23:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The sources promulgating the rumors are reliable and prominent, and the fact of the rumors is notable, such that their inclusion, consistent with WP:V, is, IMHO, quite proper. Joe 05:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

All rumours have a source. It doesn't mean WP needs to repeat them. When Wikipedia's standards are less than the Washington Posts or the New York times, we have a problem. --Tbeatty 06:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the fact of the rumors has become notable. Whilst we wouldn't include a section in John Seigenthaler, Sr. simply to effect that it was rumored that he was involved in the JFK and RFK assassinations, we would—quite properly, and as we do—note that the allegation itself was notable but that the sundry issues that resulted therefrom were. The rumors are a source of controversy across notable media, and so we include them not as themselves notable but as the genesis of a notable controversy. Joe 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, a rumor isn't notable until it's a news story reported on by CNN or NYT or CBS or some major national news outlet. That's not the case here. --plange 21:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely about when we ought to deem a rumor notable, but I think several citations of commentary/reporting by major national news outlets to have been adduced; I may well be mistaken, so I'll review the several footnotes a bit more carefully. Joe 05:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Man, I can hear Crockspot's frustration at trying to uphold any sort of BLP standards on Wiki: he's been hard at it for a long time, doing a good and fair job, and IMO, it's a losing battle. I've concluded the policy has no teeth, and those of us who have put ourselves in the line of fire trying to uphold WP:BLP might as well stop trying, and let the Foundation deal with whatever fallout occurs from neglecting what was supposed to be a strong policy. For what it's worth to whomever is still willing to work on BLPs, I support the position taken here by Crockspot, TBeatty, Plange, Aaron, and others. Wiki should be more than Google or a blog or a tabloid, but that is what it's becoming. Every breaking rumor doesn't belong in an encyclopedic bio. Sandy (Talk) 21:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Bob Sagat

this biography contains a profanity laced quote that could easily be moved to the Half Baked movie page instead of being on the biography page. M8gen 19:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt this is a BLP issue unless the quote is inaccurate. Please use the article talk page to discuss the matter with other editors. Gamaliel 19:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Saget is famous for his raunchy routines. However, of more interest to some on this page may be the fact that the article is being hit with frequent vandalism. It'd help if more folks put it on their watchlists. -Will Beback 21:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

check M8gen 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann

New editor is intent on making the article into a mirror of his personal weblog to criticize and slander the subject, replete with links from his weblog. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep on eye on it. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The article seems fair to me. Although the final paragraph on the poll numbers for next week's election seemed a bit out of place in an encyclopedia. :-) Steve Dufour 05:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Wells (creationist)

He is noted as an advocate of Intelligent Design. Material has been added to his article to say that he is also an AIDS revisionist, seemingly to discredit him. A link to a letter was given as a cite, his name was not on the letter and even if it was it would not prove anything--he could have just signed it as a favor to someone. I removed the allegations and explained my reasons on the talk page. They were put back soon after and some personal remarks about me were made on the talk page. Steve Dufour 05:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that his name is on the letter. I missed it because he it was in the middle of a long list when I expected it to be at the end since it was mostly in alphabetical order. I will not get involved any more but maybe someone could check it out and see if his notability as a AIDS revisionist has been established, as his notability for the other has. Steve Dufour 09:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)p.s. There are a couple of other, minor, points which were not supported by the webpages cited. I'm not sure how strictly we should enforce the rule about uncited material in a living person's article.

Hmmm...Wells was between "Wawszkiewicz" and "Wenner" - how was that "out of alphabetical order"? "I'm not sure how strictly we should enforce the rule about uncited material in a living person's article" - well, we shouldn't enforce it when the information is clearly cited. Guettarda 19:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the list: [3] His name is near the middle of the page and not near the other 3 people also named Wells. The other two uncited points were about how his education and a trip to a creationist hearing were paid for, minor points as I said. Steve Dufour 12:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"some personal remarks were made about me" (Steve Dufour) would that be "What are you talking about? His name is right at the bottom of the list: "Johathan C. Wells, Ph.D. (Fairfield, CA)" [4] I'm restoring your deletion, and please be more careful next time, looking at your history, you seem to delete quite a lot of relevent information"? or was there something else you were considering a "personal remark"? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This information was just added to the article:

"Wells dropped out of his undergraduate geology course"

I went ahead and removed that, which was uncited, and also this: "In 1964 Wells was conscripted into the US Army and served for two years. In 1967 he was recalled as a reservist, but refused, was court-marshalled and jailed for a year and a half." which was semi-cited with a link to a pay for view New York Times article, which I admit I didn't feel like paying the four dollars to read. On the discussion page I pointed out that there are many people named Johathan Wells and it is not certain that this is the same person, although it could be.

Overall I feel that there is little interest in this article's accuracy since Mr. Wells is an evolution revisionist and therefore a "bad guy" to most of us here. Steve Dufour 18:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I should partly take that back since there have been some changes and the article is much better now. Steve Dufour 22:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is still seriously biased against him. The 2nd sentence says he "denies the predominant scientific views" and then the 3rd says "considered pseudoscience". The latter is just gratuitous name-calling. The 2nd sentence is enough to make the point.

The sentence about scientists questioning his objectivity and motivation is also an unnecessary attack. The quote about his religion speaks for itself. The sentence suggests that there is some scientific reason to question his religion and motivation. Let the reader decide.

Then Wells is criticized for his "low level of output". This is silly for a WP bio page. Just describe his accomplishments and let the reader decide whether they are impressive or not.

Finally, the article claims that Wells contradicted himself in his 2005 Kansas testimony. This looks like just another cheap shot. I am not even sure what the contradiction is supposed to be. I think it is that he said he looked at the evidence for evolution, but not for the age of the Earth. He is quoted as saying that "the earth is probably four-and-a-half billion or so years old". I don't see what's wrong with this quote. He is not a geologist, and there is no contradiction. Roger 17:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this before. The earlier comments are not name-calling since something can (and often is) a dominant scientific view but is not pseudoscience; the sentence about scientists is again accurate so I don't see what the issue is. It doesn't seem to be any more of an attack than any other note of criticism. As to the final point- the relevant contradiction is his claim that he looked at the evidence for evolution which contradicts his claim in his book that he went into biology to "destroy Darwinism". JoshuaZ 21:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, your comments don't make any sense. The one about "dominant scientific view" appears to be missing a word or two. I agree that Wells denies some dominant scientific views. I don't agree that his views can be neutrally called pseudoscience. Wrong maybe, but not pseudoscience. The quote about destroying Darwinism is from an essay, not from his book, according to the article. But either way, the article says "Wells contradicted his earlier testimony", not that he contradicted some essay or book that he wrote years earlier. And what you say is a contradiction is not even a contradiction. If indeed his purpose was still to destroy Darwinism, then examining the evidence would seem like a good way to go about that. Wells might very well say, "I looked at the evidence for evolution so I could write books attacking Darwinism, in the hopes of eventually destroying it." (I don't know him; I am just guessing.) Roger 23:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I meant something can have the dominant scientific view disagree with it and still not be pseudoscience. In so far as that, it being pseudoscience is relevant. As to calling it pseudoscience, it is and we have sources that say so. If you have an issue with that you should be arguing about it on the intelligent design page, not on a separate biography. As to it not possibly being a contradiction, looking into it more it clearly is a contradiction, because in his testimony he says that "I became convinced that the Darwinian theory is false because it conflicts with the evidence" which is a clear contradiction. Thanks for pointing out the poor phrasing. I've rephrased it to make it more clear. JoshuaZ 23:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess that you are determined to do whatever quote-mining and name-calling you can do to make Wells look bad. Yes, I know that you have sources that engage in name-calling, but the Intelligent Design page is really the place for the pros and cons of ID.

Please spell out the contradiction, as I don't see it. Suppose that Rev. Moon persuaded Wells that Darwinism is evil, for reasons that are unknown to me. At that time Wells may or may not have looked at the evidence for and against evolution. Again, I don't know and it is not obvious from the article. Later, Wells say that he looked at the evidence, and came to some conclusions about it. So what's the problem? Wells wrote 2 books on the subject, so obviously he looked at the evidence and drew his own conclusions. Of all the Wells' quotes to pick on, I think that you look really silly attacking this one. Roger 01:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Vladimer Papava

...might need a helping hand. CV-style, hagiographic. Attempts to properly stub it are reverted. See also Talk:Vladimer Papava/Comments. Lupo 14:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the Living people category, that should get it a little more visibility. But why is there a comments subpage to the talk page? The comment there should be on the talk page. Seems pretty unnecessary to have a sub page to a vitrutlly empty talk page, especially since it is not linked. Moving comments to talk page and prodding sub page. Crockspot 15:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The template seemed to call for that subpage. Maybe the template should be changed? Lupo 10:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be running for public office. However I wonder how many potential voters in the Republic of Georgia will check out Wikipedia before they decide who to vote for. Steve Dufour 05:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Important discussion

There is an important discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#You are legally responsible for your edits that is relevant to the work we do here. - Crockspot 19:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)

• Rick Ross (consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I have placed an "unbalanced" tag to the top of the article. It seems to the reader that the only reason this article is here on Wikipedia is to personally attack and discredit Rick Ross. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia and most certainly against Biography Policy. The article is also way too long for the notability of subject as compared to other Biography Articles. As mentioned by an anonymous user on the discussion page, see Jonas Salk and Marie Curie, much smaller articles on much more notable individuals. Some criticism content should be trimmed and/or removed, and some positive content should be added with proper sources and citations. Other historical accounts can also be shortened to more concise versions, and the reader can then be referred to the main article in question, as similar to the current section on Rick Ross and the Legal Dispute with Landmark Education. // Smeelgova 03:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence King, Paul A. Bonacci

I stubbed Lawrence King, dramatically cut Paul A. Bonacci, and added some references. See also Bohemian Grove. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yaron Brook

last line is garbage.

I hope you don't mind that I correct the name. It seems Brook not Brooke. Which last line? You don't think it might be interesting who sponsored the event?

