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 Suntag (talk | contribs) at 15:01, 14 January 2009 (→‎Joel Osteen: Reply to Gwen). 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.

    Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster

    I have concerns about the controversy section with regard to the alleged prostitutes scandal. It is my belief that this section is potentially libelous because of the fact that it is reporting rumour. None of the claims are backed up by references that work. There is a reason why both the Times and the Telegraph newspapers removed these articles online, because they were threatened by his lawyers with libel action. Now by keeping this part of his biography going wikipedia also faces a threat as there is simply no evidence to support this claim of prostitues which his lawyers have furiously denied. Please let me know your views.Londonfella (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2009 (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]
    I don't see anyone hear coming up with how this actually violates WP:BLP. I do see a new account and IPs apparently using a proxy. The compromise offered by Collect has been ignored. Unless there's something new I suggest that we close this thread and leave the text the way it was. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would favor the more conservative version offered by Mr. IP address: 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, also endorsed by OneNineEight. In any event, I don't support the idea that if there is no consensus, we default to the most extreme version. The BLP policy says that we should be careful. You have been asked to explain why it is important to you to have the most damaging claims in the lede, where the reader won't see the "fine print," and you have yet to respond. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add this by way of explanation: LaRouche's supporters make a number of fairly outlandish claims about his prowess as an economist, statesman, scientist, etc. These claims are not specified in the section that is being disputed; instead, a rather mild, generic formulation of "brilliant and original thinker" is used. I think that to achieve NPOV an equally mild and generic formulation should be used to describe the other side. All the stuff about him eating babies can wait until later in the article. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that the material repeatedly removed by Leatherstocking and the IPs is well-sourced, relevant, neutrally presented, and noteworthy. Including this material in the lead is appropriate because that is due weight. The proposal by the IP omits important information and thus provides a skewed view of the subject. This material has been in the lead for years, and has been discussed numerous times on the talk page. Just because a few proponents of a public figure wish to minimize negative information does not mean that a neutral encyclopedia should accede to their wishes. This article has been the target of years of sock puppeting (see WP:LTA/HK), and even now an obviously experienced user is probably using an IP to evade a block.[8] Based on earlier postings to noticeboards by LaRouche editors, I expect that this thread will continue for months, if allowed to, without any resolution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have said several times that "this material has been in the lede for years," but this is not true. I went back through the history two years, and the claim of "fascist" is not there until it was added in November of this year. You have been asked several times why you think the most extreme viewpoints should be in the lede, and you haven't answered. I made another point, which should be discussed also: these extreme claims should be seen in context. The charge of anti-Semitism, when examined, boils down to complaints that LaRouche is attacking neoconservatism, or the right wing in Israeli politics, or something like that, and somehow that gets construed as "anti-Semitism." That's the "fine print." As far as the ADL is concerned, its parent group, the B'nai B'rith, opposed the boycott against Nazi Germany that was organized by the American Jewish Congress under the leadership of Jacob Chaitkin, father of one of the top researchers in the LaRouche movement. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And here I thought that the simple proposal I made was actually going to work. Seems IPs are stubborn folks ... Collect (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are talking about me, I don't believe that I have been any more stubborn than Will Beback. But I offer this as a compromise: a return to the version that was there for the past two years, before November 1. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly when they are on free ISPs and spyware-infested proxy tools and acting in a manner consistent with our long-time LaRouche POV-pusher. Nevard (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this what you do when you can't think of an intelligent argument, you fabricate malicious rumors? I use Copper.net, a well known conventional ISP. Look it up, doofus. --72.251.90.68 (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Article history

    Except a single deletion by User:Leatherstocking, all of the deletions have been done by new users and IPs. The material has been restored in one form or another by five established users. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Really? Based on their edit summaries, Will Beback, SlimVirgin, Dking and John Nevard appear to all be one person (just kidding -- see nonsense below.) --72.251.90.181 (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Users

    Consider these edit summaries:

    Accounts blocked as sockpuppets of User:Herschelkrustofsky, see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Herschelkrustofsky

    Recent accounts

    • 01:16, November 2, 2008 Dynamite Dan (remove "fascist" per WP:BLP -- you can't say that with one sorry source! esp in lead)
    • 23:10, December 15, 2008 198.147.225.21 (Undue weight on these minority views violates BLP. They are adequately covered later in article.)
    • 07:20, December 16, 2008 198.147.225.58 (Undue weight. See talk page.)
    • 22:02, December 16, 2008 198.147.225.20 (just because a claim is sourced doesn't mean it belongs in the lede. See WP:UNDUE, WP:LEDE, talk page)
    • 22:52, December 16, 2008 198.147.225.20 (Undid revision 258441520 by Zweifel (talk) Undue weight by placing these claims in lede violates BLP. Please excercise caution.)
    • 22:34, December 18, 2008 Number OneNineEight (revert per BLP, see talk)

    Due to the content and style of the edit summaries, the shared POV, the familiarity of new users with policies and noticeboards, this expertly made edit, and the history of sock puppetry on this topic, it appears that these new accounts/IPs are operated by the banned user. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is every bit as lame as John Nevard's "proxy" tactic. Seriously, are you completely unable to engage in a discussion about BLP policy? Or is this tactic something you resort to when things aren't going your way? Merry Christmas, by the way. --72.251.90.181 (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's easier to believe that you are a return user than that you are a new user, due to your mastery of Wikipedia editing and policies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While not disagreeing about the likely socking, even a stopped clock is right twice a day (once a day if you're european :) but I digress)... we should evaluate the comments based at least in part on what they say, not just who said them. ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree about that, to a point. But I have spent more hours than I care to tally arguing with HK and his socks. This exact topic has been discussed by HK for years now. If these are more of his socks then I really don't think we need to entertain their tendentious editing further. Rather than a broken clock it's more like a broken record (if anyone can remember what those were).   Will Beback  talk  17:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nod. It's a dirty job but somebody's got to do it, I guess. Point is though, if it's broken records, go with "asked and answered"... if it's new ideas, then let's hear them. ++Lar: t/c 23:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also add that the fact HK is closely watching this discussion and commenting on it daily, and that the "new" users here make the same points that he does, is further evidence that it's all just HK again.   Will Beback  talk  18:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well... if we AGF it's possible that HK is aware but not active. The LL organizations have more members than just HK. Other organizations that some have characterised as POV pushing have multiple members that coordinate, after all (you know... the Internet Anti Defamation League, Nasdaq, the US House of Representatives, Hamas, IBM, etc... OK maybe not IBM) it's not always just one guy. But ya. Occam and all that. ++Lar: t/c 23:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    People who have been banned for years of sock puppeting lose the right to an assumption of good faith when it comes to sock puppeting. For years I assumed that these accounts were different people, but it turns out I was wrong and that there have only been two significant pro-LaRouche editors. Foll me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me 26 times, that's the end of AGF.   Will Beback  talk  18:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Settled?

