Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    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:




    The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons. — Athaenara 00:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BLPC category

    → In re {{BLPC}} template and Category:BLP Check

    I created this page, as a simple category, to flag BLP concerns quickly: WP:BLPC. It seems like a good idea. - Denny 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good idea. Watch it fill up. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully it clears even faster. :) - Denny 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good idea. Nice one. -- ChrisO 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP recentchanges page

    A link to Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people has been added to the RecentChanges page under the "Utilities" row, titled BLP. This can facilitate the finding of vandalism to biographies of living persons to avoid a "Sinbad (actor)-type" incident happening in the future. Cross-posted to WP:VPN, WP:AN, WT:BLP, #wikipedia, and #wikipedia-en. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreferenced BLPs

    There are over 8300 articles on living people that have the {{unreferenced}} tag. This is a list of them. (warning: pretty big page) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh shit, that's worse than I thought.--Docg 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just looking through a few of them, they have the unreferenced tag at the top but with no indication in the text what the problematic unreferenced material is. It would be good if people could be encouraged not to use the general unreferenced tag, but to add the fact/citation-needed tag to the contentious issues. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, {{fact}} should NEVER be used on contentious issues on BLPs. Uncited contentious material should simply be removed.--Docg 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, and originally the list was going to include {{fact}}-transcluders AND {{unreferenced}}-transcluders but the latter is a bigger priority, so let's do that first. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For now, I have completed my search. The result: 17 lists of articles (16 of which contain around 1000 articles) on living people that contain {{unreferenced}}, {{unreferencedsect}}, {{more sources}}, or {{fact}}. Over 16,000 articles on living people that are not completely referenced. Let's get working. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 16:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreliable BLP sources

    NNDB Notable Names Database

    Is the National Names Database a reliable source? The Talk:NNDB page discussion leans against using it. One editor mentions that Jimbo is very against it, especially as a primary source. It seems to be used quite frequently on biographies. I've challenged it on the Paul Wolfowitz page, but would appreciate more input from others. Notmyrealname 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it is not a reliable source for any sort of controversial or disputed information. FCYTravis 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this an official policy or just an opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    From WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." We do not know who the authors of the NNDB are, and thus we have no way of knowing how credible or trustworthy the information is. What we do know is that many of the articles (c.f. the NNDB article on Michael Jackson) are written from a clearly-biased perspective with the intent of generating maximum lulz. Our biographies of living persons policy demands the absolute strictest standards of sourcing and neutrality when we maintain a biography of a living person, and further requires that we use great caution in sourcing any claim which may be controversial, derogatory or disputed. Citing NNDB for something like a birthplace is one thing, citing it for a claim that someone was arrested for <insert scandalous crime here> is entirely another. Even then, it shouldn't be cited unless it's absolutely the last resort - and if it is, we probably shouldn't have an article on the subject anyway. FCYTravis 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran into one case where the NNDB said a person was born in 1954 but his WP article said he was drafted into the army in 1962. Steve Dufour 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the quote from Jimbo Wales-Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Wikipedia. To my knowledge, it should be regarded like Wikipedia: not a valid source for anything in Wikipedia. We need to stick to REAL reliable sources, you know, like newspapers, magazines, books. Random websites are a very bad idea.--Jimbo Wales 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Notmyrealname 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jewish Virtual Library

    There seems to be a similar problem as above with the Jewish Virtual Library, especially as a source for biographical information. Sourcing seems to be very vague and often cites wikipedia itself. A few examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]. As with the NNDB, if a source is determined to be unreliable, shouldn't it be prohibited from being listed in the references section as well? It seems that this might be used as a way to sneak in information that otherwise wouldn't make it into the wiki article. (I've tried to raise this issue on the Talk:Jewish Virtual Library page and the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources pages as well but this seems to be a particular problem for biographical info).Notmyrealname 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • I question whether the citations support saying he is an advocate of dominionism. What critics have written about him should certainly be mentioned, subject to due weight and neutrality. I think more, and more neutral, sources are needed before we can say Dobson advocates dominionism. Tom Harrison Talk 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources provided are acceptable, Salon, etc, as was noted by a number of admins when they where previously discussed at Template_talk:Dominionism. Odd nature 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think people expect WP to have a higher standard than Salon, etc. Steve Dufour 00:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I seem to recall that the arbcom in a RfArb on Satya Sai Baba assumed salon.com was reliable. I certainly think it meets WP:RS, as there is significant editorial oversight. 160.39.52.232 06:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying that Salon should not be used as a source. Steve Dufour 02:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This particular Salon article is an interview with someone who is promoting his book. It would be a good source for things that Chris Hodges said or thinks. He indirectly calls Dobson a dominionist. After looking over the talk page I'm not sure what the issue is. --Gbleem 12:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be part of a larger controversy focusing on the Dominionism-related articles. It appears that some sources say that Dobson is an advocate of Dominionism and some say that he is not, or that Dominionism doesn't actually exist as a broad movement within the Christian Right and is instead limited to a small fringe group not including Dobson. Is that right?
    Although I did not do independent research on this beyond checking some of the online sources that WP cites, I cannot find anything glaringly wrong in the paragraph in Dobson's article. I believe that the main dispute revolves around including Dobson as an "advocate" in the template. If the reliable sources don't agree on something, WP cannot take a position either way. Accordingly, labelling Dobson as an "advocate" of Dominionism in the template seems inappropriate. However, including Dobson in the template under "Other" or a similar label would be appropriate, because a reader interested in Dominionism may be interested in his article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have removed Rich DeVos from the list of 'Financiers of Dominionism' on Template:Dominionism. The only source I can find is one article in Rolling Stone. That is not adequate to support listing him on the template. Tom Harrison Talk 19:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I again removed DeVos (and Monaghan, see above) and blocked User:151.151.73.167 to keep him from adding them again. Guettarda regards my block as grossly inappropriate and urges me in strong terms not to do such a thing again.[5] I am not persuaded by his reasoning, but I appreciate his review and welcome further input. Tom Harrison Talk 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That template has been a source of trouble for a while. Like categories and article names, templates are hard to make NPOV. Guettarda is a level-headed guy, and I'm sure he's working towards consensus.
      • Regarding DeVos, this edit [6] to Amway removed several sources presumably about his connections to Dominionism. The unregistered editor described the material as: "original research" sourced from blogs. However I think some non-blog sources were also deleted. I've had it on my list to check through the deleted material to see if anything is salvageable but haven't gotten to it yet. Will Beback · † · 10:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I would certainly welcome wider participation. Tom Harrison Talk 13:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm missing something? Why isn't the Rolling Stone citation enough? JoshuaZ 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe because if it was true that DeVos, one of the wealthiest people in the USA, was one of the main funders of a off-the-wall extremist politicial movement the fact would be reported in other media as well. Nothing against the Rolling Stone. Steve Dufour 19:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Recently, edits have been made to the Tucker Max entry which violate the Wikipedia standards against slander and libel and are entirely unsourced, unverifiable information. These have mainly been made by the user Antiscian and anonymous editors.

    Generally speaking, the whole article has devolved into a slander-fest with little or no NPOV content. Most NPOV immediately information is removed and the focus remains on making unsourced, or marginally verifiable negative comments about the subject. At one time, the article had a fairly decent mix of neutral, balanced information, but over the past few months, that has been shaved away. It's best summed up on the talk page.