The above Brook caught my attention in a O'Reilly Factor video on the net. I wasn't aware it is pretty old by now. As I wasn't aware that he is used in a campaign by the LaRouche Youth movement. But that does not make his statements less frightening. Personally I would support the originally included transcript: Said it said. And I watched it twice. My problem is that the only transcript on the net comes from LaRouchie circles. I'd appreciate a comment or a helping hand. Are there any papers/circles/groups that work on the Biographies of living persons? Rules. Where could I find basics LeaNder 01:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Randy Richards

Randy Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I stumbled across this while doing PROD patrol. Subject has added prod to his own bio, complaining of his inability to deal with hostile edits. There was no BLP or WPBio template, so I quickly added WPBio living=yes to the talk page, and came here to report the matter. I'm not sure what the controversy is who (or who is right), and it may be a tempest in a teapot, but I thought it better to report it here, and let wiser and more experienced folks investigate, rather than simply letting the situation continue to devolve. Xtifr _tälk 05:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction: I misread the prod; it was apparently not filed by Mr. Richards, who may not actually be directly involved. Nevertheless, the dispute probably bears investigation anyway. Xtifr _tälk 07:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Stupid Girls

Stupid Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The article alleges that Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Richie have suffered from bulimia or some other eating disorder. I know Lohan has denied this, at least, so I'm wondering if such material should be considered defamatory and removed from the article. I've searched for external sources that say the video is meant to imply one or more of these people have an eating disorder, but so far, nothing. Extraordinary Machine 12:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Dane dickinson

Dane dickinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - stumbled on this during prod patrol. Apparently non-notable NZ aviator, currently prodded, was blanked. When a bot reverted the blanking, an anonymous complaint appeared on the talk page that the article "contains several flagrant factual inaccuracies, these coupled with its satirical tone risk damaging reputation." While I don't see anything in the article that would lead to such a complaint, I think the complaint, coupled with the non-notable nature of the subject, easily justifies a quick removal as an attack page. (I've checked Google, and there is a NZ aviator named "Dane Dickinson", and none of the links I saw would support a claim of notability.) Xtifr _tälk 21:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, doesn't seem notable, the prod was almost 5 days ago already so I just deleted it rather than try to clean it up to meet WP:BLP.--Konst.able^Talk 12:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

John Faso

John Faso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article alleges: [quote removed] I think the quote speaks for itself... the article needs to seriously be cleaned up. I'm even more surprised that this has not been caught, considering the man is a candidate in the gubernatorial race in New York. If this claim actually has some merit (which I highly doubt), I believe a citation is required? LithiumOnSundays 23:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)LithiumOnSundays

The material has already been removed from the article by another administrator, who has also blocked the IP address of the editor who posted the material. I have also removed your quotation of that material above. Gamaliel 23:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Negative nicknames

Was I right to remove this? It was restored with a statement that "there's no 'definitive' citation for this, but there are several reference to him as 'The Count' across the Internet". What kind of source should be required for a negative nickname to be included in an article? Is there any precedent? Thanks. -- SCZenz 05:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you were right. Needs reliable sources.--Konst.able^Talk 12:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But even if they exist, is it notable? For example, New York Times Op-Ed writer Maureen Dowd uses interesting nicknames for George W. Bush, but we don't include them in the President's article. -- SCZenz 18:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Kyle Hawkins

Kyle Hawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Please see this historical edit made by User:Itellthetruth at 14:29, 23 October 2006. Very obvious and serious slander was placed on page. User has been warned, but I felt this called for more action Stoneice02 01:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked this user indefinitely. For these things you could just report it straight to WP:AIV.--Konst.able^Talk 12:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Roy Williams

Roy Williams (wide receiver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article was vandalized to make it seem that Roy Williams was from the university of michigan and born and raised in the state. his statistics are also incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.68.49.4 (talk • contribs)

Hal Turner

Hal Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article contains several unsourced assertions as well use of stormfront.org and other dubious sites as sources. I've placed a non-compliant tag on the article and voiced a few of my concerns on the talk page.// Ramsquire 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Help needed at the J. Phillipe Rushton aricle

2 editors named Ramdrake and JereKrischel dominate this article and have removed all encyclopedic content from this article and have used selective quotes to try to portray a qualified and objective academic as an incompetent racist. This type of libel goes against wikipedia's rules for biographies on living persons. Also, people researching Rushton do so to learn about the theories for which he is best known, not to read a list of selectively chosen quotes trashing the man. I find this article very biased, one sided, boring, and libelous. Now that the article is semi-protected against new users like me, I encourage anyone concerned with the rules of living persons articles to revert back to my version of the article. 205.211.50.10 02:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

JereKrischel has also done this at the Arthur Jensen article and attempted to make radical, unilateral deletions and changes at the Mismeasure of Man article. The Jensen additions are potentially libelous. IMO JereKrischel seems to have a history of presenting one-sided viewpoints both in his deletions and additions to articles.

I would like to point out that: 1)A biography article is not the right place to explain in-depth the theories of that person. 2)The criticism in the article is in fact representative of the opinion people have of this researcher in scientific circles, mostly anthroplogy and psychology (as the subject is "race and intelligence"). The quotes are not selective, they are indeed representative. I would also like to remind the user not to "encourage anyone... to revert back... the article". This is an encouragement to edit warring, and contrary to the guidelines of Wikipedia.--Ramdrake 12:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that help is needed. The Rushton article is very biased. A certain editor(s) invested a huge amount of time surfing the web to find every anti-Rushton quote they could find and put it in the article. I come to wikipedia to get a comprehensive overview of the views for which an academic is known, and not a series of quotes trashing the man. Most distubing is that certain editors have used very circumstancial evidence to imply that Rushton is a racist. Liketoread 18:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like his theories myself. However a biography is supposed to be about the person. Since the real interest here seems to be in the theories there should be an article on them and this one reduced greatly with a link directing them to the other. Just my opinon. Steve Dufour 00:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Phyllis Schlafly

User:FeloniousMonk keeps adding these sentences to the Phyllis Schlafly bio page:

Early on, Schlafly was aquainted with the far right and male unreliability when the Depression threw her father into long-term unemployment and her mother, entering the labor market, was able to keep the family afloat, including maintaining Schlafly in an elite Catholic girls' school that stressed Christian anti-Communism (Ehrenreich 152-153).

Sheltered by her husband Fred Schlafly's ample income and assisted by a part-time housekeeper, the woman who would insist that "she had no intention of following in her mother's footsteps and becoming -- even voluntarily -- a career woman" (Ehrenreich 153) ironically developed a new career as a one-woman propagandist for the far-right, consequently making it more difficult for any women to forge a career in the paid labor force (Ehrenreich 153).

I have contested these sentences on the Talk page, and no one there is even defending the accuracy or appropriateness of the sentences. Instead, a couple of people have merely argued that I should not remove the sentences because of who I am, or because there is a citation to a source.

User:KillerChihuahua even placed a 24-hour block on me from even posting to the Talk page, because I complained that User:FeloniousMonk was repeatedly inserting the sentences without even commenting on the Talk page. Roger 17:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Roger has a strong conflict of interest here, being related to the subject. Moreover, he has been asked by several editors to explain what the problem with these sentences is. According to WP:BLP, "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source." So far, Roger has given none of the above, although we've asked him lots. — Matt Crypto 17:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If I am blocked or barred because of a conflict, then why does my opinion make any difference? Why don't you go get an opinion from someone who does not have a conflict of interest? Roger 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because you have a conflict of interest doesn't mean you're wrong. It means you should avoid editing the article, but you should by all means explain why what the article says is wrong. Offer your reasoning on the talk page, and it can then be evaluated by those without a conflict of interest. I really don't know why you have not yet done so. — Matt Crypto 17:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That is only your opinion that I should not edit the page. WP policy says that I should edit the page to correct errors.

I was explaining my editing on the Talk page, until one of FeloniousMonk's buddies blocked me from doing that. As of today, no one has defended the content of FeloniousMonk's insertions. Not even FeloniousMonk. Roger 18:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but it could be argued that citing a source is a defence of an insertion. Could you address the issue of why the source is inadequate? I think the issue of whether you should edit the page is largely a red herring. I do think you should avoid it, but the important question is whether or not the article currently says the right thing. — Matt Crypto 19:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I registered my views on the talk page, and see that no one has done anything about the problems at that article: having my head bitten off for enforcing BLPs is something I'm no longer interested in, but there is a problem with attribution in that article. Because a certain author says something doesn't make it fact, and all of those statements, at minimum, need to be attributed as one author's opinions, rather than stated as fact. Sandy (Talk) 18:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't block Schlafly for posting on the talk page; I blocked him for edit warring on the article after being told to read WP:AUTO and gain consensus on the talk page rather than revert war. He called another editor a "vandal" for reverting his whitewash of his mother's article, in addition to other incivilities. My block summary was Time out to consider attitude, note placed on talk page ane the note is this. Mis-characterizing my block as being for "complaining" is absurd. Schafely is well aware of why I blocked him. I concur there are some areas which could be improved in the article; Schlafly's block has nothing to do with those issues. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No, User:KillerChihuahua is not telling the truth, as you can easily see by reading Talk:Phyllis Schlafly. He blocked me at 11:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC), AFTER I had posted two explanations on 21-Oct as to why I was not violating WP:AUTO. So he did not block me to get me to read WP:AUTO; I had already read it and explained myself. Furthermore, I had initiated a discussion on the Talk page in order to obtain a consensus. User:KillerChihuahua blocked me from even posting to the Talk page.

Yes, I know why User:KillerChihuahua blocked me. It is because he is User:FeloniousMonk's buddy, and has promised to do his dirty work for him. They have some personal issues with me.

If anyone should have been blocked, it should have been User:FeloniousMonk, because he was the one who repeatedly inserted false and derogatory statements into the article without address any of the comments on the Talk page. Yes, I do believe that User:FeloniousMonk is a Wikipedia vandal for reasons that I explained on Talk:Phyllis Schlafly.

Yes, I did revert User:FeloniousMonk's destructive edits several times, but only after establishing that no one was willing to defend those edits on the Talk page. Roger 18:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism, lies and bad faith isn't going to get us anywhere but a big flame war. We're much better off focusing on the article, specifically, do the sources cited actually support the sentences that are disputed by Roger, and are those sentences are written from the NPOV? I haven't seen a great deal of discussion about that from either side. — Matt Crypto 19:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Now User:FeloniousMonk has removed the POV tag [[4]], saying that "There is no valid NPOV concern"! What he does not do is defend the accuracy or appropriateness of the disputed sentences. Roger 19:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That cuts two ways. Regardless of what FeloniousMonk does, it would be very helpful if you would explain exactly what you consider inaccurate or inappropriate in these sentences, and why, and then we can work to either modify or remove them. — Matt Crypto 20:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Matt, let me get your position straight. You know nothing about the subject matter, except that you have some personal issue with me and you don't want me editing the article. You think that FeloniousMonk's bias is so embarrassing that you have gone so far as to delete his only comment on the Talk page.[[5]] And yet you support his edits to the article. You think that Ehrenreich is biased because the attributed text calls Phyllis Schlafly a "propagandist" and uses the word "ironically".[[6]] And yet you continue to take the position that the rest of the disputed text should stand solely because (1) FeloniousMonk put it there; (2) it cites Ehrenreich and you usually favor leaving in any text that has a citation; and (3) you don't think that I should be allowed to edit it.