    The new users and IPs have not shown that the material added in November violates any aspect of WP:BLP. It has been shown that the material reflects the opinions of a variety of notable individuals and is presented neutrally with proper weight. Unless the aim is to keep filibustering, I suggest that we close this thread and mark the matter as resolved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You may have been preoccupied with making personal attacks, so I will recap that evidence for you. The edits which you desire violate the following provisions of BLP: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented... so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one." Your favored edits give disproportionate emphasis to the most extreme of the accusations made against LaRouche, attributing to him beliefs which contradict his expressed beliefs. As I have said, I don't object to those being placed in context, later in the article, where the reader may see the "fine print," but putting them in the lead overinflates their importance, deprives the reader of context, and can hardly be considered responsible, conservative, or neutral writing. I hope that is clear enough that it can't be missed. Also, all the "filibustering" is yours, lengthy and off-topic. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do any uninvolved editors have anything more to add? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect the matter is as resolved as it is ever likely to be. Collect (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not uninvolved since I commented here before. But while I generally support the lede changing to include major criticisms (that is, moving to include more than it did), and have said so above, some further reading on this topic at WR (and from that thread, in particular this post) has brought me to desire to include this thought: ". More notable (and less single-note) criticism should get higher billing/weight than critics who focus on not much else."... that is, if the NYT or other mainstream media have criticisms, they should get more weight than the criticisms of an author who has focused on little else and is way less notable... That's a general principle I think we should be adopting for all BLPs, actually... reduces hatchet jobs (of course it needs to be applied with reason). Now, applying it to THIS lede, I don't think we've actually featured, for example, Chip Berlet's, criticisms head and shoulders above the Washington Post's. SO generally I'm supportive of the changes, as I said, but I want to go on record. And if in future we start to feature criticisms of less notable critics first (in any article), we probably ought to think hard about that and have a good reason for it. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To recap, if I understand you correctly you support the change made by SlimVirgin in November to add back the criticism of being fascist? (I say "add back" because it turns out she was the one who'd deleted it from the lede two years ago, after it had been there for two years.) Regarding the criticisms by Chip Berlet versus those by the Washington Post, they don't take particularly different positions on the subject. Of the major critics, the only one who takes a position that's noticeably different is Dennis King. While many people, including Jewish groups in at least three countries, have called LaRouche anti-semitic, King is known for a taking that view further than others. Even that is more of a difference of degree rather than of kind. But aside from that there isn't much disagreement between the views of the various critics. When there are one or two critics who say something, it may make sense to include a short discussion of their known biases. When dozens of people, from across a wide spectrum of political or social positions, say the same thing then it seems less necessary to discuss individual critics among them. I totally agree that criticisms should be weighted according to their proponents.   Will Beback  talk  18:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do support adding back the criticism of being fascist... what I'm driving at here, is that if it's necessary to source a particular criticism, it should be (preferentially, there are surely always exceptions) sourced to the Post or the NYT, or something similar, if at all possible, rather than to a relatively obscure writer. Chip Berlet gets 50,000 ghits? I myself get 5,700 ghits, or 1/9th as many, and I absolutely do not consider myself notable, or a reliable source for anything (except perhaps in my own narrow work specialty, if that!!!... the NYT gets 104M ghits. Absolutely no comparision. ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ghits are a very crude measure, but quick. The better, though more difficult measure is to count how many times Berlet and King are quoted about LaRouche. Even harder to measure, would be how frequently they are quoted versus anyone else. Aside from reciting blurbs from Moynihan and Adlai Stevenson III, it appears to me that Berlet and King are quoted more often than any other commentators. HK has attacked these investigative reporters for his entire career on Wikipedia, including starting both articles. (Which he now falsely says were vanity creations by their subjects.) The LaRouche movement has attacked them for decades. Despite those attacks, they are still quoted as experts on LaRouche. Now I don't see a problem with finding other sources for this bit in the intro, but the assertion by HK that Berlet and King (and their "collaborators") are unsuitable sources for Wikipedia biographies is unfounded in reality.   Will Beback  talk  18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You make several blatantly false claims here. First of all, the Washington Post is in no way similar to Chip Berlet. The last big WaPo attack article was in 2004, and although it is nasty in tone, it does not call him a cult leader, an anti-Semite, or a fascist. Chip Berlet, on the other hand, makes those attacks constantly, as does King. King and Berlet are identical in their line on LaRouche. Also, King is not a "major critic" -- he is a virtual unknown. I notice that your sources for the material you want in the lede are exclusively Berlet, King, and their close collaborators, not "dozens of people, from across a wide spectrum of political or social positions" (as if "dozens" would be sufficient under BLP.) It looks to me like you are trying to "launder" Berlet and King into the lede with a sort of "bait and switch" approach, where you claim that these views are held by the Post or other notables, but in fact they are claims of Berlet and King. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Chip Berlet" get over 50,000 ghits, so he isn't exactly obscure. King is the writer of the only book length 3rd party biography of the subject, which was published by a leading publisher, Random House. The two of them are routinely quoted by other journalists on the topic of LaRouche. But this material is not just from them. There is a long list of sources for the "fascism" criticism on the article talk page. We've been over this again and again and again.   Will Beback  talk  02:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So why not use those other sources instead of Chip? Or for every 1 of Chip, use... um... 50K:104M, 2000 from the NYT. I think 198/LS/HK/whoever is perhaps unfairly accusing you of trying to sneak stuff on... but he has a point. Use major sources, they're out there. This is a side issue. With major sources used, the lede will be pretty solidly the way it ought to be, not whitewashing or slamming. Do that and the main argument drops away. Et voila. ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see your comment before. Yes, it'd be easy to use other sources besides Berlet for this material. They are "major criticisms" in part because they are made by so many different people. But I note that now the complaint isn't just about Berlet, but also about his "collaborators", a term which apparently includes anyone who criticized LaRouche. (see below).   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's become sort of a mantra for you, hasn't it? But meanwhile, "Lyndon LaRouche" gets 225,000 Google hits, had a book published by a leading publisher, Heath, and is routinely quoted in newspapers. He also likes to call his enemies "fascists." Should we commence using him as a source in the intro paragraphs to BLP articles? --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    None of that is germane to the issue. So far, no one has presented any evidence that there is a BLP violation. The material is well-sourced, relevant and has due weight. There's nothing more to say here, and let's not keep repeating the same arguments over and over.   Will Beback  talk  18:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lar's suggestions are very reasonable (except that the NYT and Post do not call LaRouche a fascist.) However, in response to these suggestions, you went charging back to the article and re-added your Chip Berlet stuff, which reinforces my suspicion that this was the real issue all along. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So far as I can tell, Lar suported the version that contains the major criticisms. Further, this isn't "my" version. It is is the material added by Slimvirgin. If you prefer, we can remove the Berlet citation entirely, since that seems to be the main sticking point. There are plenty of other individuals who say the same things, which is makes them major criticisms.   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lar supported the use of major critics, which would not include Chip Berlet or his collaborators Matt Feldman, Clara Fraser, Helen Gilbert, Dennis King, and Tim Wohlforth (the sole sources for the "fascist" claim.) SlimVirgin isn't here on this page advocating these controversial edits, nor is she edit-warring at the article to keep them, so for the purposes of this discussion, it is "your" version. The only person here who has explicitly supported "your" version is you. You are trying to make a controversial change without consensus, and it does violate BLP, for the reason I state at the beginning of this section. You haven't responded, you just assert that no reason has been given. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please list, by name, five major critics of Lyndon LaRouche in your opinion.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have said, I think that institutional affiliation is more important than the volume of criticism. If it were just based on frequency of attacks, then LaRouche would be Dick Cheney's most major critic (as Leatherstocking points out, more or less.) I have suggested, when we are dealing with inflammatory and possibly defamatory accusations, that newspapers of record be the standard. Therefore two names that come to mind are John Mintz and April Witt, both of which authored lengthy articles (not signed editorials) for the Washington Post. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to answer the question... there ARE major critics extant, and those are what should be cited. So which do you agree are? Naming names will avoid a fair bit of pussyfooting around later, I suspect. I support a version of the lede that contains the significant criticisms and virtues, cited to mainstream sources, that is neither a hatchet job nor a whitewash, but a fair and accurate reporting of the views of LL. I don't think that leaving out that LL has been charged with antisemitism is appropriate, for example. But we can skip citing Chip Berlet, and the rest... 100% across the board, and yet not lose anything in balance from the lede. ++Lar: t/c 23:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mintz and Witt aren't critics, they are reporters. (Not that reporters can't also be critics- but these folks aren't known as critics of the LaRouche movement.) So far as I know, Witt has only written one article on LaRouche (albeit a long one). Signed editorials are just the place where people express opinions and criticisms. That's what we should be looking for, not excluding.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just posted excerpts from 14 33 71 periodicals, mostly mainstream newspapers, covering a 24-year period that make reference to anti-semitism in regard to LaRouche, his organizations, or writings. Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research That's in addition to the 18 55 excerpts on the topic of fascism, posted on the same page previously and subsequently. Those should be sufficient evidence that the criticisms have been made by a variety of sources for decades.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)   Will Beback  talk  10:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Will's "fascism" list is a joke, a hodgepodge of mostly fringe commentators and disguised quotes from Berlet. On the other hand, the ADL is a notable critic of LaRouche, and they were still calling him anti-Semitic as of 2003. I propose that we accept the compromise that OneNineEight offered at the end of the "Do no harm" section (i.e. "conspiracy theorist, anti-Semite, leader of political cult",) and be done with it. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So your plan is that we "compromise" by going along with the deletions by the sock?[9][10][11] As the sock would say, "I'm unimpressed". As for the sources for the "fascist" criticism, do you consider Jesse Jackson, Arthur Schlesinger, Daniel Moynihan, Adlai Stevenson III, Paul Kirk, Jonathan Kaufman, Roy Meachum, Steve Chapman, and the ADL to be fringe commentators? What makes them "fringe"? And please define "disguised quote".   Will Beback  talk  17:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's my compromise proposal. It doesn't completely satisfy anyone, that's what makes it a compromise. At this point, I've seen you accuse every last editor who disagreed with you, including a half dozen completely different IP editors, of being socks, so I'm not getting too excited about Dangerous Dan. And thanks for providing a much shorter and more credible list of people who say "fascist," but I still am not persuaded that it belongs in the intro (Jesse Jackson, of course, recently said he wanted to cut Obama's nuts off, but I don't expect to see that in any BLPs anytime soon.) --Leatherstocking (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You said that the term was used by fringe commentators. These are not fringe commentators. You still haven't explained what you meant by "disguised quotes". What are those?   Will Beback  talk  05:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually from Dennis King, not Chip Berlet. I have seen somewhere the original comments by LaRouche, where he is denouncing his political enemies as fascists, and says that it isn't necessary to wear brown shirts to be a fascist, it is only necessary to be one. Then, in a bit of sleazeball malice, Dennis King snipped that quote out of its context and tries to pretend that LaRouche was referring to himself. This then gets propagated through the press, in a typically irresponsible manner. It shows up in your "fascist" list, without attribution to King. That's what I meant by a "disguised quote." --Leatherstocking (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which quote are you referring to?   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving forward