    In the interest of full disclosure: I am the IT Director for Rudius Media, Tucker Max's company. However, I think that it can be objectively said that the article as it is written (especially with the recent edits) is decidedly non-NPOV and definitely violates the BLP policies. It's certainly not encyclopedic. If this article is ever to resemble a quality entry, it's going to require some monitoring and perhaps even some protection. --ljheidel 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Added userlinks. I don't know whether or not this issue has been resolved. — Athaenara ✉ 12:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The content regarding Max's appearance on the Opie and Anthony show and his engagement at South by Southwest that editors keep entering into the article is also severely POV and non-encyclopedic. In both cases, editors have taken statements out of context, combined them with opinion and personal slant, then stated the amalgam as fact. (i.e. Opie and Anthony did not throw a book at Max, Max did not admit at SXSW to "spamming" anything, etc.) Thus the issue hasn't been resolved. --ljheidel 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This page is very poorly sourced, the majority of the cited sources are from the unabashedly agenda pushing Media Matters for America. Can I get some help bringing it to meet the sourcing requirements of BLP? The editors there simply do not understand that "multiple" sources are needed for negative material in a BLP article. Kyaa the Catlord 04:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see this as a BLP issue, but as a standard editing dispute. Per WP:BLP#Criticism: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material." O'Reilly has directly attacked Media Matters on-air, so in that context, their responses (as well as whatever statements prompted O'Reilly's initial criticisms) are notable and should be included. Obviously, care should be taken that this is done in a neutral manner. I do think that the "Controversy about O'Reilly's childhood home" section has some original research that should be removed, though. Ideally, this whole article should be merged back into the main O'Reilly article, but size considerations probably preclude that. *** Crotalus *** 05:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I agree that it is an editting dispute for the most part. I agree that Media Matters should be covered, but it should not be used as a source per the following wording in BLP: "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all." I've asked for multiple sources to back up the MMfA sourcing, but these have not been presented in the article. The related problem to having these sources not being presented is that "If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article." If the criticisms of BOR were more than that of a tiny minority, we'd be able to find more reliable sources than simply the partisan MMfA. (And I'm prepared for people to say that I'm wrong, I'm ok with that.) Kyaa the Catlord 06:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also of note, it is somewhat questionable that the "criticism of BOR" article is larger than the BOR article. Kyaa the Catlord 06:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add that a highly critical study of BOR has been inserted as factual evidence that BOR insults people on a regular basis which appears to go beyond criticism involving BOR to direct criticism of BOR. Arzel 15:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To me it seems like the article is not really about "Criticism of Bill O'Reilly." It is more like an outlet to repeat the criticisms. It seems more like a political website than an encyclopedia article. Steve Dufour 19:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and it appears to be quite common on BLP articles. Arzel 01:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If politics was excluded from WP about 90% of the problems posted on this noticeboard would go away. Steve Dufour 00:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I made some edits that I hope vitiate the POV nature of the study in question. Since the controversy has drawn replies from BOR and a FOX producer, I think it's notable. Best, MoodyGroove 19:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

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

    I haven't had a chance to read through everything carefully, but some recently added content here seems a little biased (and I say that as someone who is no fan of Burton). Also many of the references cited are bare URL links expired articles on a newspaper site. I dunno if these can be recovered from archives at the newspaper site, but the article doesn't provide much in the way of context to help locate them. older ≠ wiser 22:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Date, source, and article title are insufficient for you? Quatloo 23:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the references are just fine -- there are some that are problematic though as in undated and dead link and a search of the site for the given title revealing no hits. older ≠ wiser 10:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is a date, source and title, there is no "problem" with a dead link, since you can consult the source at a library or archive. There is no restriction that a source be live on the Internet. That would be absurd. Undated links, that is a different issue altogether. Quatloo 18:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but if the link does NOT provide sufficient information it is not very easy to retreive this -- it is the dead, undated links that I was remarking on, not the other sufficiently cited sources. older ≠ wiser 12:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Fredwerner added to the intro,[7] "The 5th District is one of the most gerrymandered districts for Republicans, essentially guaranteeing his re-election despite his frequent golf trips, mis-statements, and other embarrassing scandals." To help me refine my blp-detector, does anyone see a problem with that? Tom Harrison Talk
    I don't think it needs more refinement. There is a clear problem with that statement. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 02:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The three pages I listed above apply here to the issue addressed in the initial report. It is an ongoing and widespread problem. User:Quatloo's tone, which implied that it is an editor attitude issue rather than an encyclopedia issue, was inappropriate. — Athaenara 03:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Then it should have been explained better. The complaint was about being unable to track something down because it was not on the Internet, even though the links had enough information. It should not have been framed as a source issue if the issue was actually something else. If you reread, it is as if "I can't find this source on the Internet without leaving my comfy chair, and things that are not on the Internet do not exist." An anti-dead-tree bias. When I checked the references had titles, sources, and dates. Quatloo 04:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read the Wikipedia:Civility policy? — Athaenara 07:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was, and am, being perfectly civil. Quatloo 10:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While Quatloo's response may not have been especially polite or helpful (and perhaps even a little bit snarky), I wouldn't consider it as uncivil (speaking as one who has made an occasional curt or snarky remark myself). My point was (and is) that some of the dead links did not and do not contain sufficient information to retrieve them for verification (whether online or in dead tree format). A further point, was that some of the recent edits seemed to be decidedly biased -- and the editor was inserting these dead links as supporting evidence. It is not as if these links were inserted long ago and only recently went dead. It looked to me as though someone with an axe to grind against Burton may be using unverifiable (or at the very least, unverified) sources to insert biased comments. older ≠ wiser 12:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My statement was entirely serious and not intended as a snipe. Because of its nature Wikipedia has a problem with offline sources. Also certain non-good-faith editors take advantage of the problem of offline sources by fabricating them in order to put false information in the article, but this is a somewhat rare occurrence. More frequent is an editor not believing a valid offline source and removing it or worse. I experienced a problem with an editor repeatedly removing a copyvio tag I had added because he simply could not believe parts of an article were copied from... Encyclopaedia Britannica. Even though he could easily have checked this. His reasoning -- it wasn't online in a place he could see it. His convenience of checking the suorce was paramount, and the truth was apparently unimportant. Quatloo 23:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a fairly common occurrence, especially on articles about political figures with strong ideological convictions (as well as with some other contentious issues), for editors to cherry-pick details from a print source to make the source appear to more strongly support a POV than a balanced reading of the text would warrant (or even worse, would completely misrepresent and distort the information in a print source). I've no problem with print sources, so long as they are appropriately cited. older ≠ wiser 02:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately it seems that this article and now this noticeboard are being attacked by the former User:Gibraltarian. He has an appalling record of sustained abuse, edit-warring, sockpuppeting and vandalism (he even repeatedly vandalised his own request for arbitration, which I've never seen happen before or since). He was banned by the Arbitration Committee in January 2006 - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian - and has now been permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. However, he's continuing to use 212.120.*.* IP addresses to edit/vandalise articles and talk pages. He is essentially an obsessive xenophobic crank whose M.O. is to delete anything (even if sourced) that doesn't fit his POV and add anything (which he never sources) that supports his POV. He's now taken his campaign to Juan Carlos I of Spain where he's repeatedly deleting Juan Carlos' title of King of Gibraltar, which is verifiably part of the Spanish royal titles. He's also deleting this message from the noticeboard.

    I would be grateful if BLP watchers could add this article to their watchlist and revert any edits coming from 212.120.*.*. Please don't block an individual IP for more than a few hours - he's using Gibraltar's largest ISP and indiscriminate blocks cause too much collateral damage for our saner Gibraltarian editors. -- ChrisO 17:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In this edit (which was rightly reverted within minutes) he also (as 212.120.239.37) removed quite a lot of material from other sections of this noticeboard. — Athaenara 02:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's doing this repeatedly now. I just reverted his latest attack. He's simply rolling back to the rant that he posted at 14:43, 5 May 2007, and wiping out everything that everyone's posted since then. It's completely typical of the egocentric vandalism which he's inflicted on Gibraltar and Spain-related articles for nearly two years now, unfortunately. -- ChrisO 09:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article Juan Carlos I, King of spain is repeatedly being vandalised by ChrisO, who inisists on adding the false title of "King of Gibraltar". After the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 (as demonstrated in the talk page) monarchs of spain no longer enjoy that title. The article is about this specific individual, and he simply does not have such a title. The ONLY Sovereign of Gibraltar is Her Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. This is a simple fact.