Have I summarized your position correctly? If not, please clarify. Roger 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, on the contrary, you have made numerous errors. Specifically, then: no, I don't have "some personal issue" with you. I think you, like anyone else, should avoid editing an article on your own mother because there exists a conflict of interest. No, I don't have an opinion about FeloniousMonk's bias, but I thought his comment was very unhelpful and not relevant to the matter at hand, so I removed it. No, I don't at present have any opinion about the merit of FeloniousMonk's edits to the article, other than agreeing with the NPOV issue pointed out on the talk page. Regarding (1), no, I don't think the identify of FeloniousMonk as the editor who put it there has much relevance; (2) no, I think it is poor practice to remove sourced statements without any explanation being given as to what the problem is; (3) no, as per Wikipedia guidelines, I think you should avoid editing the article, as there exists a conflict of interest as mentioned above. Instead, you should liberally make use of the talk page to point out problems. The fastest way to get such issues resolved is to state clearly and precisely what problems you see with statements and suggest ways they could be fixed. The slowest way is to remove sourced, negative statements about your own mother without explanation and simply assert their falsehood. — Matt Crypto 17:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You you alternate between saying that I should "avoid" editing the article, and saying that I should not edit it at all. Which is it?

You claim that you have no personal issue with me, and that you have no opinion about the merits of my edits. And yet you oppose my edits. Why? Roger 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I recall, I have said that you "should avoid editing" the article, and I have asked you to refrain from editing the article. I don't believe that's inconsistent. I don't so much "oppose" your edits, but rather I've tried to argue two points: 1) you should avoid editing an article in which you have a conflict of interest -- use the talk page instead; and 2) when removing sourced statements, you should be willing to provide some explanation of what problem you see with them (particularly when asked repeatedly by more than one admin). I'm not your enemy, Roger. I suggest you spend your valuable time not grilling me, but commenting on what outstanding problems you see in Phyllis Schlafly. Why have you not done so? — Matt Crypto 20:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who thinks that Ehrenreich is a neutral and reliable source for the disputed sentences listed above? Is there anyone who thinks that the disputed sentences are accurate and appropriate for a biographical page? Is there anyone who is willing to defend those sentences on the Talk page? Roger 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Having never heard of Schlafly or Ehrenreich before now, can you please tell me why you think that Ehrenreich is unreliable? That will help us sort this out, thanks! --plange 20:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if you know nothing about Schlafly or Ehrenreich, it should be apparent that the disputed sentences are not neutral, use loaded terminology, and present opinion as fact. For example, consider the description of Schlafly as a "propagandist for the far-right", followed by the bizarre claim that she made it "more difficult for any women to forge a career". Are you just a little curious about how someone you've never heard of somehow made it difficult for women to get jobs? Just imagine if the biography of Hillary Clinton said that she was a propagandist for the far-left who has made it more difficult for any woman to be a housewife. Would you think that it was a NPOV statement that just needed a good footnote? Roger 01:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

uh, being openly opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment is certainly not logically inconsistent with the statement, made it "more difficult for any women to forge a career." The comparison with Clinton is sophistry, in my opinion, and a more appropriate comparison would be saying that someone who was opposed to racially integrated schools made it more difficult for African-Americans to attend colleges. Moreover, Schlafly openly aligned herself with the far right/Barry Goldwater, etc., and I remember clearly that the New Yorker article by Kohlbert noted that Schlafly was not just a propagandist for the far-right, but an especially skilled and talented propagandist. Hence Ehrenreich's observation could have at least more than one citation. Last but not least, Barbara Ehrenreich is quite a notable writer/reliable source--her book Nickeled and Dimed was on the New York Times bestseller list for quite a while. It is true that she openly professes the opposite political views of Schlafly, but you need a reliable source/sources which refute that Schlafly was a propagandist for the far-right and that opposing the ERA didn't make it harder for women to seek and gain employment. It is merely your opinion that Ehrenreich says this *because* she is biased or that her comments are biased because they are critical--she's too good of a writer/notable figure to be dismissed as a cited source because she "sounds biased" to the son of the subject, and what she says is logically consistent with what Schlafly said about herself/what other people say about Schlafly. Cindery 02:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

Whether or not Ehrenreich is a good writer or a notable figure, there is no consensus that the ERA would have made it easier for women to forge careers. I think that about 20 states voted against ERA -- do you think that they were all trying to make it difficult for women to forge careers? Even if you think that, it is just an opinion that you will not find in any objective source.

Yes, Schlafly supported Goldwater, but that does not make her a "propagandist for the far-right". Not even the Goldwater WP page describes him as "far-right" or his supporters as being necessarily far-right. You may have the opinion that he is on the far-right, but that is only an opinion that a Goldwater detractor would have. A neutral biography could say that Schlafly supported Goldwater and opposed the ERA, and let the reader decide whether such views are good or bad. Roger 03:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

..no one is making the assessment that views are "good" or "bad"--only whether how they are stated is controversial or not, per published, reliable secondary sources--not our opinions. Since Ehrenreich's statements are not controversial to anyone but you so far, they are not controversial--you need a source that states Ehrenreich's comments are controversial because they are contradicted by <blank>. On the contrary, it seems that Ehrenreich's comments are not only not controversial, but are consistent with the subject's self-affiliation/self-description--the opposite of controversial. (Shlafly affiliated with the far-right, and opposed women working outside the home...) I assure you that if this is truly controversial, other people will make the same argument you are making/there would be sources to cite. Ehrenreich is a published, reliable secondary source that could only be countered by another published, reliable secondary source--not the unpublished opinion her son. Cindery 03:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If what you say were true, then there is no need to consult any secondary source. No one has to take my word for it either. Just find a quote where Schlafly identifies herself as "far-right" or where she opposed women working outside the home. Many of her writings are freely available online, so just use Google. Roger 06:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

...you are a new enough editor that you don't understand that if you object to a cited source, the onus is on you to supply a counter citation? Now would be a good time to keep a cool head and read the "five pillars" of Wikipedia before resuming your contributions. I reaize how confusing and frustrating this could all seem if you have not taken the time to read policies such as WP:V. We don't carry out debates here, we merely report on debates that exist among other people in the "real world." So if there's a debate, you can report on it via a reliable source, and we will appreciate your efforts. If you just feel personally upset about something you have read in an article, this is WP:NOT the place for it. Cindery 06:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I know the WP guidelines. I know how primary sources are to be preferred over secondary ones. I know how a few opinions from a polemical book are not to be treated as facts. I know how biography pages are not supposed to be just opportunities for enemies to post derogatory info. I know that we are supposed to remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately. FeloniousMonk and the others here are violating all the rules. Roger 21:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Roger, but you are clearly demonstrating a complete lack of basic understanding of WP policies and guidelines. You are: 1. carrying out the debate instead of reporting on it via a source 3. violating WP:CIVIL by referring to other editors as "enemies," and failing to WP:AGF ("assume good faith") by accusing them of violating all the rules, etc. You are doing what we call "exhausting the community's patience"--a number of your fellow editors have asked you over and over again now to focus on the issue, not on personally arguing your opinions without sources and/or making ad hominem arguments against fellow editors. Wikipedia will welcome you with open arms, if you could please make an effort to do research, cite sources, and stop making personal attacks/arguing your opinions. If you read WP:NOT, you would already know that "Wikipedia is not a battleground." Cindery 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"I know the WP guidelines. I know how primary sources are to be preferred over secondary ones". That is not a Wikipedia guideline at all; actually, the reverse is closer to the truth. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and so secondary sources are our usual fare; primary sources can be used, but they need to be used with caution. See WP:RS#Some_definitions. — Matt Crypto 23:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Matt, you make a good point. A WP biographical article could reasonably be based on other published biographies, and those biographies would normally be considered secondary sources and good material for a WP biographical page.

Phyllis Schlafly's life story has been told many times by people who had access to primary sources. There are two full-length biographies, as well as numerous articles in reputable newspapers and magazines. There is no serious dispute about the basic facts.

But instead, we have a WP dispute over some bizarre name-calling that appears to be extracted from an adverse political book by Ehrenreich. Some of it is just weird, such as citing a "school that stressed Christian anti-Communism". There were no such schools. Other parts are obviously biased and antagonistic, such a "propagandist for the far-right".

I mention primary sources because Cindery's argument relied on what she claimed was the "subject's self-affiliation/self-description". There is really no need to debate or make any mistake about Phyllis Schlafly's self-affiliation and self-description because thousands of her writings, interviews, and quotes are freely available online. Cindery is mistaken.

If a someone wants a WP biographical page on Phyllis Schlafly to describe her views, then the proper way is to either quote her, or to quote some neutral reporter who has at least read what she has to say. It is not proper to just cherry-pick a couple of opinionated sentences from a political adversary who badmouths her, and then write it in WP as a fact. Roger 04:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be great, Roger, if you could find sources which contradict Ehrenreich, and cite them. Then perhaps her comments could be moved to controversy section, with the alternate source(s). You're still arguing your opinions. Wikipedia cannot publish your opinions. Since no alternate citations have been provided, Ehrenreich's comments do not appear to be controversial to anyone but you (and seem consistent with what another cited source--Kohlbert-- says, and with the subject's own stated political views.) You need to cite sources is my argument. It appears to me that you may just object to Ehrenreich--you claim that she "hates" your mother on the article talkpage. It doen't seem to be that she hates your mother, but that she has the opposite political views. If you can make the case via sources that someone besides you disagrees with Ehrenreich and the The New Yorker, then as I said, maybe Ehrenreich could be moved to "controversy." But a cited source like Ehrenreich cannot be removed--NPOV is not the elimination of viewpoints. Let me say this, hopefully for the last time: please do research, find sources, and cite sources to make your case. Cindery 06:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What, then, is the point of you saying that "it seems that Ehrenreich's comments are not only not controversial, but are consistent with the subject's self-affiliation/self-description--the opposite of controversial"? Did you cite some self-description and claim it's consistent with Ehrenreich? (And if you did, does this claim of consistency involve enough interpretation to be original research?)

As for your comparison to someone who "made it more difficult for African-Americans to attend colleges", that absolutely does not belong if all you have to support it is that they opposed integrated schools. Wikipedia may not make the connection between opposing integration and making it harder for blacks to go to college, and Wikipedia may not make the connection between opposing the ERA and making it harder for women to work.