    In light of the dozens of sources added to the research page that make similar assertions, I propose this text:

    • Supporters have described him as the greatest living economist. Others have called him an extremist, a theorist of conspiracies, a political cult leader, a fascist, or an anti-semite.

    I don't think there's any benefit to defining who the "critics" or "supporters" are - expressing an opinion doesn't assign a place in either column automatically. We could add a few dozen sources on the "political cult" assertion that has not been a point of contention, if need be.   Will Beback  talk  11:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's hard for me to fathom why my compromise proposal is so painful for you to accept, because it was the way the article read for two years prior to November 2008. However, I would accept your proposal with these modifications: "critics" instead of "others," and more specifics on what the supporters say. That would make it:
    Dennis King and Chip Berlet are critics of LaRouche. We're not quoting them. That term doesn't apply so much to the people whom we are quoting. As for your embellishments, what are the sources?   Will Beback  talk  18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the lede - I would still suggest the minimalist approach. All the other terms are fine for the corpus of the article, but conservative wording in the lede is, IMHO, the best course of action. Collect (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is conservative wording. I've just spent many hours researching a couple of those terms, and in the course of that I came across all sorts of other phrases also used to describe the subject. These are just the most common. "Political extremist" has been used so frequently that LaRouche once wrote to a newspaper to complain that the phrase isn't part of his name on his birth certificate.   Will Beback  talk  20:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: "Fringe" is another frequently used term, but its meaning overlaps with "extremist" so I don't think it adds much.   Will Beback  talk  02:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is sort of what I was afraid of, the "balanced hyperbole" approach. I would much prefer the more encyclopedic "balanced understatement" approach, along the lines of supports have described him as a brilliant and original thinker, while critics have called him a political extremist and conspiracy theorist. However, it doesn't look like understatement is going to fly. Incidentally, who is kidding whom -- anybody who calls LaRouche a "fascist" or any of those other epithets is a "critic." --Leatherstocking (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think labelling them "critics" tends to marginalize their views, but it's not a big deal. If there's a consensus for that change then I'll go along with it. There don't appear to be any remaining issues for this noticeboard, so I think this can be marked as resolved.   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not comfortable with the lede comparing LL to FDR and MLK. That's sheer puffery. I think the wording Will proposes is good. ++Lar: t/c 06:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While saying that he's the greatest living economist is an extraordinary claim, the fact that his followers say it can be supported with a reliable 3rd-party source. Calling him a politician in the tradition of FDR and MLK is probably even more fantastic, but I'm not aware of a 3rd-party source for it. If his publications said he can walk on water, would it be appropriate for us to report that too, based only on their self-published sources? I think that may go beyond what is acceptable for SPSes.   Will Beback  talk  09:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My point exactly. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The "198" account added the material anyway, claiming a consensus that I don't see.[12] I'm going to remove that assertion pending a 3rd party source.   Will Beback  talk  19:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You added your version first, claiming a consensus which I don't see. I'm against the "balanced hyperbole" approach, and I believe that I am with Collect on a "conservative" approach. Strip both sides down to the essentials, which means lose the wilder claims of critics as well. --Leatherstocking (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The assertions made by reliable sources aren't "wild". They aren't saying that LaRouche eats babies, or anything else extraordinary. If the assertions were made by only a few critics it would be different. They are made by dozens of sources from across the political and social spectrum, and more if we kept looking. The extraordinary assertion that these two accounts want to add is sourced only to self-published publications of LaRouche's movement. If we can find third party sources that make the assertoins about LaRouche being like FDR, or even 3rd party dicussions of the follower's belief that LaRouche is like FDR, then that'd be different. (And I never claimed a consensus.)   Will Beback  talk  20:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you didn't see a consensus, why did you go ahead and edit the article? Also, is the criterion here plausibility, or verifiability? You say comparing LaRouche to Martin Luther King is "fantastic," but the person making the comparison is Amelia Boynton Robinson, who worked very closely with MLK, unlike most of the people who pontificate about him today. And the claim that LaRouche is "fascist" is indeed a fantastic claim -- he fought fascism in the US Army in WWII, he fought Joe McCarthy when others feared to do so, he called attention to Cheney's barbarism before it became fashionable, he has been an anti-Fascist throughout his long life. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked first - where is the consensus you claimed? As for the assertions of followers, if they are notable they'll have been reported in 3rd-party sources. His followers have probably called him many things - a secondary source woud help us determine the most notable claims. For example, haven't they claimed that he is the only person who can save civilization, or something like that? I've seen that reported on, if I recall correctly, and if it is then that would be a better assertion to use. As for your assertion that LaRouche can't be a fascist because he fought in WWII and has called everyone in sight a fascist, I think that wouold qualify as original research. I don't object to adding that his followers reject the characterization. I'd add that myself but I'm pressed for time. We already have sources for that.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I mistakenly thought that there was a consensus. It is now obvious that there was not. As I said on the other talk page, your logic makes it impossible to note what LaRouche's supporters say, because you claim that it is axiomatically "self-serving." No -- if a LaRouche publication said that "LaRouche is widely seen as the successor to FDR," that would be a self-serving claim. But that is not the claim being made. If we say that LaRouche's supporters say this, and the source is a statement directly authored by one of LaRouche's most long-term and notable supporters who is an officer in one of his organizations, that is authoritative. As I pointed out on the other talk page, LaRouche is leading an insurgent movement, and it is unrealistic to expect that what it is actually saying or doing will be reported in media controlled by the people he is fighting. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) I'm confused. what is it you're asserting there is or isn't consensus for, exactly? This seems like a great deal of ink expended for not a lot of result. The criticisms of Larouche that have been put forth in the proposed lede are all well sourced from mainstream reputable sources. Why are you trying to whitewash this? You seem a reasonable enough person, except for this one topic (anything to do with Larouche)... just let it go. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lar, extravagant claims are being made on both sides. Rather than picking a side, I would suggest that you throw your weight behind a "conservative" version as proposed by Collect. That's the way out of this loop. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Leatherstocking, are you supporting Collect's version? Is the "198" account? I hadn't seen any indication of that.   Will Beback  talk  02:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just did a quick scan and I'm not seeing the exact wording that Collect proposed. Personally I think the version Will proposed is quite "conservative" actually, as it doesn't include anything that isn't a) high level and b) well sourced, and DOES include the main points. That's not taking sides, it's just common sense. But if you have Collect's exact suggestion please reproduce that wording. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 06:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There wasn't an exact suggestion. I was referring to his comments at the beginning of this section, where he asks for a "minimalist" and "conservative" approach. Will is intent on including the most inflammatory term "fascist" which is only used by a handful of mostly non-notable people (no need to list the exceptions again, Will -- they only prove the rule.) --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing Daniel Patrick Moynihan as non-notable. So it doesn't matter if it's "mostly" (something that could be disputed) non-notable people. Last time I checked, most of the people who held the view that the sun rose in the east are non-notable as well. For reference, I came to this discussion out of interest, and because I don't want to see Chip and Dennis given undue weight in the lede. But the more I engage with Leatherstocking, 198, the various IPs, the more I am convinced that there is no way to satisfy the pro Larouche POV folk short of whitewashing everything. Larouche and his movement are commonly perceived as fascists. It's amply cited. You need to get over that, accept it, and move on (and perhaps work within your movement to make it... I dunno... less fascist?). Because when you alienate even those who initially were disposed favourably to the point you were making, you lose. ++Lar: t/c 19:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First let me say that I consider the version that is presently in the article to be an acceptable compromise, so I'm not making a fuss if it is acceptable to others. In answer to Lar's issues, I agree that Moynihan is notable, and his views are presently represented in the criticism section. However, I don't think that, based on Moynihan and a few others, it is correct to imply in the lede that the "fascism" view is widely held. Your comment that LaRouche and his movement "are commonly perceived as fascists" is flatly untrue, and may reflect your own opinion. Try a Google News search[13] on LaRouche and see how many references there are, and then calculate the percentage of them that call him a fascist. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Percentages don't have much to do with this. The lede doesn't say that a majority of people think this, it gives about 10 different views on the guy. In any case a basic Google search on "LaRouche fascist" gives 74,600 hits - it looks pretty widespread to me. Smallbones (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested Google News instead of basic Google in order to filter out some of the self-published nonsense. Hey look, a basic Google search on "George W. Bush" fascist gives 1,710,000 hits! Now let me check to see if it's in the lede of Bush's Wikipedia bio -- nope. But like I said, I'm OK with the present lede for the LaRouche article. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So we're done, then? ++Lar: t/c 03:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks so, unless we need just a few more comments to make it into the Guinness book. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe the Plumber