    In light of the spanish govt's avowed intention to attempt to annex the homeland of the Gibraltarians irrespective of their democratic wishes it is highly offensive for someone like ChrisO, who clearly knows nothing about the issue to insist on calling a foreign monarch "King of Gibraltar", when this title is so demonstrably wrong.

    No doubt ChrisO will attempt to vandalise this contribution as well. Chris0 is behaving in an obsessed trollish manner. The "ban" on Gibraltarian was totally unjustifiable by any means, he did NOT request arbitration, it was the troll user: Ecemaml, and it was HIM who repeatedly vandalised anything he posted in his defence. For too long WP has been used as a platform by some for peddling their racist poison, and spreading their fascist inspired lies. Gibraltarians only "crime" was to stand up against this blatant racism from Ecemaml and others.

    This is not an issue of POV, it is a simple fact. Juan Carlos is NOT, repeat NOT "King of Gibraltar", and this title has not belonged to any spanish monarch from 1713 onwards. This is the sole prerogative of the Sovereign Power, in this case H.M. Queen Elizabeth II.

    The contention that Juan Carlos enjoys the "King of Gibraltar" title is not only demonstrably wrong, but also highly offensive to Gibraltrians. WP has a duty to truth and accuracy.

    No doubt Chris0 will attempt to vandalise this too. Please do not allow this. 212.120.239.110 10:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW, even the spanish govt does not make this claim, and the spanish royal family's own website does not claim this either. It is just ChrisO being a biased troll, nothing more.

    Anon IP, probably a sock of the banned user Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), repeatedly re-inserting contentious material, much of which sounds like classic well-poisoning to me, and is unsourced in terms of direct relevance. Hornplease 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    After extensive overhaul and watchlisting by the LGBT studies WikiProject, this list had finally reached a high status of attribution and reliability. Then someone added Jackie Clune, a British journalist who identified as a lesbian in the past and currently identifies as straight, based on this source, which clearly states that she does not wish to be identified as bisexual. I tried to remove the entry ([8]) and was reverted, and then brought the issue up on the talk page. Yet, after weeks of absence, the issue has yet to be resolved. Please advise. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 15:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I read the article you linked to and it is far from obvious to me that Clune "currently identifies as straight". In fact, it seems to me the whole point of her article is that she refuses to be categorized by labels such as "straight" or "bisexual", etc., but considers herself (and others) as on a "continuum, the polarities being absolutely straight and absolutely gay." But I would agree she does not wish to be called "bisexual", although that seems a rather minor point to her overall message. I'm not sure if this is really a BLP issue; Clune clearly revels in her ambiguous status and publicizes it heavily (she wrote an article, makes it part of her comedy act, etc), so it's highly unlikely her inclusion on this list could somehow affect her life negatively. ---Chan-Ho (Talk) 17:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP#Use of categories
    Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:
    • The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question;
    • The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.
    This doesn't explicitly say it applies to lists too, but common sense would suggest it does.
    Moreover, the BLP policy says that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles." It doesn't have to be negative; positive and just questionable material should be removed too. Ken Arromdee 23:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I was unclear above, although I would suggest reading the article linked and then my response. Clune's sexual preferences are definitely relevant to her notable activities and public life. She also makes a habit of publicly self-identifying as on a continuum between straight and gay; she basically coyly suggests she would be what many people call "bisexual" while stating "hey, don't call me bisexual!" to make her philosophical point. So I don't believe this is the kind of "questionable" material that the BLP policy is meant to be applied to. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 04:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to get into questionable content, perhaps you should take a look at the Jackie Clune article itself, where "she currently identifies herself as straight" is supported by the linked Guardian article I discussed above. My reading of that article is that she doesn't actually do so and I would say that is truly questionable. By the way, I think applying these category criteria would essentially smoke the list; this kind of list is always problematic, and it doesn't appear to have been set up to follow these criteria. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 04:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides that, how can we know for sure that a person is bisexual? Ask them? Steve Dufour 05:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In lists about people, Wikipedia:Categorization of people applies. We cannot and should not make assertions about a person's ideology, sexual orientation or other such personal issues, unless that assertion is made by the person himself and such assertion is publoihsed in a reliable source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For instance, Ian McKellen is legitimately categorised in Category:LGBT people from England because he self-identifies as such and is a prominent LGBT campaigner. -- ChrisO 00:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The point I was trying to make is that if bisexual means having feelings towards both genders we really have no way to know for sure because we can not measure a person's feelings. However, I would support a list of bisexual people if that was defined by them saying that they were. Steve Dufour 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to Chan-Ho, the line you're looking for is at the very beginning of the article: "I decided to "go back in" and went straight." Clune says explicitly that she went "straight" -- an easy equivalent to "heterosexual" -- not that she went back to men, or any other such ambiguous statement. She didn't say, "I'm attracted to both sexes, but I don't like labels; she said, "I'm straight." How can she possibly be included in a list of bisexual people when she does not now, nor has in the past (as far as I'm aware) identified as bisexual? LeaHazel : talk : contribs 17:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I don't think she should be put on any list. Steve Dufour 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Frank Colacurcio runs a number of strip-clubs in the Seattle area and is the alleged head (or former head) of the Seattle Mafia. Considering that claim is well-referenced in the article via the external links, I thought much of the article was be fine, so I left most of it alone. But I'm not 100% sure, and there was a claim in there that Colacurcio was associated with former Washington State governor Albero Rosellini, and one sentence that went as far as to say Rosellini was suspected of running the mob that Colacurcio once headed. I went ahead and removed that line, but given the article's anemic sourcing, I'm wondering if more drastic actions is necessary. The article has details on the rise of Colacurcio from associate to boss, and without footnotes, I am unsure if any of that is permissable under WP:BLP. hateless 21:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, for one thing, none of the linked articles suggest that he is in fact Mafia, although one Seattle PI article imply he has been accused of that or at least of being an organized crime boss. That article is basically about him defending himself and denying these allegations. This biography seems rather shady to me. The Seattle Weekly article seems more like an opinionated attack piece, and I certainly would not put it as a reliable source. Currently, his WP bio has nothing really about his life apart from his past criminal activities and allegations. And yes, not knowing where certain fact(?)s are sourced from is a major problem. Some books are listed, but they mainly seem to be about other people. One book is "Orders to Kill: The Truth Behind the Murder of Martin Luther King", which doesn't inspire much confidence as a reliable source. So this article seems riddled with problems. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 05:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for examining the article Chan-Ho. The Seattle Times published this article on their homepage today that Colacurcio is being investigated for five murders in the 70's and 80's, and that he was once considered Seattle's connection to the mafia, but "more likely, investigators have concluded" that he was the head of a organized crime outfit. Given this material, and whatever sources left on the page that can be relied upon, how far back do you think the article be scaled back? hateless 06:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the late response. Anyway, I would say most of the article before "recent years" section should just be deleted and the 100% factual parts can be added in, but in a better way. The real issue is that even the correct facts are introduced or mixed in with speculation. Also, the lede is highly unsatisfactory. Describe what he is and what he does (retired businessman who ran series of strip clubs, now a consultant), and then a statement saying something like he is being investigated for being an organized crime head is sufficient. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 04:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Blpwatch

