Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Number OneNineEight (talk | contribs) at 16:28, 23 December 2008 (→"Do no harm"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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.

    Samir Kuntar

    Can others take a look at 2008 Israel–Hezbollah prisoner swap and its recent editing history? Kuntar was convicted for murders in an Israeli military court, yet edits noting the top-secret nature of his conviction and the lack of forensic evidence for his conviction have been repeatedly silenced by "Rami R." And this is so in an article that makes repeated references to Kuntar's guilt, even to the point of impugning the reception he received in the Arab world ("Mona Charen wrote: 'What can you say about a people who welcome a child murderer as a hero?'"). Such selective editing is not libelous, but incendiary and contributes to cross-cultural misunderstandings, rather than efforts to bridge differences. Slandering Kuntar in a medium in which he cannot respond does not help.

    Do talk page comments count?

    This editor makes inappropriate comments about (living) researchers and professionals with whom the editor personally disagrees about sexuality. The garbage in the articles usually gets cleaned up, but the comments on the talk page, such as today's "Bailey was a sex addict and purposely chose a gay sex bar to do his research on transsexuals because it was where he knew he would find sex and fetishs there" usually don't. The editor appears impervious to subtle hints, persistent in this behavior, and of course I'm not sufficiently dedicated to the Bailey-hating camp for my opinion about rude remarks against him to be of the least value to the editor. Would someone unrelated please take a look from an impartial perspective and consider an appropriate level of education or warning for the user? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not familar with the specific comments in the talk so I can't say whether or not it is a violation but I do know that BLP applies to talk pages. This is an excert fromWP:BLP. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space --70.24.179.138 (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk pages are not forums where anything goes. If slanderous/libel material is introduced there, it should be removed. Talk pages are for discussing how to improve articles, not forums to trash individuals. --Tom 19:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So do you think that calling J. Michael Bailey a sex addict is libelous? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Only a court of law could determine that, but I think it is potentially libelous and I'd be surprised if a typical Wikipedia contributor's opinion to that effect, not cited to any expert, was genuinely relevant to the creation of an encyclopedia article. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that the purpose was to assert that nothing in Bailey's book or written by anyone sympathetic to the sexologists' views on the general subject of the book (femininity among men, and more relevantly the sexuality of transwomen) should be accepted. The editor seems to use insults against the author as a way of "proving" that the asserted facts are inaccurate.
    But what can we do about it? The talk page is toxic in general, and the editor is specifically unlikely to respect anything I say. Should we ignore it? Is it worth an RFC? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin D. Weiss

    Over at Martin D. Weiss, a newbie editor (from uploads at commons presumably close to the subject) has removed a section about some 'Securities and Exchange Commission' stuff previously added by an anon. (Its also possible that they are the same person, since the pix uploaded on commons were added to the article here by anon).

    Could someone please review the insertion / removal and make a call as whether the material should be kept or not? I'm willing to clean it up and do the sources legwork if its decided that the material should be kept in substance. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just now noticed this section. Earlier today (20 December) I posted a refimprove tag, had a minor grammatical tweaking and deleted the empty "officeholder" infobox. Comments? Willking1979 (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems ok to me now. The SEC section seems a little apropos-of-nothing; would it make sense to pull it up into the biography? -- Fullstop (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bernard Madoff address

    In reading WP:BLP Privacy of Personal info: "Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted."

    My question is whether this is an absolute prohibition, i.e should "should not" be read as "may not"?

    Bernard Madoff's addresses have been released by reliable sources, eg times online (Times of London). When a major fraud like this is alleged, I think it's important that people know that the alleged perp has some assets, so a general description of them seems reasonable. IMHO the addresses don't add much of anything to the article, except perhaps a very faint smell of a lynch mob. So I looked up the policy, and to my reading, the addresses should be deleted. Several others disagree. Let's follow the noticeboard's advice.

    Thanks for any help.