    This article was almost stable until one editor decided he would try adding material to the lead and infobox to see if he could start an editwar.

    By agreement, Joe's old tax lien (now paid) was long ago removed from the article as a primary issue. This editor has readded it -- not to the main body of the article , but to the lead.

    By agreement, all mention of "license" was placed in a section specifically set aside for his "career." The editor has now added the license issue to the lead, and intends further changes per his post to an admin where he stated his desire for an editwar.

    He now claims that the old consensus is gone, and he intends to add all he can to "restore balance" (his words) in an article which finally was almost NPOV. All I ask is for some independent eyes to review this (last time, the vast majority here said if a person acted as a plumber, his occupation was "plumber" but that wisdom is now totally elided from some editor's ken. Many thanks! Collect (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you post diffs of the declared intent to edit war? This may not need BLP/N intervention if everyone else except for one disruptive and edit-warring editor has reached consensus. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Inferentially: [14] and [15] Lots of canvassing posts to his friends. I trust he is quite disappointed that I did not take any bait on this. Several possible SP/MP problems on the page, but they stick out like a sore thumb if you wish to look in <g>. Collect (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Collect just had his butt handed to him in a series of RFCs and now he's forum shopping. This is not a BLP issue but a content dispute. Check out the Talk page before you accept this. Revelant Sections include Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC:_Career_and_Licensing, Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RfC:_Current_Occupation_of_Samuel_Joseph_Wurzelbacher_.28aka_Joe_the_Plumber.29, and Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#taxes_again.3F. Mattnad (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    Try AGF and WP:EQ someday. Contentious issues are BLP disputes. Collect (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, as I explained to you on Talk:Sarah Palin, which you are forum shopping below, they aren't. Otherwise, people could get BLPs whitewashed just by arguing about anything not flattering, then scream "BLP vio! Remove it!" and we'd have nothing but peacock phrasing and hagiographies left. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To others: The discussion at TJtP and TSP, even with KC offering to block me for extended periods, are ongoing. With consensus not favoring the opinions of some editors. And the claim that I screamed anything similar to the imputed quote above is errant. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC) I'm still waiting for this headline: "Wikipedia editors decide Joe the Plumber is not a plumber: Editors JimbobHarleyD1340 and SuperOverLordXXX authorities on the subject." Avruch T 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Classic.Mattnad (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'll link this [16] for consistency and in case it was missed. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    C'mon, Jim - that alphabet soup stuff is a little beneath you. You're a linguist, I know, but in this case I'm not sure what point you're actually even arguing. If its that we should say he isn't a plumber, I don't know about that - even if an RS says he's not a licensed plumber in his state, I don't think the definition of plumber (either formally, or as commonly used) is "a licensed, employed plumber in state of XYZ." Even so, more a content dispute and an issue of rationally constructing an article than anything related to BLP. As such, it probably shouldn't return to this page until an actual BLP problem arises. Avruch T 20:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When I think of plumber I think of licensed plumber, but that could be a geographical distinction as we in Philly have been "trained" (as it were) to make sure people who are plumbers, electricians, HVAC folks, contactors, etc., are licensed. The alphabet soup is standard, and I prefer linking those items rather than spelling it all out. Bottom line, is that is that the licensing issue does matter -- most (if not all) states issue licenses for a reason: licensing provides a safe feeling (ephemeral/tangible/intangible/whatever) to the public at large.
    I'm not clear what the reference to "linguist" has to do with anything, unless my post was really written that badly (which is possible). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for actually proving my case. And also for showing everyone how "canvassing" works: "Collect is forum shopping again [15] Mattnad (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC) " on your talk page. Similar solicitation on other talk pages. Collect (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "case" was proved in what way? As for canvassing ... meh, it's known as iforming people who have an interest in a certain article of recent developments. Well, in the real world it would be. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Getting away from the personal sniping by Jim62sch, KillerChihuahua, and Mattnad, I think Collect is correct in his initial point. Kelly hi! 21:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the bottom line is that the conclusions of RfC:
    The edit warring on Joe the Plumber, deleting large portions of well referenced text for months is getting old. I think an arbitration maybe the only way to solve this argument. (and yes, I know the "official" stance that arbitration does not mediate content disputes, which is not true at all). I suggest editors create a case based on behavior (canvassing, personal attacks), and then enforcement will cover edit disputes. travb (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Consider also [17] , [18] (two discussions), and several RfCs in JtP which you elide here ... picking and choosing what you cite is not very "inclusionist" at all. And the clear canvassing done by one editor makes this discussion a tad tainted at this point. Collect (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Collect, notifying people of an RFC, or your forum shopping, is not "Canvassing" per se. It's common on wikipedia to inform active editors of discussions etc. I'll ask you why don't put up a notice on the talk page when you think there's a BLP violation. I could guess that since you didn't succeed in one forum, you want to revisit the same arguments somewhere else, spin the facts, and hope that none of the other editors who you disagree with participate here. But in the end, the discussions cited by Inclusionist demonstrate that why this is patently forum shopping on your part. Mattnad (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been a lot of discussion on WP about canvassing, and I would assert that you did not make a totally neutral type of canvass at all. And you have done this in the past. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Part of the problem could be that most people don't care about "Joe the Plumber" anymore now that the election's over. BTW the article, or at least the intro, is worse now than it was a month ago. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    True enough -- but the ones who want to add to the lede when it should be drastically trimmed seem ascendant if one believes all that the editor prior has to say. I trust you know me from enough articles on which we have edited to know my position. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And the article still hasn't decided what it's about, Joe the person or Joe the Plumber the political event. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to be the key. The BLP problem is that the plumbing license issue is not relevant to Joe the person and is relevant to Joe the Plumber the political event. A solution would be to have two articles, one a biography and one about the event. I'm sure this topic has been discussed to death. A more likely solution is to refocus the article to cover the event. E.g., instead of "Wurzelbacher is a celebrity, author, and former plumber" as the second sentence in the lead now reads, a refocus would be something like "The event was characterized by the "every man" plumbing experiences of Wurzelbacher and resulted in a significant increase in the celebrity of Wurzelbacher." Instead of "In November 2008, Wurzelbacher started the promotion of his book "Joe the Plumber - Fighting for the American Dream." ", the focus should be along the lines of 'even after the election, people involved in the event took steps to keep it going.' -- Suntag ☼ 22:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I gave Collect and Mattnad "final warnings" this morning due to their persistent edit warring on the JtP page - take a gander at the protection log and you'll see what I have been dealing with. Collect, for all his/her posturing here and on the talk page, has been agenda pushing, forum shopping, and cherry-picking discussion comments with the best of the best. Mattnad has made a greater effort in discussion and general reasonability, but edit-warred nonetheless. However, even without their presence, there was still edit warring at the article - other editors come in, totally oblivious to the tumultuous past of the article, and change it to their preferred status. I locked the page down for an inordinately long period of time - hopefully, passions will have died and these editors will have moved on. Tan | 39 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tan, FWIW, until the article focuses on the meme and not the person, this will likely continue. For an example see Rosie the Riveter. Real person, but it's the meme that is remembered, not Rose Will Monroe. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For once I agree with a substantial portion of Collect's position ( By agreement, Joe's old tax lien (now paid) was long ago removed from the article as a primary issue. This editor has readded it -- not to the main body of the article , but to the lead. By agreement, all mention of "license" was placed in a section specifically set aside for his "career." ) However, this current edit war does not appear to be a BLP issue and I am not sure why Collect has brought the JtP article here yet again.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Basically because the WP:3RR page says this is where such content disputes should be heard lest an editwar start. Coming here *before* a promised editwar appears to be the intent of that section, in fact. Collect (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jesse White (politician)