    It has been remarked by the above user and some others the inclusion of the name Bob Dylan on this list, as well as reference to his prior seemingly well documented conversion to a form of Christianity on his own page, might potentially be grounds for a libel suit. The article has even been proposed for deletion on the basis of including that particular name. Please advise whether you believe there are possible grounds for legal action here, and/or whether the evidence cited would seemingly be enough to include the name on the list and/or information relevant to the topic in the Bob Dylan article itself. John Carter 14:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Grounds for a libel suit? Why? Could you please link to the part of the talkpage that discusses that? Hornplease 14:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Found it. It's on the List page, not the Dylan page, in case anyone is looking. "To label a practicing Jew as a "convert to Christianity" is potentially libellous." OK, whatever. Hornplease 14:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Documentation" for conversion is virtually nonexistent. Dylan was born and raised a Jew. Dylan spent two years (1979/1980) performing in a "Christian" mode. Very arguably his "sermonettes" delivered from the stage were a prop to support his professional performance. He has since been seen re-involving himself in many Jewish-oriented pursuits and activities. Most importantly -- Dylan has had no involvement with Christianity since he stepped down from the stage of his last "Gospel" concert in 1980. Without the active negation of his Jewish identity there is virtually no argument to be made in support of the labeling of Dylan either as a "Christian" or a "convert to Christianity." Bus stop 13:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard here is "verifiability, not truth". Since this is verifiable [9],[10] (15 additional sources cited in the article/list) as per wikipedia policy, there are no libel issues here. JJay 13:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've always had the feeling the Dylan was influenced by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Steve Dufour 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue would not even exist if not for a contrivance in the parameters of the list in question. See here. Bus stop 14:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    All you have to do is compare the two sets of parameters if you have any doubts which is more natural, logical, or commonsensical. I think you will see one is clearly a contrivance. This list (List of converts to Christianity) stands in contrast to those Christians who are not converts to Christianity. There are, in actuality, only two means of arriving at Christianity: by birth, and by conversion. The natural parameters of this list are those parameters that distinguish those on this list from those who arrive at their Christian identity by means of being born Christian. It is an added criteria contrived by editors to define this list as including "all those notable people who have ever converted to Christianity." And that contrivance is quite simply to get superstar Dylan onto the list. It is just a contrivance. Bus stop 15:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, why not take a little dose of WP:AGF and stop accusing other editors of contrivances? Often these sorts of problems with lists can be solved with better definitions of the criteria for inclusion. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking about this some more, although I think this isn't really a WP:BLP issue and that Bus Stop is a bit over the top, I'm not sure that we are doing the best job of informing our readers by characterizing Dylan a "convert" to Christianity based on a three-year flirtation with it nearly thirty years ago. Mere lists with no other information about the topic are pretty uninformative in general. Perhaps Dylan's entry on this list could say that he converted to Christianity but abandoned it three years later? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Project for the New American Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I came across this article while checking the through the contributions of user Boscobiscotti whom I had met on the Harvey Mansfield talk page. I found numerous problems (weasel words, unsourced or poorly sourced comments, original research) in the controversies section and moved most of them to the talk page. A disagreement ensued between me and Boscobiscotti after he restored most of the content. I admit that I may have been a little harsh with him initially, and to his credit, he has made substantial improvements to the article since that time. I am asking that someone not directly involved in the content dispute review the article for neutrality and conformity with biographies of living persons due to the notability and high profile of the subjects of the article in question. Best, MoodyGroove 20:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

    The first 2/3 or so is OK but there are problems with the "Controversy" and "Criticisms..." sections. The former, in particular, needs to be better sourced. In its present form it reads too much like soapboxing. The relevance of the latter section to PNAC is not clear. Raymond Arritt 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the Criticism section seems irrelevant? and how exactly is BLPC involved? Discuss please?--Boscobiscotti 03:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The narrative in the "Criticisms" section doesn't mention PNAC explicitly. To this outsider it reads like a general critique of U.S. policy, with mentions of various individuals. The connection to PNAC presumably was obvious to the writer but it is not obvious to the reader. Raymond Arritt 14:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I added {{BLPC}} to the article to put it in Category:BLP Check and added {{Blp}} to the talk page. There is a little bit of friction on the article talk page about this because it's not immediately obvious to all editors why there are WP:BLP policy concerns. — Athaenara 02:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    yes. how is discussion of how to characterize the theories of a think-tank a biography question?? Also I want to note that MoodyGrove mentions coming upon the article in question by looking at my contributions. The implication is that the content was produced by me. In fact my contribtions to this article prior to Moodys deletion of the entire controversy section were minimal. When I stumbled upon the deletion, I reverted it because I felt it deleted much material which was well sourced along with some questionable items. I felt it was not done in good faith, because the entire Controversy section was removed, including sourced material. I have put alot of effort into sourcing as much as I can, and removing any POV. I have agreed with some of MoodyGroves criticisms and asked him/her to help by countering controversies with alternate POV.--Boscobiscotti 03:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple of points here. First, I did not mean to imply that you originated the content, although I did find the article while looking through your contributions. In fact, I may have found the article by clicking on a wikilink in an article that you edited. I only mentioned that I found it while looking through your contributions in the interest of full disclosure, because I have nothing to hide, including the fact that we had a disagreement on the Harvey Mansfield talk page. It was an attempt to be transparent, and I regret any confusion. Second, I don't appreciate your comment that my edits were not in good faith, and I ask you to retract that comment. I didn't just delete material, which I had every right to do (and perhaps should have done). Rather, I moved the questionable content to the talk page, with bullet points for each. The "sourced material" you're referring to was part of a connect-the-dots narrative that was original research, in my opinion (a fact that I explained where appropriate). That's hardly a bad faith edit. Finally, it's clear that all material on the Wikipedia needs to be well sourced and accurate. Considering the notability and high profile of the members of PNAC, and the fact that the article lists them by name, I believe that the intent of biographies of living persons applies. Arguing that this article is somehow exempt from Wikipedia policy on the grounds that it's not, strictly speaking, a biography, borders on WikiLawyering. We are currently discussing on the talk page whether or not to include an alleged controversy that implies PNAC members somehow condone genocide, based on a book review in a Texas newspaper. Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, Dick Cheyney, Dan Quayle, et al. That is reason enough for the article to be seriously reviewed for compliance with all Wikipedia guidelines, including biographies of living persons (for obvious reasons). MoodyGroove 14:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
    • Although this edit was a huge improvement, based on this line of reasoning, user Boscobiscotti now acknowledges that the genocide controversy is not notable and was most likely added to the article to spread misinformation about the PNAC. As such, I am asking that all traces of it be removed from the talk page in compliance with biographies of living persons. I would be bold and do it myself, but I have been directly involved in the content dispute, so I'm looking for support from the community first. Best, MoodyGroove 12:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
    • I don't acknowledge that it was "most likely added to the article to spread misinformation about the PNAC" - That is a mischaracterization of my view. I simply agreed to the logic that it was a minority opinion, and therefore not of great enough note to be included in the article. The PNAC themselves have a letter published on their website on the subject, and the article with the inital concern is available via the Austin-American Statesman - without a retraction. In additon there are well documented sources http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/03/02_400.html which point to an uptick in secret bioweapons research in the US. This is not to say I support the Austin-American Statesman view, I am agnostic on this. I think it is not sufficiently sourced to be currently credible. I think that my proposed NPOV analysis should be left in the talk page as a neutral note on this controversy - to be available as counter-evidence to people seeking to promote this theory.
    "Kip Keller in a book review of an article on a historical book on eugenics in America. [11] quoted the following line from the 2000 PNAC report: "Advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."[1] as evidence that PNAC supported a "gene bomb", which horrified him. He continued

    That anyone could support the targeted extermination of a specific ethnic group -- i.e., genocide, the ultimate eugenic practice -- is unthinkably appalling; that Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol or any other Jew could do so is an irony too tragic for comment.

    The Austin-American Statesman refused to issue a correction stating that the quoted sentance was "ambiguous." PNAC responded with a letter > refuting the claim, and explaining that the context of the quote was "methods of warfare U. S. forces may face, not ... actions we recommend." and that indeed no recommendation for use of biological weapons was made in the report. The letter went on to state:

    Keller's outlandish accusation ... is both disgusting and utterly false.... [to] selectively use a quotation from the report without providing appropriate context but also then accuse people of supporting "genocide" is truly appalling.