    Smallbones (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The neighborhood is appropriate, but not the actual street address or coordinates. If he were a resident in a notable building, like The Dakota, then it might be acceptable to mention that but that's an exception to the rule. (We should probably limit the list of notable occupants to former residents, for privacy, but that's a different topic.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. It almost seems that those adding his address expect someone to pay him a visit. Creepy... Xasodfuih (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lyndon LaRouche

    An editor keeps adding non-notable and probably defamatory accusations to the lede. I have called the BLP policies to his attention on the talk page numerous times now[1], but he keeps re-adding the claims. I would appreciate it if someone could intervene. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the text in question:
    Number OneNineEight has repeatedly deleted the phrase "an anti-Semite, a fascist or neo-fascist". Those assertions are highly notable, having been made by such notable individuals as Senator Patrick Moynihan, writer Mike Royko, and DNC chair Terry McAuliffe, to name just a few. The subject himself has commented on them. The editor above is not assertin that the material is poorly sourced, or taken out of context. BLP does not prohibit reporting well-sourced, commonly made assertions about public figures. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. A selection of sources that support one of those terms is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#"Fascism" citations, and more sources can be found at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive15#Section on anti-semitism is incomprehensible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With just 6 edits (1 on this page) we have to be careful not to WP:Bite #198. As long as the citations are there WillBB seems to be correct. Smallbones (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ten edits, if we include those before he registered.[2][3][4][5] Whether he is a new user is also open to question, given the facts that almost every new user on that page has turned out to be a sockpuppet of a single editor and that this user seems familiar with policies and noticeboards. But either way I don't think there's anything "bitey" here. If there is I will gladly retract it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Undue weight?

    Please note that I am saying that these claims are being given undue weight by being included in the lede. I am not suggesting that they be excluded from the article generally. They are also claims that were made by some notable figures in the late 70s and early 80s, but are not made by any notable figures today, and the formulation that Will Beback keeps adding creates the false impression that these views are widely held now. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't object to changing the tense. His supporters have regarded him as a brilliant and original thinker, whereas critics have seen him variously as a conspiracy theorist, an anti-Semite, a fascist or neo-fascist, and the leader of a political cult. That would keep readers from thinking that all of those assertions were made today. As for what he was called 20 years ago versus what he's called more recently, that's irrelevant. The subject was most prominent in the late 1970s through the 1980s. Nobody has retracted their comments. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing the tense does little to correct the false and derogatory impression created. Please explain why the difference in what LaRouche was called 20 years versus today is "irrelevant" -- the fact of the matter is, accusations that were made erroneously are no longer made. As far as retractions are concerned, Royko and Moynihan are dead, and newspapers don't issue retractions unless there is legal compulsion. They have however changed their tune. Your claim that the "subject was most prominent in the late 1970s through the 1980s" is unsubstantiated and false. LaRouche probably got more press coverage this week in Europe than in any typical week in the U.S. back in the 70s-80s. Why would you want to give special emphasis to outdated information? The material in the lede is supposed to be proportional to the emphasis in the article. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The information is not false. It is entirely correct that the subject has been described in the ways listed. Each of your complaints has been addressed: first you said that the critics were insignificant people, then it was shown that prominent individuals have made the charges. Then you said it should only be what appears in "newspapers of record", and it was shown that these terms have appeared in the Washington Post and New York Times. Next you said that the wording made it seem that these were current charges and the text was changed to put it in the past tense. Now you are complaining that some of the commentators are dead so presumably their opinions expire as well. The bottom line is that this is neutral, well-sourced, relevant material which has the proper weight in the article's introduction. It has been there mostly for over a year and a half, and has been discussed at length on the article talk page. Your recent deletions have been reverted by several uninvolved editors, so this isn't a solo campaign on my part. Please either point to a specific policy or guideline violation, or stop deleting the material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With the exception of the disputed sentence, the various positive and negative comments in the lede are all attributed to specific notable persons. The claims of "fascist" and "anti-Semite" are merely footnoted to a list of non-notable "critics." I think that we would have a better balance if these claims were attributed, like the others, to someone notable (like for instance Moynihan.) --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When one or two people say something, it's worth attributing it. When numerous people say the same thing, from a variety of backgrounds, then attribution makes less sense, especially in the introduction. We can include the entire list in the main text if folks think it's desirable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that you are extremely scrupulous about attributing favorable comments about LaRouche, even going so far as to insist that comments in a newspaper article be attributed in the text to the author of the article[6], presumably to avoid conveying the false impression that some editor there might have agreed with it. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, the "fascist" claim has not been there for a year and a half. It was added last month. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The exact forumulation was most recently added November 1, but it's been in the article and even the intro for years. Here is a July 2004 version: He is generally seen as an extremist or a cult leader, frequently accused of being a fascist and anti-Semite. [7] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    listing?