And if someone else makes one of those connections, we may not treat it as fact. Since it is sourced, you can include it, but since it's an opinion, not a fact, you can't treat it as a fact the same way that "Phyllis Schafly was born in 1924" is a fact. You would have to describe it as a criticism and say something like "Noted author Ehrenreich criticizes Schafly's actions in the belief that they made it difficult for women to work." Ken Arromdee 19:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not here to write this article. I was just trying to correct some malicious edits. What we have here is a couple of disputed opinion statements that are presented as facts. They are justified because Ehrenreich supposedly calls Phyllis Schlafly a "propagandist for the far-right" in an adverse political book, and Cindery remembers reading a magazine article where Kohlbert used some similar name-calling. Is this correct? If not, please clarify. Roger 04:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Munson

Subject of the article is a Wikipedia editor, and continues to interfere not only in editing of article but in the Talk Page as well. Has a record of reverting edits that are properly cited and NPOV in effort to burnish his image. Leaves linkbait for his blog and website all over other pages and has gotten into edit wars over this. --Daniel 16:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There's an edit war over the template, and I protected the article so tempers can cool and asked the editors to discuss their differences on talk. Gamaliel 18:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be very notable. His article says that he is an activist who has protested some things, has cofounded some organizations, has a blog, and was interviewed by the New York Times once. Steve Dufour 04:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reads like a good AFD or userfy page to me. Derex 21:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If I ever want to hire an anarchist I will certainly give Mr. Munson a call.  :-) Steve Dufour 15:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Joshua Clover

One person--using two anonymous IPS--is persistently adding self-aggrandizing, uncited, irrrelevant info about himself to the Joshua Clover article. He has ignored all invitations to discuss, read help page, and ignored all 3RR warnings, and WP:VAIN warnings. [7] He has also started inserting patent nonsense/blatantly vandalizing the page. The anon's only contributions to Wikipedia are to make deliberately unhelpful edits to this entry. Cindery 15:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There should be a permanent block on the anon's IP range which prevent him from maliciously vandalizing the page. Mumblio 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why these edits meet VAIN? Adding info about his father is perfectly acceptable, it seems to me, and is standard practice in biographies. Am I missing something? --plange 20:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of bios without any mention of the subject's parents. in this case, the mother is mentioned because she has a wiki entry of her own. the father is not notable/has no such entry. Cindery 21:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There are plenty of bios that mention the parents and their occupation, who by themselves are not notable. It helps set the context for this person's life. Where does the subject come from? What could have influenced him/her? For example, being the son of a coal miner would be important to know about a subject, while the coal miner father would not be notable. I do it as a general rule for any bio I create. Children of the subject, I treat differently. I only mention them if they're notable. Also, this does not appear to be a BLP issue. --plange 21:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

...and if the father were say, a psycho, since the subject is a poet and not Paris Hilton, he would be entitled to a measure of privacy about that. this BLP issue has been dealt with by 3RR--the "anon" was blocked. if it continues, it will be addressed at WP:ANI. thank you for not escalating what is currently a non-issue, Cindery 21:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Erica Hardwick

I've stubbed this bio due to a posted complaint (presumably) from the subject.[8] The article was apparently written largely by an ex-boyfriend of hers (Bill White (neo-Nazi)) with whom she has had legal disputes. I've left the online sources and the intro. -Will Beback 17:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any reason not to nominate Hardwick's article for deletion. How is she notable? Crabapplecove 21:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter Tatchell

The subject of this article has just contacted me to say that he would like some parts of the biography, which are earlier parts of his career where coverage is slight and vague, expanded and sourced. He is sending me information to help me make the changes; I don't think there is a conflict of interest here as the material will be neutrally reported. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 16:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

William Forsythe

This "biograpy" contains copyrighted and unsourced information. The author of this article, CyberGhostface has inserted a number of copyrighted pictures which he cites as being "low-resolution screenshots", when in fact they are not. These pictures are fully copyrighted, the copyright being held by Lions Gate Entertainment Corporation. The article contains unsourced information, and any edits and additions made to this article by wikipedians are reverted back to the original article by it's creator. It seems that CyberGhostface will not allow anyone to edit this article for any reason! -JimmyMack 17:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the photo in this article is 1.) A fair use picture and B.) Labeled properly with all credit given.--CyberGhostface 21:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Arundhati Roy

the very beginning of her biography mentions she lives in new dehli, and immediately after has the phrase "Raand hai saali." which translates to " "The bitch is a whore." definately something that should not be there.

Removed it. Added BLP warning to offenders talk page.--Tbeatty 06:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sean Hannity

There is a paragraph in the controversy section (Abner Louima para) that references Fair.org, but Fair.org references OnePeoplesProject.com and OnePeoplesProject.com apparently got the information from an opinion piece in the Philadelphia Telegraph. Is this an acceptable reference for a BLP? --PTR 15:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sophie Ellis-Bextor

• Sophie Ellis-Bextor (AfD discussion)

This is just a heads-up. This may be the real Sophie Ellis-Bextor or it may not be. It is highly probable that it isn't. Uncle G 16:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Neil Bush

Seems to have become a location for defamatory soapbox speeches (and quotations of 3rd part soapbox speeches) about Bush "palling around" with "gangster" Boris Berezovsky.--67.101.68.216 17:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Naeim Giladi

• User:Amoruso - was insisting on including a link to an open-thread on an obscure neo-Nazi website as evidence Naeim Giladi's popularity with neo-Nazis who he equates with anti-Zionists. Now he has settled on citing Henry Makow in a non-sequiter attachment to disparage Naeim Giladi in another way. Can you please do something? His POV pushing via the insistence on including this libellous, non-sequiter material is getting very tiresome. Tiamut 22:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

weird WP:POV claim by Tiamut who blanked out WP:RS sources from the article. Stormfront (website) is quoted in the wikipedia articles after many debates as the most prominent neo-nazi web-site in the world. After also pointing out this to Tiamut, it seems he's acting in bad faith in claiming it's "obscure". As for the second source, when you google Naeim Giladi one of the first and most cited sites is [9] Makow [10] a professor who has a prominent web-site regarding the conflict [11] and therefore relevant. Amoruso 23:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I quote from WP:BLP as I did to Amoruso in explaining my last revert, "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Stormfront is not a reliable source per WP:RS, and the link Amoruso gave to an open thread on that site that posted Giladi's article. On the basis on that citation he proceeded to claim that Giladi was popular among neo-Nazis and changed the section heading where he included this information from "Relevance to the Arab-Israeli conflict" to "Use by anti-Zionists", thus equating anti-Zionism with neo-Nazism. Now, the heading is entitled simply "Controversy". Amoruso has of a few hours ago desisted from trying to include the Stormfront link and info, and instead chosen to repeatedly attempt to include a sentence completely unrelated to Giladi himself from an article by Henry Makow that conveys Makow's controversial views on Hamas. This citation, material and inclusion at this point in the article is non-sequiter, irrelevant, defamatory (by associating Giladi tendentiously with neo-Nazis and then, unrelated conspiracy theories) and clearly an an attempt at POV pushing. Amoruso's approach to this article from the outset has consistently been to reject the plausibility of Giladi's claims and attempt to demonize and/or undermine his legitimacy through his POV edits. Note too, that he has repeatedly overwritten a perfectly valid and illustrative citation from Jews Against Zionism that was aimed to provide relevant information and evidence of Giladi's popularity among anti-Zionist Jews with his edits. Tiamut 00:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Tiamut's description is faulty and does not accurately represent anything. "claim that Giladi was popular among neo-Nazis" is a false accusation by Tiamut. A featured article in the prominent web-site means his ARTICLE is a regularly quoted, not him. It has in fact nothing to do with WP:BLP. Henry Makow discusses Giladi's article DIRECTLY like explained. It again has nothing to do with WP:BLP - in fact, it's Tiamut who wants to make the page about the ISSUE and not the person , as the article really doesn't deal with the person at all but with his book/article. Finally, his last accusation trying to analyse my motives are a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The last "note" of his is also factually wrong, it was simply a double link both dealt with Jews. Amoruso 00:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That Naeim Giladi's article was posted by a user at an open-thread on a neo-Nazi website certainly does not constitute a "featured article" nor has Amoruso provided evidence of his being "regularly quoted" at such sites. As I have pointed out in the past, the article posted at the open-thread did not garner even one comment of feedback. Further, using extremist websites to defame a person through guilt by association is deeply frowned upon in WP:BLP, a fact that Amoruso is failing to acknowledge. I made no personal attack on Amoruso and have faithfully described his actions as I see them which is not a violation of WP:AGF or WP:NPA. Finally, the quote from Makow, while in an article in which he mentions Giladi, is not related to Giladi's book, article or any of the arguments he has made; i.e. it is totally irrelevant. Tiamut 00:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Naeim_Giladi" Tiamut 10:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore III, part 2

In response to the Al Gore III kerfuffle discussed above, the editors have agreed to a request for comments here regarding whether Gore's police record belongs in the Al Gore III article. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks, TheronJ 15:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Christoph Meili

I'd like to have a second set of eyes there. A User:ChristophMeili has been recently editing this article, adding a link to a self-published video that may show himself. That user has also left sourcing questions on the talk page, and removed a badly worded paragraph over in the corresponding article at the German Wikipedia. I have tried to scrupulously reference the article, but someone else (preferrably someone who can read German, as most sources are in that language) should review this. Lupo 17:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• While "frowned upon", there is no actual policy against the subject of an article editing an article about them (at least as far as I know). Since I don't speak the German, that is all the advice I can offer. - Crockspot 19:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

David Fernández, Gary Caldwell

Gary Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and David Fernández (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — unsourced allegations concerning a controversial tackle in a football game. The allegations being inserted do not agree with the BBC News [12] account of the incident. Demiurge 11:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I removed the statement from the Caldwell article that did not seem to be supported by the source cited, but I am no expert in the sport, so I may be wrong. But from a lay perspective, it seemed unsupported. The Fernandez article did not seem to have the same difficulty, so perhaps someone beat me there. - Crockspot 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Chenevix-Trench

Anthony Chenevix-Trench (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a section describing the subject as a child abuser. I'm not sure if the sources given are reliable (seem to possibly be ex-students with a vengence) enough to allow this inclusion. Can someone with a better understanding of the guidelines take a look at this? Thanks, Metros232 14:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The subject of the article is deceased so it is not an issue for this noticeboard. The article may need some POV work, however. Gamaliel 22:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I totally passed over the date of his death on there! My apologies. Metros232 00:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Daniele Ganser