    This article seems to suffer from recentism and undue weight given to his involvement in recent events. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks guys. The article has been improved. There is a section about his role in the controversy, which is fair since that is what people are interested in right now. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Howard Koh

    An editor, "Bhirsch," continues to repeatedly post a slanderous comment citing a letter to the editor which is unsubstantiated and not able to be confirmed online. Attempts to remove the incorrect citation has led to "Bhirsch" posting it again and the page has now been locked by "Bhirsch." Here is the text in question. Even the title of the letter is not cited correctly:
    Position on Tobacco
    While serving as Commissioner of Public Health, Koh stated he had considered asking that cigarettes in Massachusetts be required to bear a label stating, "You are the scum of the earth." Smokers are the scum of the Earth. 26 Feb 2005. The Boston Globe. -- 134.231.180.190 21:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You are both the subject of the article and its editor. The article was published in a reputable newspaper and never retracted or disputed. You made that statement in a room full of people. There is no doubt that you said it. Furthermore, your user account was evidently created for the sole purpose of editing your own article to remove that embarrassing quote. Your dispute is with the Boston Globe, not Wikipedia. Bhirsch (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just undone the edit where you re-added this claim. I believe the claim is in violation of WP:BLP given the poor reference supplied, and the fact that the claim makes up a large part of the stub. Please do not re add this claim without a verifiable ref. Also I believe that you repeatedly adding a protection template to an unprotected article constitutes vandalism. Martin451 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is available at http://www.data-yard.net/10z1/scum.htm. If you like, I would be happy to provide a hard copy if need be. I read over the BLP policies carefully and found no reference to LTEs being unacceptable. Unless you (or Mr. Koh) can specifically point to a wp policy that forbids LTEs and requires all sources to be linkable, I am going to restore the section tomorrow evening (EST). I also find it highly suspect that BLP subjects are given this much leeway in editing their own articles. And please note I am far from the first person to revert Mr. Koh's removal of that section. For reference, wp's page on questionable sources: w:Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources. Bhirsch (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This matter is covered in WP:RS: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." Since Koh did not author the LTE, it is not a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:RS, it would seem permissible that the information be presented in Koh's article, provided it is noted as the opinion of the author. As a side note, a Globe reporter was present at the meeting where Mr. Koh made that statement. They would not have published something that controversial otherwise. This is also yet another example of someone editing their own article. Does he even satisfy the criteria for WP:Notability_(people)#Politicians? Bhirsch (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexis Debat

    Brief explanation // This entry has repeatedly stated, without base or reference, that Alexis Debat had graduated from the Monterey Institute under the assumed name of Yves Debat. This is baseless and untrue. Yves Debat was indeed a student at the Monterey Institute, but had no relation to Alexis Debat.

    The material was removed 01:01, 9 January 2009. -- Suntag ☼ 16:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sol Wachtler

    A user claiming to be Sol Wachtler, former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, has been removing well-sourced background material about the felony charge to which he pleaded guilty, including this citation to a New York Times news article. User claims "...printing them as fact are defamatory and untrue". --CliffC (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Direct him to WP:COIC where he will be told to freely use the talk page, but not to do edits. If he does not understand the simple English involved, report him to an admin who will likely block him. Stat. Collect (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted and left him a message. Can we please have more administrator eyes on this article. After sampling some of the 600-plus New York Times articles mentioning Wachtler, as a non-admin Wikipedia foot soldier I'm not comfortable dealing any further with this issue or this person. --CliffC (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is anyone watching this? A newly registered user has now followed in the IP's footsteps, removing the same well-cited material. There seems to be a legal bent to these edits, with the theory being that anything not said in court records may not be said here, no matter how reliable the source. --CliffC (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Placido Domingo

    It has been said on Placido Domingo ‘s article, that he is a Spanish-Mexican tenor. According with the sources he was born in Spain, and he lived in Mexico since he was 8 until he was in his early 20s. On source Well, all the sources say that he is a “Spanish Tenor”, but some people insist on changing it without proving that he has indeed the Mexican nationality / citizenship / passport. Actually, most sources on the internet refer to Placido as an Spanish Singer/Tenor and so do Encarta, Britannica etc. However, some people insist on changing it. Here are some references:

    • Encarta (in Spanish) --> [19] "tenor lírico español que gracias a su voz flexible y noble puede interpretar papeles de |tenor dramático"
    • Mail & Guadian --> [20] "The Spanish tenor was to premiere the new lyrics of his country's anthem -- a |military march long performed without words -- later this month"
    • The Guardian --> [21] "The Spanish tenor, who is now 65, has managed to keep his career going well beyond an age at which most opera |singers have retired".
    • The Washington Post --> [22] "The renowned Spanish tenor's dream may not be far from reality in the digital age".
    • Monsters & Critics --> [23] "Spanish tenor Placido Domingo delivers a speech on 14th Operalia at Palau de les Arts auditorium |on Thursday 26 October 2006 in Valencia, eastern Spain. Operalia is an international Opera competition"
    • El Mundo (in Spanish) --> [24] "El tenor español Plácido Domingo lucirá hoy una nariz superlativa cuando interprete el papel de |Cyrano"
    • Astro Data Bank --> [25] "Even though he keeps his Spanish citizenship, he holds close ties to Mexico and he raised $2 million for |the Mexico City disaster fund. He was honored by the president of Mexico with its highest honor, the Order of the Aztec Eagle for (...)"
    • BBC News --> [26] "Spanish tenor Placido Domingo has picked up two prizes at the annual Classical Brit Awards in London."
    • Klassicakzente (in German) --> [27]"Der spanische Tenor Plácido Domingo ist eine der großen Persönlichkeiten des internationalen |Musiklebens"
    • Kourier (in German) --> [28] "Der spanische Startenor Placido Domingo hat am Freitag im Vatikan eine CD mit Liedern nach Gedichten des verstorbenen |Papstes Johannes Paul II. vorgestellt. Er habe aus Karol Wojtylas Lyrik zwölf"
    • Vanityfair (in German) --> [29] "spanischer Tenor, Dirigent und Operndirektor"
    • Eventi di Vernona (in Italian) --> [30]"JOSE’ PLACIDO DOMINGO EMBIL (Madrid, 21 gennaio 1941) è un cantante e direttore d'orchestra spagnolo, |considerato tra le più significative personalità"
    • Larousse (in French) --> [31] "Ténor espagnol (Madrid 1941)"
    • Le Monde (in French) --> [32]"Le ténor espagnol Placido Domingo va intégrer « quelques chansons en maya » qui constitueront « une |surprise » dans le concert qu'il devait donner, le 4 octobre, sur le célèbre site archéologique mexicain de Chichen Itza, dans le Yucatan"
    • Domingo's Official Website --> [33]
    • Placido-Domingo Britannica website --> [34]
    • Bookrags Website --> [35]