    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boscobiscotti (talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • To clarify my statement above: 1) It is very unlikely that PNAC supports genocide -2) I do find a more likely reading that PNAC supports US research on "gene-targeted bioweapons" for defense reasons. . 3) I think my NPOV statement does a decent job of presenting the PNAC defense against 1) and it, or something similar should be left on the talk page to point to for people who come along promoting 1) .--Boscobiscotti 20:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take another look at how the genocide "controversy" was portrayed in the article, and tell me with a straight face that it was not intended to spread misinformation about the PNAC. Regards, MoodyGroove 18:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
    • "Critics will often quote..." is a weasel phrase, and "as evidence of a violently racist lean" is not only unsourced and unsubstantiated (hence pseudo-information), but intends to stigmatize or injure (in my opinion). I agree that the second half is a snythesis to advance a position. Regards, MoodyGroove 20:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
    Much of the offending material has now been removed, but there's a lot still to come out. Blog posts of the sort referenced on this page are generally inadmissible even under WP:RS; few of those linked are written by avowed experts on anything. That said, there's a deeper point here: can the strict rules of BLP be taken to apply to articles about thinktanks? I don't think they should be; it's a slippery slope from there, to companies, to political parties, to entire countries, which are, after all, collections of living people. Hornplease 02:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad this situation is being resolved, but I'm concerned about extending BLP to organizations too. Not that we should insert unsourced material anywhere, but the special enforcement mechanisms of BLP need to stay restricted in order to remain practical. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The only real difference between BLP and non-BLP articles is that in BLP articles, we enforce all the normal rules strictly, with less discussion required. The normal rules are still the normal rules. No group, organization, or person, living or dead should be slandered with poor sources. Blogs shouldn't be sourcing anything except information about the blog itself, provided certain criteria are met. There was some discussion recently about a modified version of BLP for organizations. I'm not sure what came of it. - Crockspot 03:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A slight caveat: blog posts - self-published sources more generally - are permissible under WP:SPS if written by a generally agreed 'expert'. (Not sure why Melanie Phillips, for example, is considered an expert on anything.) Hornplease 06:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the question about whether we should extend BLP to political parties or countries, it depends on context. A claim that America supports genocide probably isn't an attempt to suggest that each individual American does so, let alone each of a list of Americans named in the article. Ken Arromdee 13:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: Are credited blog or web-magazine sources generally allowed as sources for that persons own views, opinions or analysis? --Boscobiscotti 23:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbuthnots and circular referencing

    → See also: Arbuthnot family section in the Conflict of interest noticeboard archive 10

    I am sure some of you have been following the sad tales of the notable and non-notable members of Category:Arbuthnot family. While looking through them, I have found a worrying amount of those that are referenced are linked to references which have also been written by the primary author User: Kittybrewster (Kittybrewster infers on his talk page that he is in fact "Sir William Arbuthnot Bart" and it is Sir William Arbuthnot Bart who is listed as a contributor to many of the references concerned. What is the policy if any on this, and what action should be taken? Giano 11:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is another relation of Kittybrewsters Michael Broadbent again the only ref a family tree is on a site of which Kittybrewster is the webmaster. Giano 13:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing wrong with citing oneself as long as you knew what you were talking about when you wrote it. See Citing oneself and Vanity guidelines. Have you considered programming a bot to automatically delete all of his articles? I'm really worried you might miss one and leave a single spec of worthwhile information somewhere on Wikipedia. Chris Croy 16:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Giano, I apologize for being overly aggressive. After spending more time perusing his articles(I checked out about a half-dozen before I posted and all appeared to be fine in a C-class sort of way), they would seem to be generally undercited and sometimes read very...listyish. Chris Croy 00:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem Chris, but I do object to my edits being removed by others [12] Giano 11:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that if one were searching for editors who have caused Wikipedia to lack worthwhile information, User:Giano II with his collection of Featured articles would be a rather poor place to start. Newyorkbrad 21:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is a strangely aggresssive attack against an editor trying to keep Wikipedia articles encyclopedic and properly referenced. Even if you do know "what you were talking about when you wrote it," that's got nothing to do with proper referencing, since it's not something a reader has a chance to check. Basing an article on knowing about your own relatives is something that militates against Wikipedia's credibility; as Jimbo has stated, the time has come to go for quality, not quantity. Clicking on Chris's links, I find that Citing oneself reads in full: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." That's not what User:Kittybrewster's Arbuthnot stubs do, unfortunately, please see the discussion here. As for Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, also invoked by Chris, it's a redirect to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a long page. Not sure which part of it is meant to apply here. Is it "Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article"? Bishonen | talk 23:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    I think Bishonen has summed up the situation well. I've asked Kittybrewster to stop editing the articles about himself and his immediate family, and to stop adding his website as a source or external link. I don't think that deleting the bulk of the material he's already contributed would be helpful, though particular articles may be dispute or AfDed (List of Provosts of Peterhead, for example). -Will Beback ·:· 01:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How is the WP:BLP policy implicated here? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Independence of third party sources? LessHeard vanU 20:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the articles brought to AfD so far are about living people. DGG 01:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, one was: the article on Kittybrewster himself. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus, BLP concerns derogatory or controversial information about those people and there is no indication above that such information is present in the articles. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I hadn't looked at any of the articles before making my suggestion. However, BPL does have guidelines regarding the use of ones own publications as references (as it is indicated is used by the author) which might be applied to biographies generally. Also, and I realise that this is stretching it a bit, it appears that the family is still extant and the series of articles is about them. Knowing a little bit about British family tree culture it could be argued that the family is a living entity and could fall under the scope of BPL.
    I should think that Giano is the appropriate person to ask, although he hasn't yet responded to ObiterDicta's initial enquiry. LessHeard vanU 20:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I share the belief that WP:BLP/N need not worry very much about the Arbuthnot articles. Even if all the concerns (above) are well taken, the most that could be said is that too many articles are being kept, and the info is too genealogical. There is still an Arbuthnot issue open at WP:COI/N and it's not so clear what to do there. The genealogy site kittybrewster.com is sometimes actually helpful, so asking for all those links to be removed might not be the best plan. Individual Arbuthnot articles can certainly be nominated for deletion, if you have concerns. The propriety of adding the link to kittybrewster.com without an individual Talk page consensus can be questioned. EdJohnston 00:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, kittybrewster.com is owned by User:Kittybrewster, who is Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet, so you can understand why this is beginning to look like spam to some. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Equerries

    I am wondering how notable half these living people are in Category:Equerries, the majority of Equerries are unreferenced, and is the position notable? - It is usually a short term draft from one of the Armed Forces to be basically a male Lady-in-waiting to the British sovereign - the appointement usually lasts two years and is appointed on affability rather than any military honour. What is the feeling on this? Obviously some qualify as heros of baronets but the others. Giano 13:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Per se - perhaps not. But take each on a case by case basis. If the information is verifiable, and otherwise unproblematic, then there is no pressing reason to delete.--Docg 13:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem to be a reward, and most certainly a personal honour, meted out to senior (but not the most senior) military officers. It may be viewed as an "honorary chairman/vice president" type of recognition, although the post does carry some responsibilities. It is what the British refer to as "jobs for the boys". As suggested by Doc, treat it on a case by case basis. If it is the only matter of note for an individual then I would be inclined to delete it, but would try a quick Google search to check if there were any other (marginal?) claims to notability. LessHeard vanU 21:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Historically, equerries have achieved notability either because the position was traditionally a stepping-stone to higher things, or because they have leveraged their positions of extreme closeness to the sovereign. (George III's equerry wrote a tell-all memoir.) Not really the case any more. In any case, why is a BLP issue? Hornplease 01:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    → See also: Crystal Gail Mangum section in BLP/N Archive 16 - section #14.

    Assuming you mean the criminal history section, I think most of the information should stay. She is notable for the rape accusations. This makes information about other accusations and about her credibility much more relevant to her notability than it is for, say, a musician.