TDC (talk · contribs) has made a serious allegation on his talk page of antisemitism against a noted Swiss academic, Dr. Daniele Ganser(diff). The user has refused to remove it(diff). Its all a bit silly, I know, but I'm not sure what the rules are on this kind of thing and I wouldn't like for Ganser to sue wikipedia. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Ganser does not have a biography on Wikipedia, in fact his bio was part of a succesfull VFD (so much for his "notability"), so I dont see how this is relevant. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That isn't relevant. Its dangerous to make such allegations against living people. Anyway, he does have a biography of the German language wikipedia: [13] and his books are used as sources on several articles[14]. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I will remember not to make these allegations on his German Wikipedia article. And thanks for the link on where he is used in English Wikipedia, we got a lot of work to do on those articles. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• I went ahead and edited out the text of the section, just to be safe. Sorry TDC, but the original purpose of the section seems to have served its use already, and it is just a flame magnet now. Call me bold, just don't call me late to dinner. Crockspot 19:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, TDC is at it again. This time on my user talk page - so i removed it. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

• User 84.188.241.129 from Berlin, Germany through Deutsche Telekom AG cable service did a defamatory hit and run of living person Prof. Miranda at articles for deletion that needs to be removed. User 84.188.241.129 hit the Professor and ran, as the poster has no other posts on Wikipedia.-- Jreferee 18:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Taken care of. - Crockspot 18:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nathaniel Tarn

This article has been completely rewritten by an anon and a brand-new user (probably the same person) who seems to be claiming that he is Nathaniel Tarn. I am not sure whether to revert, in case it really is Mr. Tarn. However, some of the alterations are unacceptable. He has removed the fact that he is anthologised in British Poetry since 1945 and he has deleted all categories, including even Living People. Can someone else have a look please.--Poetlister 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Jorie Graham

There's a bit about a possible conflict of interest, alleged by a group called Foetry.com (also in THAT article). Doesn't seem firmly cited to me, and is potentially libelous. Not my field, I'm afraid. Anyone? --Calton | Talk 06:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It does seem odd that there's the citation of legal code because a layperson said it was relevant, when no court has so found; does the way it's presented currenly give allegations something close to the weight of fact?

Barack Obama

Two editors dispute an official U.S. Senate page [15] and major media references (NY Times, BBC, Associated Press, an endless list) which state that Obama is an African American. Harro5 08:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that a compromise has been reached on this. Steve Dufour 15:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Serj Tankian

Unregistered Users and Registered Users keep posting uncited information about Tankian's religious affiliation, which is starting to border on Vandalism KingVegeta2000 01:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted and asked one contributor to provide good sources before re-inserting this statement. Andries 20:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Bill Cosby

Proposterous information throughout sections. Example: "In 1987, Cosby attempted to assassinate the president of the United States, and was subdued and tranquilized by seven secret service agents, after taking down the first lady and the president's great aunt, who would have died soon anyways, as she was both old, and senile.Cosby then (after escaping from Medical institute) once again got "hooked on Cronics" and was sent to a rehabilitation clinic after once again trying to kill te president of his company. this time it took 47 rhino tranqs. to take the ravaged Cosby down." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.75.233 (talk • contribs)

This was obvious vandalism and was quickly removed. Please feel free to remove any such vandalism yourself by reverting to the previous version. Thank you. Gamaliel 17:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting NewYorker article on Wikitrickery

I found this article on the administrator's noticeboard, about campaign workers using Wikipedia to take shots at opponents. It's not news to anyone here, but an interesting and quick read. - Crockspot 17:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This underscores our raison d'etre here at WP:BLP and can give us fortitude when we argue about the need to be persnikity on sources when dealing with BLP's - the press is watching how we handle this. --plange 17:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Stryker (disc jockey)

Unregistered users (most likely from the Loveline companion website) have repeatedly posted an extremely offensive message about him along the lines of "Loveline fans agree Stryker is worse than AIDS." When asked for a citation the vandals cites the actual fan site to a post telling everyone to try and keep this offensive message in the Wiki article. GiantRobot 21:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Alvaro Noboa

Describe the dispute using the following format:

• Alvaro Noboa is full of (apparently politically motivated) allegations. The allegations are referenced, but my concern is that the tone of the article as a whole is completely unbalanced and thus could easily be taken as a hatchet job. The fact that he's a controversial figure needs to be stated, not just assumed and one side of that controversy parroted back.GreetingsEarthling 22:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable Names Database as a source

There is an ongoing (mild) edit war going on in Jonathan Wells (creationist), in which I am involved. One thing that came up is the use of the Notable Names Database as a source. Here is their article on Wells: [16] As you can see their comments, which seem a bit hostile from the tone, are unsourced. Yet the Wikipedia article repeats them as fact using the site as a reference. This seems like a problem to me since all a person would have to do is post anything he or she liked to a website and then repeat the material on WP using the site as a source and thereby get around the restrictions on uncited negative material on living persons.

Anyway I don't think Wells' article is too much of a problem since most of the material seems to be accurate. I would just like to see the article a little more professionally written, Besides I know Wells and there is almost no chance that he is thinking about suing WP.  :-) Steve Dufour 03:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

hmm...In a weird turn of events the NNDB article changed today and some of its negative statements were removed. I went ahead and removed them from the WP article since they were now completely unsourced. Steve Dufour 04:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's my opinion that NNDB is not a reliable source, and when I see it sourcing negative info in a bio, I remove it. - Crockspot 04:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that his NNDB article says he was born c. 1956 while his WP article says he was drafted into the army in 1964. Seems a little young to me.  :-) Steve Dufour 14:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect NNDB meant to say 1946, which would fit into the rest of his life better. Steve Dufour 15:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC) I sent them a note.

Daniel Brandt (external assessment)

This article was mainly about plagiarism. But something else caught my eye. Near the middle of the article is this statement:

Brandt, who has long sparred with Wikipedia over an unflattering biography of himself, called on Wikipedia to conduct a throughout review of all its articles.

This author, who is independant of both Brandt and Wikipedia, has characterized his biography as "unflattering." She could have left that term out and still conveyed the same information if she didn't think it was "unflattering." It seems that this is at least external evidence that article is not NPOV if the perception is that it's "unflattering." It should be neither flattering nor unflattering. I am concerned that Brandt's criticism may have colored the coverage of his life by WP editors and admins. Comment? --Tbeatty 07:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The "unflattering" has been taken out. I didn't think the article was so bad. Steve Dufour 14:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

How was it taken out? This was an AP reporter who made this assessment. --Tbeatty 16:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes "unflattering" is a euphemism for "attack", and but I have seen it used more often as a simple opposite to "flattering," to mean a writeup that includes sharp criticism. If the criticism is impeccably sourced and given appropriate weight, Wikipedia should not flinch from it. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Still the word "unflattering" itself is an opinion. Steve Dufour 17:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia bios should be neither flattering nor unflattering. The author chose the word "unflattering" and asserted it as fact even though she simply could have left the word out and not taken a position. But her assessment was "unflattering." --Tbeatty 23:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, depending on the precise definitions of those words, a "flattering" or "unflattering" bio is not necessarily a problem. To take an extreme example, the Wikipedia article on Adolf Hitler is unflattering. This is just an inevitable result of readers encountering the facts and drawing their own conclusions. We write from the NPOV, but if the facts lend themselves to a negative impression, then there's no avoiding it, even in a perfectly NPOV article. — Matt Crypto 00:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

1) AP reporter Anick Jesdanun is a "he," not a "she." Wikipedians often seem to be confused about gender. 2) AP reporters don't do opinion pieces -- if he says it is "unflattering," that's a neutral statement. I say it's "unflattering" also. 3) Oh crap, now I'm compared to Adolf Hitler. Let's go back to comparing me to Britney Spears, as one Wikipedia editor did who was bent on sabotaging my reputation, and needed to justify his attack. 4) I think Mr. Jesdanun probably should have added that I've been trying to get my bio taken down for 13 months now. There are issues beyond "unflattering" or "flattering," such as, what impact does a bio have on a person when it shows up as number one in all the search engines? --Daniel Brandt 68.92.156.87 18:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This could also just be a simple elision or ambiguous wording. It could be intended to mean "who has long sparred with Wikipedia over an biography of himself that he considers unflattering". —Centrx→talk • 21:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A detailed description of a slashdot discussion was included with quotations from a pseudonymous user claiming to be Brandt. The material was neither particularly flattering nor otherwise, but I feel the inclusion was improper, not to mention far too detailed. I have reverted twice and mentioned on the talk page. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

J. Philippe Rushton

-J. Philippe Rushton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -The admins continue to replace the Gil-White article on Resurrecting racism despite libelous content. Gil-white states about African Americans "The claim that they were innately stupid because they had done poorly on IQ tests was therefore obviously nonsense, but this was Arthur Jensen's claim." is perhaps the most insulting as Jensen has NEVER stated this and it is essentially libel. I have read the majority of jensen's work and to state this is patently absurd and evidence of lack of neutrality again.// BenGibson 19:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?

This article is about a main work of pop-art by Richard Hamilton. At the moment it is an unverified original resarch essay claiming that this collage should be attributet to another artist, John McHale. I think that this is a violation of BLP as this claim damages the reputation of an artist without giving a single independent reliable source for this change of attribution. --VirtualDelight 18:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is essentially a violation of WP:NOR (or fails WP:RS), then the entire article should be deleted, yes? John Broughton | Talk 19:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It could be considered an attack article, so a {{db-attack}} speedy delete template may be in order. - Crockspot 20:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, it has been stubbed. Crockspot 20:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Keith Ellison (politician)

I think this[17] linking of Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations with the title secret ties to Hamas is done in order to have secret ties to Hamas prominently displayed on the page and associated with Ellison, who is running for office. I regard this as disruptive, and a violation of our policy on biographies of living people. I intend to revert, and lock the page or block the user as needed. If anyone thinks I'm wrong, please let me know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine any lucid argument that the piped wording should be secret ties to Hamas, making that the wording to click on to use the wikilink. You're literally not changing a word in the sentence, you're just having the wikilink be invoked by the more neutral "accused CAIR" phrase. Wow - that someone gets to keep (a) all their wording, exactly as is, and (b) their wikilink, but still (c) objects because the wikilink is on different words! -- John Broughton | Talk 02:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom Brewer

This article is a stub, and at the end, it says he lives in the UK and is homosexual. I found it because I hit Random Article. If it's true, and if it's relevant, great. Put a citation. Swilk 02:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it was just school-boy vandalism. I reverted to an earlier version. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Tina Rosenberg

Stub about a professor, containing an accusation of plagiarism, sourced to a rather dodgy-looking website. [18] Not my field, I'm afraid. Anyone want to look in on this? --Calton | Talk 06:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I found very little, and nothing from a reliable source. I've nominated the page for deletion becuase of lack of notability. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert Prechter

Robert Prechter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is a request for an administrator to please restore the Robert Prechter biography article. It was summarily taken down by an editor who has alleged that it violated copyright policy. I have recently contributed to this article, and believe it is consistent with Wikipedia's copyright and biography policies. Thanks. Rgfolsom 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

An update: I found a cached version of the Prechter bio and saw that contributions from other editors may indeed be a copyright problem. But I can't address that issue unless I can get to the article. User 141.156.240.102 disregarded Wikipedia policy regarding lag times and failed to post the Prechter article on the copyright problem page. Rgfolsom 16:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted here yesterday because Wikipedia:Deletion review said, "In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be." I've also politely made it clear to the deleting administrator that the speedy deletion of the Prechter bio page was unwarranted and outside of Wikipedia's guidelines. So far I haven't seen an ensuing discussion here, much less any "rapid correctional action." For the record, I'll be resubmitting a new Robert Prechter biography unless I can get an administrator to discuss the deletion issue with me. Rgfolsom 14:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the proper forum for contesting a deletion. Please go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Gamaliel 21:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm requesting an investigation of a disruptive editor on the Robert Prechter biography page. An editor there has flagrantly violated Wikipedia policies regarding biographies of living persons. See the Talk:Robert Prechter page as well.