    It seems like this has been on for a while and I think it is time to settle: Is Placido Domingo Mexican as well as an Spaniard?? Does he have the Mexican Nationality? --Nandonaranja (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: He was born in Spain. His parents were both Spaniards at the time of his birth, although they held Mexican citizenship later (see [36]). I also asked my mother (who is Spanish, and while not an authority by any stretch of the imagination, her family is related to his) and she'd never heard anything other than him being called Spanish. Considering all the sources that identify him as Spanish, I think you already have your answer. --Chasingsol(talk) 03:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nandonaranja.. I am amazed! You called me vandalised Plácido Domingo article? Care to look at the history of the article? You said you want the article to be as precise as possible but you neglected his parents, both his wives and his son - they are all Mexican; not to mentioned many other of his family members. You want it to be precised but what is your contribution to that article other than arguing about this? If you looked at Domingo talkpage (archived) from the beginning, at once I was like you. I keep removing "the Mexican" part from the page until I did research and understand his history, his family and his "special feeling" like what quoted by Karljoos. I have been working in this article for years (by contacting his Manager and family to get the "precise" facts like "what you want" but yet you just burge-in and call me doing the "vandalism" and insisting on one "part" only without understanding the whole thing? I never denied his Spanish origin. At once, this article was heavily edited, some said "Spanish" while the other party said "Mexican" (PLEASE LOOK AT THE HISTORY). Instead of having continues edit warring between "Spanish" and "Mexican", I wrote it as "Spanish-Mexican". Personally he deserves to be part of Mexican. There is where most of his family members are/from and where he grew up. You can report this to the admin and call me vandalism if you want, but the fact is, he is half Spanish-Mexican by the history of his life. That is precise! What makes me upset with you is, you called me "that" without checking - Jay (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In regards to "where he is from". He was born in Spain to Spanish nationals, they moved to Mexico later and became Mexican citizens, that is not contested. However, Wikipedia requires verifiable third-party sources, and User:Nandonaranja has provided plenty to show evidence he is considered Spanish. Regardless of what you may believe, you need to provide sources for your assertions. --Chasingsol(talk) 04:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reviewed the sources that Nandonaranja has provided. Placido Domingo holds Spanish citizenship. His wife and children are Mexican nationals. If for example, his parents had been Spanish and Mexican, then he could be considered Spanish-Mexican. That is not the case, both his parents are of Spanish descent. There are many sites that state that he could be considered more Mexican than Spanish, however Placido was born in Spain and has held Spanish citizenship his entire life. The sources provided also reflect the same information, with news organizations routinely referring to him as Spanish. I am going to be WP:BOLD and remove an unsourced statement and change the article back to state Spanish only. If you can find reliable sources that state that his nationality is Spanish-Mexican, then we should discuss this on the talk page and reach consensus between all parties. Best regards. --Chasingsol(talk) 04:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree with Chasingsol. As far as there's no source, he should be listed as Spanish. Also, being married to a foreigner, living in a foreign country, does not mean neccesarily that the person holds nationality of that country. --Nandonaranja (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a BLPN issue, so you may want to consider posting Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. As for Spanish-Mexican tenor, Spanish tenor, Mexican tenor, the reliable sources seem to say that Placido Domingo generally is identified as a Spanish tenor but has been called a Mexican tenor:
    Concluding that he is a Spanish tenor solely because he was born in Spain is original research. To resolve this, you should survey what the relevant body of published knowledge say about this issue and then accurately represent that within the Wikipedia article. Merely because more reliable sources identify him as a Spanish tenor doesn't make such a statement an accurate representation of the relevant body of published knowledge. -- Suntag ☼ 16:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthur Kemp

    Our article on Arthur Kemp is being edited by Arthur Kemp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who seems to object to a particular article written about him by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I do not think it reasonable to remove completely reference to the article this group wrote about him. I understand the need for attribution, but I think that the user himself is likely going to continue to remove any and all mention of the article no matter how it is presented. We need some administrator help here. - ScienceApologist (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving toward NPOV would likely obviate his concerns. As it is now, I would suggest the piece is not presented in a neutral manner. Collect (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire article or the first paragraph? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Kemp's personal websites should not be used to reference most things the Wikipedia article. The lead paragraph should reflect the article content rather than originate information. Polemicist, pro-white figure, and racist figure are opinion conclusions that are better supported by examples that let the reader draw their own conclusions. The entire article as a whole does not come across as a biography. From it, I learned he was born and then he was expelled from the Conservative Party. He cut links with someone and was fully investigated by the South African Police for a murder. The chronology of the sentences should be rearranged to reflect the order in which the events occurred. If he is a writer and a politician as the article indicates, then article needs more information about his writing and political activities. WP:COIN might be able to address Kemp's editing his own article. -- Suntag ☼ 17:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Bloomberg

    Could someone review the recent IP edits to this article? I don't know the subject well enough to be able to tell, but there seems to have been added some dubious claims. Thanks, Skomorokh 01:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment - 98.218.194.40 - repeatedly inserting violations of wp:BLP. I cleaned up what I could see. Warned the editor about [[wp:BLP]. I fear the article still needs attention from someone more knowledgeable about the subject.sinneed (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, Sineed. Skomorokh 13:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sovereign Grace Ministries

    http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/ A site dedicated to members, present and past - discussion/blog site-what I see as many grave violations of wp:BLP being repeatedly inserted. Various IPs, which have never edited any other article, are all inserting, reinserting or reverting removal of the link. It contains, for example, accusations of rape, tolerance of rape, etc. by persons named in 1st-person posts. I have used all 3 reverts for today, and had not read some of the detail until now. I am concerned that this REALLY needs to not be linked, but still am unclear whether the wp:3rr exception extends to ELs, and think not.sinneed (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've protected the page against non-Admin editing for 3 days because of the possible BLP violations, any Admin who thinks it should be unprotected, I won't get terribly upset (although I might sob a bit). dougweller (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just read over the protected article and didn't see any BLPN issues. I looked over the article edits since 21:51, 7 January 2009. The only dispute I saw is whether to include "http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/ A site dedicated to members, present and past" in the external links section. There is no BLPN issue in that text. An official consensus on whether sgmsurvivors.com meets Wikipedia:External links would help resolve this. The official consensus could be a five day discussion with admin conclusion and top and bottom closeing tempaltes. A way to get this is to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. At the end of the discussion, post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to have an admin close the discussion with a determination on consensus. In the mean time, the EL probably can be kept from the article until the issue is resolved. -- Suntag ☼ 21:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edward Moskal mostly unsourced attack article

    I have no personal interest in this deceased individual, just noticed a month or so it was a very long mostly unsourced article that knocks him. So I cut it back to basics - still mostly unsourced. But an editor who from Talk obviously doesn't like the guy keeps reverting it back to its current state, claiming all this material is sourced in some unref'd news articles. Could some one else look at? Cut it back to basics or delete it? (I'm not sufficiently interested to research it myself and his critic refuses to.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    comment - Since he is dead, does this really belong on the BLP page?sinneed (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    comment - Further, I have added the totallydisputed tag to the page, and explained why on the talk page. While I think the article is much better in your short version, I did not feel confident enough to revert his restoral. And with that, I will look forward to a response from the BLP folks.sinneed (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonah Falcon