    And it's derogatory in the sense that it makes her look bad, but merely being factual about her makes her look bad. Ken Arromdee 14:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If nothing else, there shouldn't be any unsourced claims. Sounds obvious but I already took one out.--Wizardman 15:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there should be no unsourced claims, but the original complaint above is that "while it's sourced," the article is derogatory. Ken Arromdee 18:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, its that its irrelevant and makes her look bad. It appears that the question is which aspects of the case are notable enough to be on her article, rather than on the case article. I support stubbing that section and writing it again from scratch. Hornplease 01:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I think the whole thing is a blatant coatrack. Moreschi Talk 14:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hockey stick controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Editor RonCram has alleged that Michael Mann, a prominent climate researcher, knowingly made false claims in an article published in Nature (one of the most prestigious journals in the sciences). Note that the editor is not merely stating that Mann's claims were false, but that he knowingly made false claims. This is the most serious charge one can make against a scientific researcher. So far, the allegations have appeared only in edit summaries[13] and the article's Talk page[14], but given the seriousness of the allegation it is still a concern. I'd appreciate guidance from those more experienced in these issues. Raymond Arritt 22:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed the talk page discussion; there does not appear to be an RS for this allegation. Unless one can be provided, Ron Cram should obviously cease making accusations in edit summaries. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 14:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Natalee Holloway is an article about a missing person, who may or may not be alive. However, I received an email of complaint from a family friend, so it may be one to watch and apply stringent content policies to - David Gerard 18:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I added the Living people cat so that recent changes to the article appear in our monitoring tool. I also added a commented-out comment stating why it's there, and not to remove it until her living status is confirmed. Watchlisted as well. - Crockspot 19:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Living people" category, while it may "feel" like the right thing from a humanity standpoint, is almost certainly incorrect and should probably be removed. Quatloo 05:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it should if the consensus is that she is dead. If the concern is simply one of ensuring that BLP concerns are met to protect WP, it's on my watchlist now, and I'm sure on a few others. Hornplease 09:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jim Gilchrist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I. The first paragraph refers to his separation from the Minuteman Project only from the point of view of those who seized control, without reference to Gilchrist’s counter-allegations of criminal conduct on the part of the board members that engineered it. I corrected this to give an objective account, listing both sides of the dispute, but it was reverted.

    II. Under the section “Minuteman Project” Gilchrist’s role while he was head of the Project, is referred to as “former head of the Minuteman Project.” This is obviously a factual error. Gilchrist was obviously not acting, at that time, as the “former head” but as the “head.” It would be the same to say, “Abraham Lincoln led the Union Armies as the assassinated Commander-in-Chief” The fact that it was phrased that way, drawing attention to the one-sided coverage of the controversy noted in (I.) above, is a clear indication that the intent of this article’s author was to give a negative spin to Gilchrist. I corrected this to read “as head of the…” but it was reverted.

    III. Gilchrist’s lawsuit against the MP board of directors is noted and its legal status. But while all of the board member’s allegations against Gilchrist are detailed, no part of Gilchrist’s side of the story is told. This is biased coverage. I corrected this, including reference to Gilchrist’s side, and not removing the defendants’ side, to regain some objectivity, but it was reverted.

    IV. Under the section “2005 Election Bid” Gilchrist’s ballot results are negatively spun by the very deceptive phrase: “He was the only one running under his party, and therefore automatically advanced into the run-off.” It gives the impression that the only reason he made the general election ballot, was that he was the single candidate in the primary from his party (a common occurrence in all political parties). That impression is absolute fiction. Gilchrist would have been on the ballot in every system in the country that files candidates by Party. That Primary not only reduced the number of candidates from each Party to one, it established that among that group Gilchrist finished SECOND. I corrected the article to reflect the reality but the correction was reverted.

    V. Although the section entitled “Religious Views” was designed to stereotype Gilchrist, it is offensive, on its face, to every social conservative, as well as the pro-life and marriage movements. Referring to the conservative postitions on abortion, homosexual civil unions and same sex marriage as “Religious Views” is a propaganda tactic of the Left. It would be comparable to calling support for Abortion Rights or Gay Marriage “Atheist views.” Gilchrist’s Roman Catholicism is “Religious.” His political positions on human rights and marriage are “Political.” This is another blatant example that this is not an encyclopedia article but a liberal propaganda piece. I corrected it, including all the existing information and wording, adding nothing, but the corrections were reverted.

    VI. The section entitled “Criticism” is no more valid as an entry than would be a section entitled “Praise.” It is also unquestionably biased. It falsely implies racism against Gilchrist. It gives undocumented and one-sided allegations by a radical left-wing organization (that supports illegal immigration) quoting only an unnamed person as the source. This alleged person is quoted at length but no quotation (by an actual person) refuting him is allowed. The opposition organization was also allowed to question Gilchrist’s sincerity, but their own sincerity was held above suspicion. This is a hit piece. I corrected it, leaving in the SPLC allegations, but the correction was reverted.

    VII. The section “Criticism” includes the inflammatory sentence “In a March, 2006 interview with the Orange County Register, Gilchrist stopped just short of calling for his followers to pick up their guns.” This incredible sentence floats a statement Gilchrist literally DID NOT MAKE to engineer slanderous implications about him. Let me give you a similarly constructed sentence that is equally true: The Wikipedia article about Jim Gilchrist stops just short of saying he is a Nazi who plans to incinerate Jews. // 76.22.9.247 06:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I. You'll need to cough up a citation for this.
    II. This would appear to be a good change. Chances are the reverter simply looked at some of the changes, noticed a few key words, and reverted the lot of it.
    III. Again, you'll need to add a citation, especially if you/we are accusing them of criminal acts.
    IV. I'm having some trouble understanding you, but I think you're right. I'd throw a few related citations in there and see if the changes stick then.
    V. Generally speaking, abortion views do cleave sharply along denominational lines. If you believe God puts a human soul into every single little embryo the moment it's conceived and all human life is equal in value, it's pretty clearly murder. If you don't agree with the logic every step of the way, it's not. I'd look for an infobox like what Rudy Giuliani has and put the religion part there, then move the stuff from religion to politics like you did.
    VI. Criticism sections are standard in most articles. For example, look at the article on the SPLC. It's criticism section is called 'controversy' but it amounts to the same thing.
    VII. Yeah, that one's a little inflamatory. I'd suggest replacing it with a quote or two from his interview with John Lofton. "If I have to say yes or no, then I would say, yes, [homosexuality] should be outlawed." or "Oh, yes. [The government's] organized, it's legalized, organized crime."
    Chris Croy 07:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Our policy says:

    The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

    Are the critics who criticize this person a minority or a majority? That is, are there a lot of critics who say he works with neo-Nazis, or just a few? Moreover, the views of critics must be based on reliable secondary sources. These critics use an anonymous source as the secondary source; that is not reliable.