Rgfolsom 22:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Bohemian Grove

I have removed discussions from this talk page twice already dealing the Bush family being alien space lizards in disguise, allegations concerning snuff films, Nazism, child snuff porn, and homosexual prostitution. The essential claims are that members of this club are involved in these activities, with many of the prominent members being listed by name. Both times my removals have been reverted by User:Blue Tie Brimba 05:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I would get involved but then people would call me an alien space lizard too.  :-) Steve Dufour 05:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oswalt Kolle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) =

The link to the IMDB goes to Tom Cruise. Someone is screwing around.

I have fixed the link. In the future, such minor issues can be dealt with on the talk page of the relevant article. Thank you. Gamaliel 21:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Cassie Ventura

her article has a controversy section that should be deleted. PrincessOfHearts 21:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. The section was pretty much "some people don't like her music", not really controversy. I will take it out.Steve Dufour 01:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I took it out. It was also uncited and negative.Steve Dufour 01:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Orson Scott Card

The homosexuality section has been an area of concern for a long time now, and I just realized that biographies of living people have very strict guidelines, so I removed a lot of information from that section. However, I am a newcomer to writing about living people, so I really need a few editors to chime in with advice on how to fix these issues. See Talk:Orson Scott Card. Thanks. --Lethargy 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Steven Plaut

The concern here is not with the Steven Plaut himself, but with the fact that this article contains a long vitriolic attack on an Israeli academic Neve Gordon and the Israeli judge who ruled that Plaut had libelled Gordon. Many of the same charges quoted here from assorted columnists are the same ones ruled libellous in court. --Zero^talk 13:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael S. Steele

There are many, many problems with the section. First of all, Chubbybunny78 has only been a Wikipedian for one or two days and the ONLY articles that Chubbybunny78 seems to be interested in are Steele's and Erlich's. This FACT calls into question the motivation. We must assume "good faith" but a pattern is appearing and it cannot be ignored. Also, the whole section seems to be to tear down a strong, independent black man. That needs to be pointed out. The whole article is just one "criticism" of Steele after another. And don't you even tell me that this issue is not important. The election is over. It is NOW time to start enforcing the Living Person rules of Wikipedia. Is this topic something that belongs in a so-called encyclopedia???? I don't think so. I have never, until I stumbled upon Wikipedia, seen encyclopedias where the articles are written in such stark biased ways. Yes, I know that Wikipedia has a policy to be NEUTRAL, but that ain't happening. This article is a disgrace to a talented and motivated person who has served his state and his country. It is a just a laundry list of so-called "controversies" that are nothing more than spitballs thrown at him during an election campaign. The election is over. Call off the biased Wikipedia dogs and let's make the article neutral. And we can start by getting rid of this unimportant, non-notable incident where there is nothing behind it but allegation and heresay. And it was put in the article by a Wikipedia that has been here a couple of days and the ONLY edits that Chubbybunny78 has made is to tear down Steele and Erlich. Can't we just follow the Living Person rules and make honest decisions on what should be biographical article (date of birth, place of birth, schooling, work experience, etc.) instead of a series of election-inspiried charges by overzealous Democrats out to completely destroy a black man that dares to get off of the Democratic Plantation???--Getaway 14:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Since when is this noticeboard the FIRST place to go to, to complain about POV? I was under the impression that edits and discussions on article talk pages were where one should start, with only serious problems posted here. I see no evidence of dialog by Getaway in this situation, just an (implied) assertion that a new editor focusing on a two biographies should be characterized as an overzealous Democrat out to completely destroy a black man that dares to get off of the Democratic Plantation.

Wikipedia has an easy remedy for unsourced negative information: remove it. Apparently (reading above) that isn't the real problem here; rather, it's sourced negative information that is bothersome. And if I misread the situation, I'd be happy to be corrected - on the article's talk page. John Broughton | Talk 22:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The ARTICLE as a whole is biased. It is a long laundry list of so-called "complaints" by Democrats about Steele. The article is not about Steele. The article is about what Democrats think of Steele. It is biased and needs to narrowed down to what is important.--Getaway 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Liam Mower

[19] Section 'School Life' contains biased, unqualified and potentially slanderous (and misspelled) comments regarding subject's personal life.

I have deleted this section. OR at best and violation of BLP anyway. --VirtualDelight 10:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Fisher

[20] I feel that this article is unnecessarily opinionative and should be edited if not completely removed. There are contextual issues, a lack of references, chronological assumptions, and other issues which I think should be addressed.

First of all, I'd like to give a quick explanation as to why I'm asserting this position in regards to this entry. The article masks itself as an entry regarding Joseph Fisher, where in fact his "biography" is restricted to a mere three sentences. In which case I would've pushed for a simple renaming of the entry from Joseph Fisher to something along the lines of "The 'Islam Sucks' Controversy." However, the entire article contains many problems, so I raise the following issues.

The quotation in the article "a danger to the welfare of many" is speculative and doesn't portray the implication in Fisher's original editorial. In his essay, Fisher writes "Islam also presents a danger to the welfare of many due to its influence in Middle Eastern and North African governments." It is clear that Fisher's concern over the "danger to the welfare of many" was not Islam itself, but rather over Islamic fundamentalist regimes. This makes the wikipedia entry's statement "[Fisher] remarks on his dislike of ... Islam ... calling it a 'danger to the welfare of many.'" completely false. It should be removed from the entry.

The quotation "As this may suggest, the column is rife with inflammatory language ... where Fisher quotes Pervez Musharraf, calling Muslims 'the poorest, most illiterate, backward, unhealthy, unenlightened, deprived and weakest of all the races.'" First of all, I think the implied connection between the alleged inflammatory language in the editorial and the quotation of Pervez Musharraf fails to show Fisher's acknowledgement of the inflammatory nature of the comment, as indicated by his follow-up sentence "I don't have to defend these words because I didn't say them", culminating in his attributing the words to Musharraf. However, if you disagree on this being a deletion-worthy sentence based on contextual issues, I think many would still agree that "As this may suggest" is a slippery sentence to use in objective writing. It appeals to the audience to come to a conclusion, particularly the author's. It serves no purpose in an objective, encyclopedic entry.

The quotation "Fisher also condemns Muslim sharia law and in particular, the application of justice in Saudi Arabia." is blatantly and entirely false. It is entirely inferred by the author and has no factual basis. In fact, the author of the article even admits sharia is not even mentioned in the editorial. If the entry is (properly, I assert) abridged, it becomes paradoxical gibberish: "Fisher also condemns Muslim sharia law and in particular, the application of justice in Saudi Arabia, ... though his article does not mention sharia or the ongoing debate in Muslim nations about its application."

The omitted sentence between the quotations has its own supplications for deletion. "In [Fisher's] view, [sharia] is antithetical to women's rights." This sentence itself is an insult to "women's rights" as the "antithetical" position the author implies is condemnation of the sharia practice of punishing rape victims. An issue I feel ethically compelled to take a position on, and I hope and intend this position to be the only one I take in critism of this Wiki entry.

The remains of this flawed paragraph reads: "His only differentiation of the Muslim world is that of secular Turkey and just about everybody else - whereas he is unrelentingly critical of Islam and the nations where it plays a dominant role, he calls Turkey a 'shining light amidst all this madness. There's an understanding that a Muslim society can prosper, as long as it downplays the whole Islam thing.'" This paragraph fails to portray the larger context from which the quotation is taken. Mr. Fisher's position in his editorial seemed to be critism of religious law and an affinity to secular governments. The quotation is used in a way to imply criticism of Islam, where again, I don't feel the source properly verifies this assumption.

The statement "The author claims that some versions of the article found on the Internet are inaccurate and have been modified with malicious intent." lacks quotation and is speculative.

The statement "Two days later, after hundreds of letters to the editor poured in, an apology written by Fisher appeared on the front page of the South End." is presumably lifted from the entry's third source. Upon examination of the source, however, it is evident that this statement has been construed from two points in the source, without maintaining the factual integrity of the source. If I'm being unclear, my point is that the quotation can not actually be verified by the source. While the information is there, the chronology is not, and the chronology implied in the quotation is unverifiable. For this reason, it should be edited.

The statement "Fisher has since stated that he was coerced into the writing the apology." lacks quotation and is suspect.

The statement "In the days following the column's publication, he received thousands of e-mails, many of them threatening his life." lacks quotation.

The statement "Fisher believes that he was perfectly justified in writing the article, arguing that was approved by his editor before publication, and that while he 'may want to change a few of the details in the column, I would not change the gist of it.'" is wrong on so many levels, I think there might be a legal case against the author within it, should it prove to be false. Since it lacks quotation and is aggressive, I presume it to be false, and surely deserves deletion if nothing else in the article does. Without references, this claim is simply attacking Mr. Fisher and has NO place in his Wikipedia biography.

I believe in Mr. Fisher's right to free speech, and I think his Wiki article was written by someone who felt otherwise. While the article is seemingly accurate, minor changes and elaborations have been made that tarnish the factual history of the event. I think this subtlety is what makes this article particularly insidious. It wrongly chronicles Mr. Fisher's biography and inaccurately portrays the "furious debate" from the point of view of one of Mr. Fisher's debators. I originally started this piece with the intent of asking for the expurgation of large portions of the article, but upon the completion of it, I request it be expunged unless many feel Mr. Fisher deserves a Wikipedia entry, in which case, he deserves a cleaner rewrite with a more neutral tone.