    A user by the name of Jaf1970 who claims to be the man featured in the article continually inserts controversial claims into his wikipedia page, including that he undeniably has the world's largest penis, and sources them to websites that claim the same but offer no actual proof. It roughly amounts to OJ Simpson writing that he has undeniable proof that he is not guilty by citing a web page that claims he is not guilty. Update: The article has since been locked. Could someone step up and do something? // 24.226.123.110 (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to admins. The article is reliably sourced by third party sources such as Rolling Stone. Although the information was added by the subject of the biography, he used third party sources and wrote in a neutral manner. Furthermore, last night the subject suggested that his own article be deleted. I don't believe there is a NPOV concern on the part of Jaf1970. I'm more concerned about the IP's and multiple socks bullying him on the article talk page. There have been suggestions made on the talk page that Jaf1970 should upload an image of his penis as proof. These are utterly inappropriate requests. — Realist2 17:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I semi-protected the article in response to a request on RFPP, as there was a considerable amount of vandalism. Considering the BLP concerns associated with this, I do not think this was an unreasonable move. And I would agree with Realist's assessment of the article, regarding neutrality and citations. J.delanoygabsadds 17:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The 03:59, 11 January 2009 semi-protection by J.delanoy is indefinite. At present, the article reads OK as far as BLPN is concerned. I asked David Shankbone to see if he can confirm JAF1970 as being Jonah Falcon.[37] If User:JAF197 is established to be Jonah Falcon, there should be more of an effort to protect him from harassment in Wikipedia. -- Suntag ☼ 20:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By your guy's logic, I cloud add the New York Times article that claims up front that David Beckham is a big fat loser and get away scot free. It is stated as a fact and published by a source you believe is reliable. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/simon_barnes/article3634896.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomberdude'02 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Beau Maestas

    Scantily-referenced BLP of an alleged criminal, could use a closer look to ensure sources support the text fully. Skomorokh 17:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He is no longer a living person since he was executed. I think the article should be deleted since it is really just a report of a crime, not a biography of a person. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was posted on 11 January 2009 likely in response to the Jan. 9, 2008 20/20 story.[38]. The Wikipedia article does have info about living people. The info could be written in several ways Beau Maestas, "Murder of xxx", etc. Beau Maestas is not a biography of a person, so that a problem. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL brings up some info, but the news coverage likely was in response to the heinousness of the crime, not Beau Maestas. Beau Maestas probably is not a good approach since it seems likely to result in BLP, POV, etc. problems. The 20/20 story was Stabbing of Brittney Bergeron. Wikipedia doesn't have "Stabbing of xxx" article, so that's probably not an option. Wikipedia's coverage may either be in Heinous crimes, which doesn't seem a viable article, or Brittney Bergeron. If Wikipedia has coverage on this, the best option seems Brittney Bergeron, since she chose to put herself on 20/20. The Beau Maestas article can't easily be moved to Brittney Bergeron, so listing Beau Maestas at AfD seems how this should be handled. -- Suntag ☼ 19:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Donald Luskin

    Assistance would be appreciated at this article. A single-purpose account, one which has previously been blocked for 3RR and sockpuppetry, is attempting to insert NPOV, OR, and SYNTH violations in the article. This user has refused discussion while loudly making insulting comments and claiming abuse and has now returned to sockpuppetry. Gamaliel (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tony Fox protected the article at 17:05, 12 January 2009 for seven days. The protection expires 17:05, 19 January 2009. -- Suntag ☼ 19:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Roman Polanski

    Requesting an outside look and some advice regarding this articles talk page. There is material being pushed by editors that is highly inflammatory and appears to step all over the intent and spirit of WP:BLP. While I realise that talk pages are not the article, they are still a publicly viewable resource. I removed a new comment from an editor who stated that the subject is "Primarily a rapist and sex offender", but was reverted and berated for it's removal. I am unsure of the best way to handle the situation. Any insight that can be provided would be greatly appreciated. Best regards. --Chasingsol(talk) 14:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked User:Barry Brwzinsky 48 hours for BLP violations at Roman Polanski. Reviews of this block and and further input on his edits are welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Barry is trying to add negative terms to the Roman Polanski and talk page that are not reflective of the reliable sources. The block seems to have worked to keep Brwzinsky's BLPN postings out of Wikipedia. The block expires 17:15, 14 January 2009. At that time, keep an eye on the article for any further problems. -- Suntag ☼ 01:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe O'Reilly (operations manager)

    Resolved

    This is an utter disaster of an article, presenting a viewpoint that doesn't exist in sources at all — not even in the arguments made by the defence. However, the murder case has been a prominent and recurring feature in the Irish press over the past three years, so there are a fair number of sources for writing about it. (Judgement in this person's appeal is expected now, in fact, after a 1-day hearing on the 17th of last month.) One somewhat unusual problem with the usual solution (a speedy rename to Murder of Rachel O'Reilly and rapid refactoring) is that the victim's name is currently the subject of a dispute, between the victim's parents (who want her maiden name used) and her husband (who wants her married name used), that may well end up in court. Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP of a person known for a single event. Sounds deletable to me. Collect (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly deleted.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Geoffrey Edelsten

    Geoffrey Edelsten states that the Wikipedia article about him is highly defamatory and damaging. There are a number of defamatory and damaging statements. One in particular as followings;
    He subsequently spent a year in jail for hiring an underworld figure, Christopher Dale Flannery, to assault a former patient, and for perverting the course of justice.[5][6][7]
    Article found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Edelsten
    - This media statement is greatly different than actual charges seen at http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf
    - The charge was in fact “soliciting” not “hiring” – the use of “hiring” is defamatory, the fact can be found in the charge as follows; http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf
    - The charge does not refer “a former patient” instead referred to as “another” – the use of “a former patient” is defamatory, the fact can be found in the charge as follows; http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf
    - The alleged “another” as seen in the charges stood trial for the attempted extortion of Edelsten. "another" was the man who in 1984 harassed and intimidated Edelsten and his family to extort money with menaces. This other side is not covered, and by its absence presents a highly biased view. “another” was later sentenced to 3 and a 1/2 years prison for fraud of an Australian Government Agency of more than $330,000.
    - Flannery was not considered an underworld figure in 1984 – the date as set out in the charges. Flannery was only considered an underworld figure in media reports (seen above) that date from 1987 onward. There is an absence of such information between 1984 and 1987. Flannery was not considered an underworld figure in 1984. Recent attempts to correct/unbias the article have been wholly removed. Geoffrey Edelsten states that the Wikipedia article about him is highly defamatory and damaging. -- Gepa (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above editor has a severe conflict of interest as a paid employee of article subject. The pattern of editing of this editor is single purpose and whenever someone edits something he doesn't like he immediately calls it defamatory. It should be noted that the article subject has made legal threats against several legitimate and respected WP editors. This information should be considered in context regarding Gepa's statements. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of 15:13, 12 January 2009, admins Orderinchaos and Sarcasticidealist have been addressing the matter on the article talk page. Editor WWGB is making constructive comments on the talk page as well. Gepa, if the text is highly defamatory and damaging, you need to stop posting it around Wikipedia. Michellecrisp, Gepa made clear his self interest on his user page on 8 September 2008. Negative, unsourced adjectives about a criminal conviction of a living person must be removed, regardless of the self-interest of the person making the request. -- Suntag ☼ 15:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is under close scrutiny from various admins and experienced editors, every statement is referenced often from multiple sources. I see no problems with the article, there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says we don't post negative information about a person that has been widely reported in the media and established as fact. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BLPunsourced

    The problem: some articles in the missing people category have this template used on them. The template then adds them (incorrectly) to Living people. The solution: should these templates be replaced with other templates? If so, which? Or create a new template for unreferenced missing people articles. Thanks. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Missing people was deleted 29 June 2005. Could you give some examples of the articles of your concern. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For some reason I had missing in my head. Oh well. I meant Possibly living people, and the articles in question would be these ones:

    Thanks, - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not at BLPN issue. It can be addressed through coding the template. I posted a request to modify the template at Template_talk:BLPunsourced#Category:Possibly living people. -- Suntag ☼ 21:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BNP

    Problem: Streona and Emeuralde have expressed a deep hatred against the British National Party (see talk page), and keep inserting potentially libellous information about fascism being a politic of the BNP. Fascism is not an official politic of BNP, and the fascist term itself is potentially misleading and offensive. Firstly I asked for the removal of the fascist label from that place. They rejected it. I tried to reach a compromise suggesting things like adding (denied by BNP) to the fascist label in the infobox, but due to their strong hatred against this party, they just did not accept any compromise. Please look at this page: Talk:British National Party. Thanks. -- Eros of Fire (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ask for sources? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, from reading the archives of the talk page it appears that the situation is actually the mirror of what you're inferring. It's not that the proponents of the characterization need to be asked for sources. It's quite the converse. It's Eros of Fire and others that need to be asked for sources, and have been, for almost two years.