    It's true that the SPLC has what is in effect a criticism section, but the SPLC is not a living person. Ken Arromdee 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This article includes a list of about 70 lawyers who have done legal work for the Church of Scientology. (6 of them have WP articles of their own.) I'm not sure what to make of this. It might not be a living persons violation but it does seem kind of strange. Steve Dufour 19:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed some of the names about which no sources were provided. There is a need to check all other names to ensure that these are all reliable sources for the claims made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jossi, every name on that list was sourced. There were two general source links that covered everyone on the list who didn't have a specific citation right after their name. wikipediatrix 02:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is the case and to comply with WP:BLP, please use the <ref name=theref /> format so that each entry can be verified against a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am quite concerned about this list's compliance with WP:LIVING which quite frankly goes beyond whether the lawyers are Scientologists or not, particularly given the high quality standard of source material required for potentially defamatory information about living persons. The article describes numerous allegations that Scientology abuses the legal system, some of which are quite serious and would amount to professional misconduct on the part of any lawyer involved. Immediately below follows an indiscriminate list of lawyers that are supposed to have acted for Scientology at one time or another (for many of which the only source is a single web page describing them all as 'shysters' without any evidence). The implication is obvious. I have raised these legitimate concerns on the talk page, but the editors involved have chosen to respond with unilateral reverts and blank assertions that the list is 'relevant'. What can be done to get some objective intervention on this? -- Really Spooky 00:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does not specifically accuse these lawyers of wrongdoing, or of anything else, for that matter. Furthermore, the article does not state that they are Scientologists themselves, so I don't know why you would even mention that. There is no "supposed to have" about it - are you saying you doubt that any of these lawyers have actually done work for the CoS and its entities? Tell me which ones. wikipediatrix 02:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said the article contains direct accusations, but rather that it stigmatises them by implication. The list is juxtaposed in an article discussing Scientology lawyers' misdeeds, which is something the law calls 'innuendo', and would be sufficient for any one of them to start a defamation lawsuit (at least in England, not sure of the position in America). The only other way I can see of dealing with this is to include a clear disclaimer above the list to the effect of wikipediatrix' words above, namely that inclusion in the list does not imply any wrongdoing or misconduct on the part of the lawyer or that s/he is a Scientologist.
    My concern on the WP:LIVING issue is not whether a particular lawyer has actually done work for Scientology or not (that is an issue of mere factual accuracy) but rather the innuendo issue I raise above. Having said that, there are several on the list without any or any conclusive references (Blakely, Bokor, Pesce and Sanders to name a few, I haven't checked all of them), and the quality of most of the source material is very poor indeed, definitely not up to the high standard required by WP:LIVING. -- Really Spooky 02:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    PS - See WP:LIVING#Sources#Reliable sources, which hopefully should make clear the issue I am talking about here. - Really Spooky 02:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article most certainly does not "discuss Scientology lawyers' misdeeds", so there goes your whole "juxtaposed innuendo" theory out the window. The only misdeed mentioned is the frivolous-lawsuit fine given to Helena Kobrin. wikipediatrix 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As you well know, the article is full of comments about Scientology harassment, surveillance, intimidation and threats by unnamed people, and not just the Kobrin incident. I can assure you, those are all misdeeds. The article also says Scientology spends millions of dollars on legal fees to accomplish these things (presumably not just on Kobrin), and then provides a list of their lawyers. Anyhow, I'm not going to argue with you further on this point, as you are clearly not interested in any other point of view than your own. I trust other editors less emotionally attached to the list of lawyers will see what I am talking about. -- Really Spooky 03:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the list. The sources largely fail to meet reliability requirements, and are clearly not neutral. The list is an attempt to attack living people by associating them with COS, and as such clearly violates both WP:BLP and WP:NOR. FNMF 02:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And you're violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA by presuming to know that this list was "an attempt" to attack anyone. You've also insulted our Scientologist editors by claiming that mere association with the CoS constitutes an attack :) Can you explain exactly how the list is an attempt to attack living people by associating them with COS"? You kinda have to do more than just SAY that, you have to show some sort of, you know, reasoning. wikipediatrix 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the attorneys are not being accused of anything, but are simply being listed as lawyers who have acted for the COS, then there is nothing notable about them, and there is no reason to include the list. Who somebody's lawyers are is not encyclopaedic information. FNMF 03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur, this list is inappropriate trivia. It is peculiar that Wikipedia does not sport such lists for other organizations. Quatloo 05:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Scientology and sex

    Sorry to have to mention another Scientology article, but an average of one a day are being written. This one mentions some Scientologists who have done nude scenes in movies. The implication seems to be that somehow this is a contradiction of their religion without any supporting evidence given. Steve Dufour 05:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You've completely failed to read what the article says, then. It does not say, nor does it imply, this is a contradiction of their religion. wikipediatrix 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of this page is to deal with factual inaccuracies or defamatory comments about living people. I don't know about Mimi Rogers or John Travolta, but I saw Eyes Wide Shut and Nicole Kidman was most certainly nude there. Don't know if she was a Scientologist at the time, however. -- Really Spooky 05:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no factual inaccuracies in this article. Since the bit about movie stars is about 5 percent of the article, it's preposterous for you to insultingly claim that the "purpose of this page" is to make defamatory comments about them. wikipediatrix 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    wikipediatrix, I think you have simply misunderstood my comment. By 'this page' I was referring to this Noticeboard, not the Scientology article. The point I was trying to make to Steve Dufour is that the Noticeboard is only for dealing with factual inaccuracies or defamatory comments about living people, whereas the statement that Nicole Kidman has appeared nude in a film is neither factually inaccurate nor does it strike me as defamatory. It appears that Steve Dufour understood my comment correctly (see below), although he disagreed with me. -- Really Spooky 15:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't question that. However the article seems to be saying that they are going against their religion by doing so. That could be defamatory. Steve Dufour 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article doesn't "seem" to be saying any such thing, in fact, it's saying just the opposite. wikipediatrix 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the offending sentence: "Despite the anti-sexual attitudes inherent in Scientology doctrine, many Scientologist actors have appeared nude or nearly nude in films, such as Mimi Rogers, John Travolta, Nicole Kidman, and others." The word "despite" makes me think that a problem is being pointed out. BTW most Scientologists that I know personally seem to have fairly normal sex lives. Steve Dufour 13:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And on the basis of that single word "despite", you brought this to the BLP noticeboard?? No problem is being pointed out by the "despite". It's actually supporting your own position that most Scientologists are sexually normal, by noting that despite the previous sourced information about Hubbard's Pain and Sex edict, Scientologists are apparently still free to do what they want. wikipediatrix 13:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the article should be about "L. Ron Hubbard's opinions about sex". As it is now it implies that all Scientologists have views and practices based on the things he had to say. Steve Dufour 13:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no, it implies no such thing. The article isn't about Hubbard's opinions, it's about what is contained in official Scientology doctrine, and it is flawlessly sourced and referenced in that respect. The section you are trying to remove is, ironically, the part of the article that supports your own position, since it indicates that Scientologists apparently do have free will to do what they want, sexually. But like a Catholic who doesn't always agree with the Pope, that doesn't change what is written in official Church doctrine, and that is what the article is about. wikipediatrix 14:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then change the title of the article to "The official Church of Scientology doctrine on sex", if that is what the article is really about. Steve Dufour 14:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Anecdotally, I don't think Nicole Kidman was ever a Scientologist. She's self-identified as Catholic, and a videotaped interview (which I still have a copy of) recorded just after her breakup with TC had her stating that the difference in their religious beliefs wasn't a factor in their breakup. Anchoress 05:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    She was taking Scientology courses under Tom's nagging, and some sources say she actually reached OT II. You can be a Scientologist and still be Catholic, or so the CoS says. wikipediatrix 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Does taking Scientology courses make you a Scientologist? Her article has her in the category 'ex Scientologists', but there's nothing in the article itself about her relationship to Scientology. Anchoress 14:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A Scientologist is defined as "a believer in Scientology". Presumably one believes in Scientology to some degree if they are involved in it, and spending the money to be taking the courses. (Especially if she got all the way to OT II.) wikipediatrix 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In California, especially, lots of people take courses and so forth in various spiritual type things without becoming members of anything. Steve Dufour 07:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That section needs to be removed for violating WP:NOR, if nothing else. If there is a source that describers a duality between nudity and the CoS religious dogma, you can re-add it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been carrying on an ongoing discussion with a man who says he is Anna Schmidt's stepfather and would like to add information about her current custody arrangements -- specifically that her mother has custody of her and she has not seen her father since March 2006. The stepfather wants to know the correct way to submit a personal statement that can be used a reference for this article. The information is currently included in it, but I added a citation needed tag. Who does he send his personal statement to, what can he include in it, what's the proper procedure, etc.? Can sealed court records be used as a reference?--Bookworm857158367 18:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Under the guidelines and caveats at WP:SELFPUB we could consider including material published by that person in his blog, or personal website. But it needs to be published somewhere outside Wikipedia first. Sealed court records cannot be used as these are not verifiable ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    An article called Ryan St. Anne Scott references a personal statement submitted to Wikipedia by the subject of the article. That personal statement was vetted by someone on the living persons noticeboard. There's also a statement in your guidelines that people are allowed to correct facts or improve upon their own articles. It seems that this man should be able to submit a personal statement like Ryan St. Anne Scott did, as his stepdaughter is a minor and he is one of her legal guardians. Who should he send it to and how can it be added as a reference? --Bookworm857158367 01:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm the editor who did some work on the Ryan St. Anne Scott article after a report on this board. I'm not entirely sure that the same approach would apply to information from someone claiming to be Cara's new husband and Anna Schmidt's legal guardian. Scott was the subject of the article and wanted to correct information about himself. That was only possible to a very limited extent; the editors who had worked on that article had done a good job. The stepfather is not the subject of the article and the information (have not been in contact with their father since March 2006) is not about himself but about the biological mother and father (as well as the daughters).
    Jossi is obviously right about the necessity of an independent secondary source in a general sense. However, common sense indicates that this specific information could be used if provided by the biological parents or the subject (who is now 16 years old) without any secondary sources reporting on it if we're reasonably sure of the identity of the person(s) providing the information. I'm not sure however about Anna's current stepfather.
    Having said that, someone claiming to be Anna's current stepfather, like anybody else, is allowed to comment anything on the Anna Schmidt talk page. There are also other ways such as mailing a request to the Foundation. Once the information is made available to Wikipedia editors, they are free to use, ignore or (if it violates policies) remove it. (In Scott's case I started by removing a lot of unacceptable material and integrated what remained into the article, using common sense and BLP in equal proportions.) AvB ÷ talk 10:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At the moment I'm inclined to leave his statement in the article with a citation needed tag. I advised him on the article's talk page to write or fax a statement to the owner of Wikipedia and to provide some proof of his identity. Whatever he's doing is apparently with the input and at the request of his wife and stepdaughter. --Bookworm857158367 12:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume the objectionable information is the section removed in this edit. However, that information is both well-sourced and neutral, meaning that it is an editorial issue about whether to include it, and not one relating to WP:BLP. Trebor 13:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. The BLP policy has a section about private figures which specifically says that material must be relevant to the figure's notability, something which we don't do for articles in general. By your reasoning, all the allegations that had to be removed from Richard Gere would also not be BLP, and I don't think that's correct. Ken Arromdee 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Being sued for libel strikes me a highly relevant to a person who is notable as a journalist. What was the nature of the information removed from Richard Gere? It's difficult to see what point you are making about without at least a diff link, and I can't be arsed to go fishing around the archives to try to understand something you haven't bothered to explain yourself. -- Really Spooky 14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Spooky here. The libel trial got major press coverage and he is a journalist. JoshuaZ 14:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What they said. I presume the Gere information is related to this RfC (which appears fairly widely debated anyway). In which case, I'd say there's a difference between including an allegation about someone's personal life, and an actual event which relates to someone's career (as libel relates to journalism). Trebor 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The whole "Controversy" section could be removed as it just talks about this libel suit and a tiff he had with a Scientologist the other day. As it is these two minor incidents take up about half of the article. He seems to be well respected and accomplished as a journalist. Steve Dufour 06:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree, I'd say his notability has stemmed primarily from the recent controversy. But either way, I still feel this is an editorial issue - the information is neutral and sourced. Trebor 13:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never heard of him, but I don't live in the UK. The article says he has had a 20 year career as a journalist and has won several awards for his work. Steve Dufour 15:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Beatrice Arthur