    Listing every accusation is not really the same as NPOV -- as long as the charges are made in the body of the article, enumerating them all in the lede seems a tad like overkill. And I don't like LaRouche one whit. Collect (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    These aren't "every" accusation made about LaRouche. Not by a long shot. They are the most frequently and prominently made charges. If we limited it further to only the most widely held views we'd have to delete the sympathetic views, which appear mostly in self-published sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IIRC, WP policy is that the number of charges made in the lede should be kept to a minimum (I think Hitler was given as an example). There is plenty of room in the corpus proper for listing all the sins of the subject, all the lede need do is indicate that some such criticisms exist, not to enumerate them. Ditto positive comments or paeans made about the subject of an article. I do, of course, assume that there is plenty of room later in the article to include all the desired criticisms of the subject. Collect (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Godwin's Law! If we limit ourselves to the minimum, then the assertions that were deleted should be kept, and the phrase "political cult" should be removed. And the unsourced part about him being "a brilliant and original thinker". This isn't a matter of including "sins", but of widely held viewpoints. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A minimal version, including only the most widely used terms, would be something like, He has been described as a conspiracy theorist, an anti-semite, and a fascist. Any obections to that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I object, because it is incorrect. The most widely used terms for LaRouche, based on my informal survey of Google News, are "perennial candidate," "maverick Democrat," and "economist." You indicated earlier that you had some sort of special interest in Dennis King and Chip Berlet, and I think you are going overboard trying to put a spotlight on their claims. BLP says that criticism must be "presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." --Number OneNineEight (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't write articles based on informal Google surveys. The text in the article that you keep removing is in a neutral tone. It is not irresponsible, as it is well sourced. Regarding King and Berlet, you said that none of his significant critics had made these assertions. I asserted that they are significant critics. They, along with prominent individuals and "newspapers of record", have made these assertions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your assertion doesn't make King and Berlet into significant critics. They are obscure and inconsequential. And the newspapers of record stopped making these claims for a good reason. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What good reason is that? Source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wriggling?

    This all seems to be wriggling around a bit. First the accusations were characterised as defamatory, and then when they were shown to be cited statements by others, the objection was that they shouldn't be in the lede. The lede needs to be our best shot at describing the topic if that's all the reader has time for. So the question to me is, how important to understanding LaRouche is it to have a fairly wide range of views represented in the lede? I'd say it is pretty important, omitting them would leave a fairly incomplete picture in the minds of readers. I know this will make me unpopular with some folk, but oh well. I think BLP policy isn't being violated here, and the material, as modified, should remain in the lede. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you saying that accusations cannot be both defamatory and "cited statements by others"? Number OneNineEight (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think some sort of attribution would be appropriate, as well as making them time specific, for example, "at one time, LaRouche was called x,y, and z," or better still, "in the 1980s." --Leatherstocking (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd be fine, except that it'd be more like, "in the 1970s, '80s, and '90s." "At one time" implies these comments were made on only one occasion rather than over a long period. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "At various times, he has been" I think would be the most elegant formulation, but I agree with 198 that the lead is unbalanced. It's one of those leads on Wikipedia that one reads and thinks, "Heh. Someone had an axe to grind!" 86.44.18.218 (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Plainly the dispute was always about the info in the lead, not the article, and 198 said "probably defamatory", presumably with an eye on these claims not being current. So you've prefaced your opinion with some gratuitous badmouthing, why I know not. 86.44.18.218 (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are sharply contrasting opinions on LaRouche. At various times from the 1970s to the 2000s, his supporters have regarded him as a brilliant and original thinker, whereas critics have seen him variously as a conspiracy theorist, an anti-Semite, a fascist or neo-fascist, and the leader of a political cult.
    Aside from repeating "various" twice, that's fine with me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to dispense with all the unattributed comments. Just say he's controversial, that opinions about him vary widely, and then provide a sampling of those opinions. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are a sample of the opinions. They are widely held views, so attributing them would make it look like the attributed person is the only one holding the view. That level of detail belongs in the text of the document. The intro should just be a summary of the most significant points. Saying that someone or something is "controversial" tells the readers little. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not widely held views, but including them without attribution makes it look like they are. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    lol i'm sure that is fine with you. You're an administrator? And that's your effort? Fascinating. 86.44.18.218 (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you getting at 86.44...... (whoever you are)? I'm not sure you're contributing much to substantive discussion here. Let's stay on point, hmm? Does the lede need to present an array of the widely held views? Or should it focus only on what supporters think? If not, how do we pick and choose what to include? The rule of 7 might help here. Further, is it true, as alleged here that the negative assertions are "slander"? That they're result of a "lavishly funded" disinformation campaign? Or is that itself disinformation? Seems to me that allegations, if widely held, are relevant even if they're not true. If only to let the reader know that they exist. We should not lead the reader to making prejudgements. But I don't think it's unacceptable to let the reader know, for example, that George Bush II was widely held to be fundamentalist, intellectually incurious, or more concerned with legacy than impact,(picking some stuff at random here without regard to my own personal views) regardless of actual truth. ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is unacceptable to let the reader know those things about George W. Bush, but under my reading of BLP, it would be undue weight to put them in the lede of his biographical article here, and sure enough, they are not in the lede. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comparable information is included in the Bush article, in the last paragraph about his popularity and controversies. To take a different example, the article on David Duke (who achieved greater success as a politician than LaRouche), includes this material: Duke has been criticized as an antisemite for his public statements that assert Jewish plots for world domination, and as a white supremacist, while Duke claims he is a white nationalist. We can find all sorts of examples that include or exclude this type of assessment, so I don't think it's a helpful strategy. Getting back to the issue of weight, it's always hard to define what the proper weight for an issue is. But since these terms have been used so often in regard to LaRouche it appears that placing them prominently is the correct weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Do no harm"