Thank you for your consideration of my case, and I apologize for its length. J.S.

Star Jones Reynolds

Biased, slanted, unbalanced article with 5 sentences on her early life, education, and television career. The remaining sentences focus on controversy. Libelous comments on the discussion page need to be removed. These sentences include

"Star Jones is a despicable human being who kills puppies for fun, eats kittens and mocks the handicapped. She has been seen flirting with five year olds and even supported the nazi's during ww2 (she did this before being born through her alliance with satan). She sold out the human race to the aliens years ago and even flew one of the planes into the world trade center. I have personally seen her club baby seals and sodomize a blind dog. She has been spotted many times fisting sheep on various occassions. Finally, she is the anti-christ and must be killed asap. Thank you for your time."

"She is a fat stupid and obnoxious cow, and that, in my mind, makes her a target for ridicule."

I don't expect Wikipedia to do anything--obviously you've ignored all other complaints. But at least I've followed the rules and reported the libel against a living person.

I have removed the cited comments per BLP and as vandalism/trolling.--VirtualDelight 18:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Henriett Seth-F.

She herself is constantly editing the article. The problem is, she doesn't really speak English. I've tagged the article for cleanup and copyedit (because it needs cleanup and I don't have time to do it right now), but then she attacked me in the revert comments, and she and a newly registered user magically appeared and vandalised my userpage 3 times in short order, commenting (in Hungarian) that "if you don't stop yourself, you'll get more of this, but in Hungarian". (I haven't edited any other articles related to Hungarian topics in weeks.) To her credit, she did add references to many of her statements, which I requested on the talk page alongside the English cleanup, so I'm really straining to assume good will. I've tried her talk page, but I think she doesn't know how to use talk pages.

I'd happily copyedit the article, but she seems firmly set on my being a vandal at this point, and I don't really feel like having horrendous things appear on my userpage overnight. I don't know what to do - I don't know her in person and I've never been connected to her in any way besides Wikipedia.

Related usernames:

Hungariandeedee - her main username (she claimed it was her in Miklós Győri, which is now deleted after I edited it - Miklós Győri is my thesis advisor and I couldn't stand to see the broken English in the article, as it used to be the first hit on his name that came up on Google - and she blanked it entirely. I didn't restore it - I didn't think the whole thing was that important to get into a revert war over - and it was deleted after a while.)

Possible sockpuppets: Wekings, Nicholas2006

Thank you for your help, prezzey 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sean O'Callaghan

Sean O'Callaghan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — the subject of the article is notable because he was a member of the Provisional IRA who became a police informer and later wrote a book about his experiences. Unsurprisingly, this makes him a hate figure for many Irish republicans. There are unsourced allegations that he is a homosexual — Category:LGBT people from Ireland has had to be removed from the page a few times. The dispute is about the inclusion of an unconnected incident in which he was tied up and his house burgled (by ordinary criminals, not related to his IRA past at all) [21], an incident which is used to reintroduce the gay allegations into the article. I've removed most of this content under the "Wikipedia is not a tabloid" and "include only information relevant to their notability" clauses of WP:BLP, however my removal is disputed on the talk page by Vintagekits (talk · contribs). Can I get a third opinion on this please? this section was written by Demiurge (talk · contribs)

The article highlights the recent controversy where O'Callaghan was duped into taking to men he met into a pub back to the house he was staying at and then he was tied up and robbed.

One of the men that did this was caught and and he claimed that O'Callaghan asked him to do this as part of a sex act - this is all reported widely and and reference in the article. The only person claiming that he was gay and the jury didnt believe him and convicted him of robbery. This is also highlight in the article. The section relating to this episode is relatively simple and written in a conservative manner and not tabliod in any way and only outlines the fact - Demiurge (talk · contribs) has a vested interest in this issue and is trying to censor the article. Vintagekits 00:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly what is my "vested interest"? And also you still haven't addressed the "include only information relevant to their notability" rule. Demiurge 00:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is notable at least three editors have added this section in one form or another and you are the only one that keeps deleting it! If it wasnt notable it would not be added to the article non would it be reported widely in the press. Vintagekits 00:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's still not relevant to his notability. The number of editors who have added it or the number of newspapers who covered it has nothing to do with it. Demiurge 01:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

thats your POV not that of the majority - want ot put it to a vote?? Vintagekits 01:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sean o callaghan picked up two guys in a gay bar & his freinds house was robbed while he was tied up during sex - this section was written by 213.94.218.4 (talk · contribs)

This is not what the article is saying. The article is in no way saying he is gay. It was the the guy that robbed him that made that allegation - however he was convicted of the theft - what the article does is just hightlight the episode, which is very notable Vintagekits 13:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

David Loebsack

The article on freshman congressman David Loebsack currently includes the sentence "Loebsack was known to inform his non-liberal students that he would deduct points from their papers should they express views contrary to his well-known socialist stances." This accusation sounds inflammatory and dubious at best. As there is no source material referenced to support this argument, I think it should be removed. -- User:RyanGWU82

Very much so, and it has been removed. FCYTravis 08:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Erin McNaught

user 220.236.8.106 has repeatedly entered the following on Erin's page. (Before he started, she originated in Brisbane) "She is from the Gold Coast. She is currently dating Changsta from C-Unit.She's known to be the hottest model in Australia." The middloe comment is unsupported, and the last is, of course subjective. I have rved twice, and he is coming straight back and re-reverting. ta--Bilbo B 12:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)

User:Tilman is reverting my edits which removed material that is either unduly weighted, unsourced or improperly sourced, and being extremely contentious about it on the talk page. My version: [22] Tilman's version: [23] .......I would like to see each of the disputed statements individually and specifically referenced. I welcome the input of other editors. wikipediatrix 18:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The material was well sourced... Wikipediatrix deleted the sources as well, instead of reading them. See the discussion in the article. Wikipediatrix uses a "delete first, talk later" strategy, and is somehow expecting that other editors explain to her every single sentence, and tell her in what line of the source it is.

Wikipediatrix deleted about 2/3 of the article, which was well balanced and has been watched by many editors for many months. I've reverted her deletions a few times. --Tilman 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Although there was a long list of alleged sources, they were mostly at the end of the article, and not directly attached with ref tags to any of the disputed statements. In the interest of WP:BLP, I have been temporarily removing the disputed text until we can get each claim individually tagged and cited. I don't think an article about a living person should make controversial claims about them, plunk down a long list of "references" at the bottom, and expect the reader to wade through them all trying to figure out which sources support which statements. If it was an article like Larch or Cheese, I wouldn't care, but this is a living person and I take WP:BLP very seriously. wikipediatrix 19:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Both editors are somewhat right. And it is good of User:Wikipediatrix to be bold and make some changes. The version of the article before those actions read like a personal attack on Rick Ross. He is a living person, and we should tread more carefully with WP:BLP. Smeelgova 19:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

I could of course also be bold and look at Wikipediatrix edits, and start to delete many really poorly referenced articles that she started. However, I am aware of the WP:DISRUPT policy, so I won't do it.

She deleted the Jason Scott segment in full, just because she didn't want to read the source referenced at the end - which had the whole story. It is ridiculous to have over 20 sentences with "[12]" at the end each. We do now have the weird situation that Jason Scott is mentioned in the introduction, but not elaborated on.

Rick Ross is a controversial person. So its only logical that he has critics. However, each criticism had a rebuttal. --Tilman

There were over 20 individual references, that were ignored by you. One can simply compare the numbers in the two versions. --Tilman 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Tilman, if I have EVER inserted libelous unsourced information into a living person's article, don't hold back - go forth and zap it mercilessly. I can't imagine what articles you would be referring to, though, because I am very careful with articles about living persons. If you feel I am in error on other articles, answer on my talk page or on the talk pages of said articles. wikipediatrix 21:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:DISRUPT. Plus, it isn't the way I work. But Norton S. Karno is an example of a poorly referenced article, or referenced with dubious anonymous sources. But I don't really have the time to start to show you all the details. I've already lost valuable time with your destruction of this definition. --Tilman 21:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the Jason Scott issue should be mentioned in the article, but I also agree with Wikpediatrix that most of the stuff from the old article was unnecessary and read like a personal attack. Smeelgova 20:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

Not mentioning the controversies makes the article look like a whitewash. The current article does him a disservice, because now there is also no neutral review of these attack arguments (e.g. scientology, Ammerman, Wessinger, etc). --Tilman 20:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep talking as if I want to permanently keep this info out, when I've stated repeatedly in the plainest English I know that this is not the case? Attribute proper sources specifically and directly to their individual statements in the Jason Scott section, and we're done here. wikipediatrix 21:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I told you before, this would mean having "[12]" after every sentence of the Jason Scott segment. Of course I could do this just to show you how silly this is, since you don't want to read that article source. But again, this would be against WP:DISRUPT. --Tilman 21:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, you and I have disagreed in the past, but I have to agree. Tillman's edit is too negative and the citations arent clear. Jason Scott could probably be mentioned in a sentence or two without going into all the gory details, but the article looks good to me the way it is. Crabapplecove 21:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross comes up as the final winner in "my" edit. After all, Jason Scott first won a lawsuit against Ross because Ross had tried to deprogramm him, then he fire his (scientology) attorney, settled with Ross for a tiny amount of money, plus 200 hours of his expert time! --Tilman 21:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As an example, how it would look per Wikipediatrix:

Ross went into bankruptcy as well, [24] but emerged in December 1996,[25] when Scott reconciled with his mother [26] and settled with Ross for $5,000, [27] and for 200 hours of Ross's services "as an expert consultant and intervention specialist." [28] Moxon was fired the next day [29] and Scott then retained long-time Church of Scientology opponent Graham Berry as his lawyer instead. [30]

Of course its all the same link. --Tilman 21:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad example. For a two-sentence paragraph, you only need one link at the end of the paragraph. Nothing in wikipedia policy says that every phrase, or every word, or even every sentence needs a separate citation. John Broughton | Talk 18:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and I haven't suggested anything on the order of what Tilman is facetiously (at least I hope he's just being facetious) claiming I have. A link at the end of each paragraph would suit me just fine, provided that everything in the preceding paragraph is in fact supported by that link's info. wikipediatrix 19:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good, so you guys seem to be coming to at least a small consensus and agreement that you only need citations at the end of the paragraph on a specific issue? Smeelgova 21:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

Roland Rance

User:Fumigate, who has been blocked, and User:Wczto, a suspected sockpuppet, are constantly replacing the content of the article Roland Rance with untrue, grossly defamatory, and probably libellous material. They are also regularly reverting edits by me and other users to articles, such as David Bukay and {Steven Plaut]. RolandR 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree the comments added are defamatory, but I also have to ask: does Rance really qualify for a Wikipedia article? The article really needs some more info. PetitionOnline.com petitions don't really belong. Crabapplecove 21:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any notability established. I put a db-bio on it. Crockspot 01:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Larry Merchant

Flurry of vandalism following a link on a boxing forum. Please block offending IPs

Elizabeth Eckford

The Article on Elizabeth Eckford contains a section "Family Tragedy" which states: On the morning of January 1, 2003, Elizabeth Eckford's son Erin Eckford was shot and killed by police in Little Rock. Killed By the Ku Klux Klan.