    Is it properly and adequately documented that American actress Beatrice Arthur was born a hermaphrodite, as her Wiki bio says in its present form? I've followed her career for decades, yet this nugget of information somehow escaped my attention until I happened to read it today! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeygator (talk • contribs) 03:05, May 18 2007 (UTC)

    DISREGARD...within the several minutes that have elapsed since I posted this, the bio has been edited and no longer makes reference to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeygator (talk • contribs) 03:12, May 18 2007 (UTC)

    A.J. Pierzynski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article is a tireless, unreferenced rant about controversial incidents that this professional baseball player has been involved in, how much of this can be confirmed is unknown, but it is badly POV the way its topic is presented, the language of the text is irrelevant, it is the content that sways this article. I didn't know where else to go because comments as such in the past have been roundly dismissed or unacted upon. I stumbled on it because I added an image replacing a blatant copyvio I tagged for speedy deletion. Thanks and if you can let me know what happens with this on talk page too.IvoShandor 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think that this article clearly violates the undue weight section of NPOV. As it currently stands, it consists of about 15% discussion on Pierzynski's life and professional career, and 85% discussion of various "incidents," many of them relatively minor. The section "Pierzynski and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" should be removed; there are no sources, and the incidents described (fielding errors and intentional beanings) are not at all unusual by MLB standards; these kinds of things happen quite often and shouldn't be specifically noted here unless there was significant news coverage of that particular event. As for "Pierzynski and the Chicago Cubs": Pierzynski was fined two thousand bucks by the league for relatively minor misconduct. Is there any evidence that this was widely reported on? Again, no sources are given. Any unsourced information should be removed, and, if reliable sources can be found for the above, they should be summarized in one sentence apiece (giving the proper weight; i.e. very little) rather than droning on for paragraphs. *** Crotalus *** 19:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just from memory most of the reporting revolved around Barrett's conduct. But the other stuff, I have no idea whether or not it can be confirmed. I haven't really looked, as I said I just kind of stumbled on the page, so I tagged it and commented on the talk page, but I don't edit it or anything, I hadn't even seen it until today actually. : ) IvoShandor 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Morgan

    Hello there,

    I keep removing unsourced references to John Morgan's IQ as per policy of the Biographies of living persons. The various agruments have included that it is public knowledge (I am from the public and have asked many in the public, all of whom have answered negative to that statement) and that most people, including a significate amount of untracable non-users, disagree with me so I am wrong.

    I have just been accused of Edit Warring for what I consider to be vandalism because it is unsourced. While I think IQ is hardly encyclopedic and should not be included or hinted, in this particular case it seems extremely biased, putting the person in question in a very favourable light which could be taken as braging/glotting or extremely intellegent and therefore should not be opposed, both of which are hardly views of impartiality. I am removing any mention to IQ as I believe it to fall under Biographies of living persons policy that "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous". I am notifying you as I am not comfortable with being accused of Edit warring when I believe myself to be following policy. --Kirkoconnell 00:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Shane Ruttle Martinez

    I received a complaint from the subject of this article, which indicates that libelous info is being added by IP address 72.143.225.236. This is information I won't repeat here, but this is the link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shane_Ruttle_Martinez&diff=131832585&oldid=131831879

    The subject's complaint to me continues as follows:

    "This is serious slander, completely untrue, and I demand that this claim be deleted from the history of the article, and that the user who posted it be disciplined. Additionally, he and Dogmatic and Swatjester have violated my privacy by adding a reference to my having been arrested. This is very misleading, since while I was arrested, all charges were dropped and I have never been convicted of anything. Moreover, there are legal proceedings underway in which I am suing the police.

    My understanding of accepted norms and practices within the media is that old arrests which never resulted in convictions, are not usually mentioned, because they are prejudicial. Furthermore it is a violation of my privacy, as I was found innocent of all charges, and the grounds of arrest were called into serious question before the court (hence the lawsuit against the police). Also, the source of information is a tabloid newspaper which is not considered credible by any reputable researchers.

    Lastly, these editors keep adding references and a link to a libelous DVD about me, produced by a neo-Nazi group which has sent me repeated death threats, and has attempted to engage in witness intimidation during my participation in a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal against neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Adding references to this DVD in the article is a form of personal harassment, and since the DVD is also libelous and will soon be the subject of a libel lawsuit, it is unacceptable for Wikipedia to include a reference to it, let alone make it easier for people to find it and order it from this neo-Nazi group."

    Frank Pais 13:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ Kip Keller, Austin American Statesman, November 16, 2003
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=132042184"