    At BLP it says "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The accusations of fascism and anti-Semitism are clearly intended to damage the reputation of LaRouche. LaRouche has repeatedly stated his opposition to fascism and anti-Semitism. The motives of those who make the accusations need to be examined (for example, DP Moynihan was being challenged in an election campaign by a Jewish member of the LaRouche organization when he made his comment.) Lar says that the lede is supposed to serve as a "snapshot" of the article for those who are too busy to read the fine print. Therefore, putting these accusations in the lede does harm to LaRouche's reputation without providing the reader with information which might correct a false impression. I'd like to hear from Will Beback why it is so important to him that these accusations be in the lede instead of being in the body of the article. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Larouche has been described as an original thinker, and as a cult leader, as anti-Fascist, and as Fascist, and far more by his supporters and his critics." Collect (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could OneNineEight explain how placing this material in the lede, versus the body, would harm Lyndon LaRouche? LaRouche is a public figure. People have been saying things like this about from for thirty years. That appears to be the weakest argument. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was submitting what I would consider a valid compromise -- then give the details in the corpus of the article, but leave the lede a summary. Collect (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't quite understand the meaning of the last clause in this context. With the addition of "anti-semite" that compromise would be fine with me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It lists two distinct sets of comments, "anti-Semite" would be the third discrete item. I would suggest "and far more" covers it well enough, and gets past the impasse. That is why I suggested it. Collect (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, the term "anti-semite" has been used more commonly than "cult leader", based both on my own research and on an informal Google search. However, Collect is right that it's one of many labels that get applied to this subject. If it'll settle this dispute I'll agree to his proposal, which is an accurate, brief summary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reality check: "anti-Semite," "fascist or neo-fascist," and "the leader of a political cult" are all defamatory, period. It doesn't make any difference who said it or where it was published. The courts in the U.S. are notoriously lenient towards defendants in defamation cases, which is why LaRouche doesn't get sued by the people he attacks. The correct wording for the intro would be:

    There are sharply contrasting opinions on LaRouche. His supporters regard him as a brilliant and original thinker, whereas critics variously see him as a conspiracy theorist and a political extremist. --72.251.91.14 (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the above is a responsible wording which also reflects the most common criticisms. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    'Do no harm and reality check - LaRouche's reputation can not be hurt by what's in this article. It's just saying that other people (in widely distributed publications) have said these thing. The reality check is that these other people have said "anti-Semite," "fascist or neo-fascist," and "the leader of a political cult" and that LaRouche has not successfully sued them for defamation, and since we are just quoting them there is no possibility of defamation. This is well within the rules, get over it. Smallbones (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He has sued repeatedly but has never won, so far as I recall. In one famous case, he sued the ADL for calling him a "small-time Hitler". The judge ruled that it was a "fair comment". Another time he sued NBC for defamation. But his group played dirty tricks on NBC reporters and they countersued. He lost and they won, and when he refused to pay the damages they were able to investigate of his finances, the results of which were used in evidence during his criminal trials. (And that's not to mention his group's harassment of journalists.) Press relations have never been the movement's strong point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In those cases where the courts have ruled against LaRouche defamation suits, Wikipedia and its editors are free to write things like "anti-semitism" rather than "allegations of anti-semitism." This is no more against Wikipedia's rules and policies than reporting that somebody is a convicted felon. Smallbones (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is just a game to you, isn't it? In the real world, Wikipedia does enormous harm to countless reputations, because the Wikipedia article is generally the first thing to come up on Google. According to Rachel Marsden, who should know, "Wikipedia is nothing more than the biggest and most prolific defamation machine that the world has ever known." For the gamers, like yourselves, it's OK to publish defamatory material if you can blame it on someone else (e.g., a "reliable source.") And as I point out above, no one wins defamation suits in the U.S. It isn't "not defamatory" because a court hasn't ruled against it. I wish that Wikipedia were governed by persons of honor and integrity, rather than by editors gamers who do whatever they think they can get away with. --72.251.90.203 (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Defamation is a legal concept. A statement is "not defamatory" when the court finds somebody innocent for saying/print it. Defamation is certainly not the same as saying unpleasant truths. Please consider the case of John R. Brinkley, once he sued the AMA for calling him a "quack" and lost, anybody was free to call him a quack. Smallbones (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    72.251.whoever.you.are (why are there so many IPs commenting here? no, don't answer, I already know why...) for many LPs that have BLPs here, Wikipedia is a huge source of concern, because it's an aggregation of information that almost no one would have seen in one place, they're marginally notable and perhaps shouldn't have articles at all. However, for Mr. LaRouche, I suspect that Wikipedia is a rather small concern, as the further damage that can be done to his reputation is... almost nil. The balance in the lede needs to be kept about where it was before all this started. Mr. LaRouche has some interesting ideas to be sure, but if a judge ruled that "small time Hitler" was a "fair comment" than I don't think the lede is unbalanced when it points that out. ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair comment is also a legal term, which doesn't exactly mean what you might think. It is used as a defense in defamation cases, and it can mean that it is permissable to make "a statement known at the time to be false, or which was made with a "reckless disregard" of whether the statement was true or false," so long as the statement cannot be proven to have been made in "actual malice." --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plaintiffs [LaRouche group] have linked prominent Jews and Jewish organizations both in this country and abroad with the rise of Hitler, Nazis and Fascism, the international drug uade, and a myriad of purported conspiracies that have bedeviled the United States and the world at large, including a conspiracy to assassinate the U.S.L.P. leader, Lyndon LaRouche. At a minimum, under the fair comment docuine, the facts of this case reasonably give rise to an inference upon which the A.D.L. can form an honest opinion that the plaintiffs are anti-Semitic. (p. A-13)
      • U.S. Labor Party et al. v. Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, No. 79-11470 (N.Y. App. Div., 1980). Quoted from Secret Agenda - The United States Government, Nazi Scientists and Project Paperclip, 1945 to 1990 by Linda Hunt (1990); pp. 149 quoted on laroucheplanet.info
    That's from the actual verdict. It doesn't appear that the judge thought the ADL was making a statement with "reckless disregard". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He certainly doesn't say that LaRouche is anti-Semitic. He says that the ADL may be excused for drawing an "inference." --72.251.90.240 (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be missing the point from that spam-sponsored proxy of yours. The lack of need for the judge to rule conclusively on the anti-semitic (not a fact relevant to any court proceeding, after all) nature of the LaRouche movement is irrelevant to the legal fluff that your allies have diverted this topic along. Nevard (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bert Newton

    Ok So-ri biased

    Someone that can read Korea please write some more about her career, so that the article is less biased towards the adultery case. All English sources I found focus on the adultery case. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ole Nydahl, use of problematic sorses in controversies section

    Sources are problematic, because they are taken out of context like this one [8] referring to an event solved in year 2000 as an "ongoing controvercy". Highly critical quotes are from anonymous sources or non-english sorces. I have been trying to debat the questionable sources, remove them when no answer came and argue why I did this. They are however replaced. True there is controversies, but it seems unfit to say that someone calls him "a self-promoting schmuck and quasi-cult leader" without even knowing who said that.