The "Killed by the Ku Klux Klan" was not borne out by a search I carried out. I am going to remove these six words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike M SA (talk • contribs)

Joseph McMillan

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

Not sure if this is the place to bring it up, but Dantallass (talk · contribs), who is apparently the subject of the article blanked it, with the edit summary Deleted article on myself, which consisted of a bio written by myself for a published book, not for Wikipedia. I am not a public figure and do not wish Wikipedia to have an article about me. It was immediately unblanked by AntiVandalBot.

Dantallass has left a message on AVB's talk page which states I wish the article about myself that appeared on Wikipedia without my knowledge or consent to be deleted. It is taken almost verbatim from a bio prepared by me for a printed publication, Burke's World Orders of Knighthood and Merit. Its republication certainly violates Burke's copyright. Furthermore, as I am not a public figure and do not wish to be covered by Wikipedia, I consider the article a violation of my privacy. I tried to remove the text and see that it has been restored. Please delete it. Joseph McMillan

I couldn't find any guidelines for this situation in various BLP-type policies.

I've actually just found an online version of Burkes World Orders..., [31] and the article text is a copyvio (it has been wikified but that's about all). I guess I could tag it for speedy deletion as a copyvio, but I don't want to confuse the situation. Dr pda 01:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like Oden already tagged it. That's an easy speedy delete. Crockspot 01:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Tagged it according to Wikipedia:Copyright problems regarding blatant copyright infringements (there is no clean revision in the page history). Also left a note on the talk page of the apparent subject of the article: user talk:Dantallass (see also User_talk:AntiVandalBot#Joseph_McMillan_entry for more information). --Oden 02:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been corresponding with Joe McMillan today and can confirm that the user in question is, indeed, him.--dave-- 04:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings

(Note: An spanish speaking administrator is a plus -not a must- for this issue)

One: User:Igor21 wrote: I forgott to speak about Anson and La Razon. Anson was involved in a attempt of military coup in the 80s.[32]

"Anson" is w:es:Luis María Anson, a famous living spaniard.

Igor21 provided no source whatsoever.

Two: User:Igor21 wrote: now that it is possible to demonstrate that Pedro J was favourishing the creation of the death squads[33]

"Pedro J" is Pedro J. Ramírez.

The "source" provided is an unrelated quote taken from interventions in a blog. [34].

I asked the user if he checked the unrelated quotation, he gave no answer.

Three: User:Igor21 wrote:So when PP and PSOE agree in doing dirty war against ETA terrorists in the 80's... [35]

I asked four thrice for a source for this bold affirmation. He gave me a rather vague source:

There are many sources for this. The most easy to find is a front page article in magazine Epoca entitled "Comienza la guerra sucia" ("Dirty war starts"). There it explains a meeting between Gonzalez and Fraga in the country house of the latter. It says that shorly after Manglano, Casinello and Galindo have held some operational meetings and were destined to Basc Country. This article was published some weeks before the GAL started its actions. I do not have the exact date because I lost my archive in a change of house. Anyway this is not the issue here. [36]

"Fraga" is Manuel Fraga, a famous living spanish politician.

The "source" given by Igor21 does not exist, due to two simple facts.

• 1. The Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación criminal actions started in october 1983.

• 2. The first "Época" magazine was published in march 1985 [37].

After this gaffe, Igor21 wrote:

I have been trying to remember and my memory has bring me a surprising recall. I think that the source was Cambio 16 (the rest of the details are the same) that at this time was directed by Pedro J and was a fan of the dirty war as you can see in this link http://www.libertaddigital.com/bitacora/piomoa/comentarios.php?id=1518&num=3. [38]

Now "he thinks" it was the magazine Cambio 16. After this he wrote a text in spanish in my user page [39] where he writes further unsourced accusations against Fraga an Pedro J Ramírez. He also talks about the source he has not been able to provide as the "mysterious source".

I asked Igor21 for a formal statement about that "mysterious source", because I wanted to check his assertions in the library and I do not want to go there every time Igor21 has a surprising recall about the "mysterious source". He made no such statement.

Finally:

I gave the User the link to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and asked him for sources several times, with no success.

AFAIK this is libel against Manuel Fraga, w:es:Luis María Anson and Pedro J. Ramírez.

Randroide 08:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Please refer also to the opinions of other editors as expressed on the talk page for the Madrid bombngs. This is a debate which is entirely unproductive and irrelevant to the subject matter of the article. Those who accuse, without evidence, the Spanish government of participating in the massacre of 191 of their own citizens are on very shaky ground when accusing others of libel.

Southofwatford 21:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Bigfoot

Bigfoot may or may not be a living person. However the majority of scientists are and the article says about them:

The majority of scientists reject the likelihood of such a creature's existence, and consider the stories of Bigfoot to be a combination of unsubstantiated folklore and hoax Template:Ref harvard .

Do you consider this to be a negative statement about scientists? Inadequately sourced negative statement? John Broughton | Talk 14:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion it is. Scientists should keep open minds and not reject possiblities. Although in this case they are said to only reject a "likelihood", which I guess is not so bad. I made a suggestion on the talk page of the article which could improve the sentence without changing the point it is trying to make. I will wait and see what other people think about it. Steve Dufour 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So provide a reliable source indicating that the majority of scientists -- or even anything more than a percent or two -- do not consider Bigfoot to be utter hooey. It might be an interesting process. (Note that the purpose of BLP is not to inject anyone's desire for how things should be; I think it should defame the American people to say that a large minority believe in creationism, but that's how it is.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between "consider to be utter hooey" and "reject".  :-) Steve Dufour 17:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That is, to me "reject" implies a postive action. I don't think that the majority of scientists have "rejected" Bigfoot. Most of them have not considered him at all. Steve Dufour 17:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This "Bigfoot" entry has absolutely nothing to do with WP:BLP and frankly, I'm surprised editors are even giving it the time of day. wikipediatrix 16:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There is much more public interest in Bigfoot than in Barbara S.  :-) Steve Dufour 19:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Help requested with Mike Mendoza

Some person or persons editing from IP addresses are repeatedly reverting to a version that includes unsourced/poorly sourced information, while the subject himself is removing the unsourced information but also an item of sourced information. The latest revert claimed that 192.com, i.e. the phone book, was sufficient proof that Mike Mendoza the DJ (the subject of the article) is also a former Tory councillor, which is one of the items the subject has been removing and is not supported by any reliable source - the phone book plainly doesn't qualify.

I've summarised the points under dispute on Talk:Mike Mendoza. I've asked for a third opinion but it was the wrong place to go - I need someone to actively edit the article rather than just give their opinion. Specifically I need someone to either help revert, or even better, semi/fully protect the page to force participants to discuss rather than edit war. I've reverted too much myself, and can't protect as I've 'taken a side'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fred Newman

Cberlet has been, for close to 2 months, incessantly been attemting to insert large chunks of his highly POV, politically motivated and obsucre article from 1987into Fred Newman. The article already has extensive and more than adequate amounts of criticisms included already, including reference to Berlet's writings. Yet Berlet incessantly tries to insert multiple paragraphs from his own largely unknown work into the article, and refusing all that time to address numerous issues about his work, which he feels he has a right to include without needing to discuss with other editors. And despite countless requests, he continually uses the derogatory phrase "Newmanite cult" in the talk pages and in edit summaries. BabyDweezil 04:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a fantastic misrepresentation of what is a lengthy campaign of apologia by BabyDweezil, who has refused formal mediation, to delete any serious mention of the copious published criticism of Fred Newman as a cult leader, among other claims. I welcome intervention.--Cberlet 15:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Interested parties are invited and encouraged to peruse Fred Newman and assess the amount of criticism currently included in the article, including references to Berlet. The most recent attempt to violate WP:BLP was Cberlet inserting three paragraphs from a 20-year-old letter to the editor in a defunct obscure magazine.

The title of the source Cberlet continually attempts to include substantial sections of is "Institutes for Social Therapy and Totalitarian Cultism." The term "Totalitarian Cultism" is an invention of Berlet's, and will not be found anywhere in social scientific literature outside of Berlet's employer, Political Research Associates and a handful of fringe web writers. As such it is original fringe research with no standing in the academic community, and not acceptable per WP:BLP despite it's being "published" on the highly politically partisan PRA website. BabyDweezil 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We note the criticism, and identify and cite the critics. It is presented as one part of a balanced account. I do not see a blp problem here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, as it applies to this source:

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject.

This completely applies to the quotes from Berlet's partisan and obscure "publication.BabyDweezil 17:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how. Political Research Associates is not obscure, the material is not published without editorial oversight, and they are no more partisan than National Public Radio. Publiceye.org is routinely cited as a reliable source for material within their research expertise. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Show me a source in the literature on therapeutic modalities--(a journal article, a statement from APA etc) that cites Chip Berlet and/or his claims in a discussion of Newman. The only mention to be found anywhere in the scholarly literature is in a review of a Newman book (Nissen M et al Theory & Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 3, 417-426 (1999) where the Berlet report is mentioned and dismissed. Berlet's "expertise" is self-proclaimed, and not recognized with respect to Newman. His terminology ("totalitarian cultism") is invented, and has no corroboration in sociological or psychological literature. Please show me a countervailing view if you have one. Likewise, the so-called "editorial oversight" of PRA is self-proclaimed as well, and partisan. It is not suitable as an encyclopedia article. BabyDweezil 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Fred Newman, not therapeutic modalities. I do not see why criticism may only be included if it comes from a critic on some approved list. Beyond that, you are no more likely to be persuaded by repeated assertion than I am, so I see no point in simply contradicting each other. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems far more enthralled with Chip Berlet than the world at large. Oh well, the old one eyed man is king sorta thing I suppose....BabyDweezil 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)