    I tried to ask the editor in question to cooperate to find reliable sources, both in my edit comments, on his discussion page and on the talk page. He gives no response to this Siru108 (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey

    FYI, based on a conversation on Jimmy Wales's talk page:

    Your feedback is appreciated. rootology (C)(T) 19:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew and Jeff Conaway

    Much negative unsourced content; can someone familiar with show or actor try to sort out fact from fiction here? Kablammo (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Wendy James

    Entry seems to have a great deal of negative unsourced material. 98.14.164.155 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed large chunks of it. The article badly needs rewritten though.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, I think. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems far more like it. Thanks, people. 98.14.164.155 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am concerned over the section David_Miscavige#Treatment_of_staff. This is sourced to a podcast by Tom Smith that may have been broadcast by a college radio station (see article talk page). It is not hosted on the station's official site, however. The content is corroborated to some extent by an article in a minor alternative weekly, The Portland Mercury. While the author of that article is named, I note that according to our article on it, the Portland Mercury's most popular feature is one "in which local readers are encouraged to submit anonymous, usually impassioned, and often incendiary letters to the city at large". Apart from that, I cannot find any coverage of these allegations of Miscavige beating people up in more reputable news media. In fact, on the whole Internet, I get only 91 google hits for Jeff Hawkins + David Miscavige, and almost all of them are to anti-Scientology forums and sites.

    Are the sources reliable enough for BLP, given the nature of the allegations? Is inclusion of this material due weight? Jayen466 10:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think they should be taken out. It doesn't feel right, maybe someone is trying to discredit him to try to take his job.Redddogg (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible COI by User:Mikebaker20. Unsure if it is the same Mike Baker as in the article, but worth looking into. // Willking1979 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: article nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Baker, broadcaster and journalist, ex-BBC. Willking1979 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Paradiso

    Michael Paradiso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Biography of an alleged mobster who allegedly wants his daughter killed, etc. 62.147.36.69 (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted by an admin as a badly sourced negative BLP.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Pipes

    This complaint is without any merit as the user IronDuke himself has moderated his behaviour by beginning to engage constructively in the user page(instead of reverting without stating why he would do so). As for BLP vio, I have been warned only by this particular user and noone who scans my contributions would find "rich history" of violations as claimed here. In the same page(Daniel Pipes), I had previously contributed by removing some poorly sourced statements included or supported by the user IronDuke, like here. The user gave no legitimate reasons for his reverts and was apparently trying to stalk me. A separate case is opened for that here Zencv Lets discuss 17:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (cross-posted to Talk:Daniel Pipes). A certain amount of discussion about potential BLP violations is allowed, simply to help reach a consensus on whether or not the information is appropriate for inclusion in the article. However, the information under discussion must be accompanied with a reliable source to even be worth discussing. If there's no source, the information should be removed immediately, both per WP:BLP and also per WP:V. --Elonka 19:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Also cross-posted) Right, but this isn't about "information" being put in an article. The BLP-violating talk put in by an anon wasn't meant, even by the anon, to be article content itself. IronDuke 19:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironduke, if your problem were the single word "anti-Muslim" in the talk page, there was no need to delete the whole section which contained a legitimate point posted(ie, ethnicity of Pipes being mentioned). I have some problem to digest your logic behind it. I'm glad that now you yourself corrected it. Zencv Lets discuss 22:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Though it's somewhat disturbing you weren't able to see what violated BLP in the anon post you kept restoring, I am glad to see that you understand it now. I trust you won't be reinserting it. IronDuke 22:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Majora Carter

    I am restoring the following because it was not addressed; it was not even in any way responded to, and as far as I can tell wasn't even copied to the archive page. - Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that at least some of Drawn Some's recent edits to Majora Carter constitute a BLP issue. Since I had earlier tried to modify what I considered Drawn Some's inaccurate representation in this article of what a New York Times profile said, and was simply reverted by Drawn Some, I'm bringing the matter here for a third party to look at. Also, I would note that Drawn Some has latched on to (and, in my view exaggerated) just about the only negative in that New York Times profile of Carter, which does not suggest to me a particularly appropriate use of sources.

    By the way, also, possibly not a BLP issue, but I also find the removal of the phrase "environmental justice"—the usual name of the movement with which she is identified—from the article, also suggests to me an animus against its subject. - Jmabel | Talk 22:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I also now see that this same editor earlier made major deletions from the article. There was undoubtedly an excessive listing of awards in the article, but eliminating these completely seems to me equally excessive. It would seem to me that things such as having won a MacArthur fellowship, the Distinguished Alumni Award from her alma mater, and the New York Post Liberty Medal for Lifetime Achievement belong in an encyclopedia article. - Jmabel | Talk 22:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph Paul Franklin

    Joseph Paul Franklin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Several serious criminal accusations without references. He has committed several murders, but this still needs more cleaning up to source all the negative stuff.--chaser - t 08:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=259738578"