        The people who support the article stating that this organization is neo-fascist have long since cited sources that state exactly that. The article has several sources, already cited, that directly characterize this political party as fascist. At least one, Thurlow, appears to be a credentialed expert writing directly in his field of expertise. Whereas the people who have been saying "We want to add 'denied by the BNP'" are the ones who have been asked for sources to support that, again and again. Reading back to Talk:British National Party/Archive 9#Fascism NPOV, Talk:British National Party/Archive 8#References of Fascism, and Talk:British National Party/Archive 6#Neo-fascism? it seems that everyone else has been asking them, repeatedly, for such sources since at least March 2007, and they have yet to provide any.

        The situation doesn't appear to be a biography matter, but a simple put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is-and-cite-sources matter, and the above appears to be an attempt to substitute WP:BLP drama and ad hominem arguments in place of actually answering that almost-two-years-old charge to cite sources. Uncle G (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The article has 233 footnotes at present. Google books returns 652 hits for a "British National Party" fascist search. A connection between "British National Party" and fascist probably doesn't rise to a BLPN level. BNP's view of itself as in (denied by BNP) needs to be supported by independent, reliable sources. The article talk page shows a dispute between a few Wikipedians and more input from neutral editors may help. You might want to try Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Suntag ☼ 21:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of folks glom onto the word fascist and throw it about without even knowing what it means. Sources too, I'm afraid, which echo loudly on Wikipedia, as they're meant to. It might be quite the mess to untangle, indeed, mediation maybe? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fascist is a political boo word. It is a pejorative label that carries a range of meanings from "Italian party of the 1920s and 30s" to "anything that's a little more right-wing than me. Whilst many academic works use the label - each has to define it before doing so because it carries no agreed intrinsic meaning. Wikipedia should not be in the business of labelling anyone fascist, because it would mean us agreeding a POV definition. Better to say "regarded as fascist by x, y and z" if we must say anything at all. If a group self-describes as fascist (unlikely but not impossible) we should record that too. It's a bit silly to demand a BNP source denying that they are fascist. Lots of people (including me) would call them downright "evil" or indeed "lowlife" and I suspect I could find some reliable sources to agree, however, to ask whether they deny being evil or being less than pondlife would be a gaming of the "when did you stop beating your wife?" approach. Is this a BLP issue? Well, probably not. Although the same care should be taken - labelling living people "fascist" is not ever good. And although I have no great stomach for defending right-wing scumbags, the mark of the strength of our policies (and our neutrality) will be tested by the degree to which we are fair and careful with the reputations of people most of us consider noxious. (and now I'll go and wash)--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There are some examples of the BNP condemning fascism (or what they perceive as fascism):

    I think these can be used as sources. If that is not enough, I do not what is enough.

    Noawadays BNP condemns fascismEros of Fire (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Really, this should be unnecessary. We simply need to say "x y z and z have labelled them fascist". Saying that they deny it, is a bit like saying "The IRA always denied being terrorists" - yes, of course.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is they do not consider themselves fascists, indeed, they consider the labour party as the fascist one! They do not consider themselves fascists and that should be put in that infoboxEros of Fire (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll bet they don't consider themselves evil either - should that go in the infobox? I'm arguing that the term "fascist" should not be in the infobox at all. It is far too inprecise a label to be either "they are/they are not". The article somewhere further down can narrate that some people have termed them fascist. But that's a far as it goes.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on going to mediation on this issue. I am no fan of the BNP however labelling them as fascist is biased in my opinion, especially considering the current sources used to justify this label are out of date or unavailable with out signing up and paying a fee. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Fascist" has become a fashionable pejorative word now -- and should not be used as freely as it is on WP. Collect (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Eros of Fire, the typical Internet post is "This is who we are." Wikipedia is different from the Internet in general in that Wikipedia's focus is more on "This is what others say about topic x." Wikipedia articles generally should be written from the perspective of third parties that are independent of the topic. In other words, the British National Party article should reflect how others view the British National Party, not how the British National Party views itself. From Wikipedia:Verifiability, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. "Examples of the BNP condemning fascism" and "They do not consider themselves fascists" are not independent of the BNP and as long as you try to characterize the BNP as they see themselves, you'll be butting heads with those applying Wikipedia policy. However, using the term Fascist seems to imply Fascist (epithet). A way around this is to agree to not use the term in the article but describe the actions of the BNP that let the reader decide whether to conclude the idology held by BNP at a given moment in time. A similar issue was raised above in Arthur Kemp BLPN, where I wrote "Polemicist, pro-white figure, and racist figure are opinion conclusions that are better supported by examples that let the reader draw their own conclusions." This won't be resolved on the BLPN page. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution might be the next step. -- Suntag ☼ 14:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandy Szwarc

    User 68.35.66.81 has in a past edit claimed to be the subject, Sandy Szwarc, and has repeatedly edited the page to the point that it reads like a c.v., only saying positive, non-controversial things about her. I personally don't know anything at all about this person, but when I read the page it just didn't seem "wikipedia-ish" to me-- it sounded more like an "about the author" piece you'd read in a magazine. The previous version of the article read more like an encyclopedia entry and had more citations, so I reverted to that. A week later user 68.35.66.81 reverted this edit. Earlier versions had many more negative/controversial things to say about this woman, so I gather that she is a somewhat controversial figure. I'm new here at wikipedia, so I guess I'd really just like someone more experienced to look over this issue and tell me what the correct protocol is. Thanks. April-flight (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fred Bauder had an interest in the article back in November 2007. There was an OTRS edit on 31 January 2008. Scott MacDonald added added {{coi}} and {{peacock}} tags to article on 13 January 2009. On reviewing the request, the issue is not a BLPN issue. April-flight, consider editing the article yourself or discussing the matter on the article talk page. WP:COIN can be used to address editors that may have close personal or business connections with article topic. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard is where editors can post questions about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. -- Suntag ☼ 15:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted this back. Obvious POV insertion that wrecked comprehensive citations and turned the article into a puff piece. Exxolon (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaza beach explosion (2006)

    The article relates to an incident in which several members of the Ghaliya family were killed in an explosion on a beach in the Gaza Strip. There is some controversy as to whether the blast was due to a mine, unexploded ordinance or Israeli shelling.

    Recently, a few editors added the following text to the lead:

    Huda Ghaliya's critically-wounded sister, Ilham, has been reported as saying that the explosion occurred when her father "touched something", possibly unexploded ordnance.[1][2]

    The claim is sourced to a 2006 Ha'aretz report in Hebrew and the claim was repeated, unsourced, in an English-language Ha'aretz article recently. No other major media outlet has picked-up on the story and the quote used in the lead is nowhere to be found by goolge other than the non-WP:RS source to which it refers. This is probably due to the fact that pictures of the father's body (including hands) show him to be rather in one piece, which would be odd if the explosion would have originated from his hands.

    The more recent article is mentioned later in the body, together with other media reports, in that context: as a media report.

    What makes this a WP:BLP-issue is that a weakly sources "exceptional claim" is reported as fact and being used to blame the family's tragic deaths on the father's curiosity or mishandling of unexploded munition in the close presence of his entire family. This blaming of the victims strikes me as rather impious, especially given the dubious nature of the claim.

    I have tried to remove this claim before, and got blocked for WP:3RR as a result, which is why I am bringing this up here. There is some discussion on the article talk page here

    Cheers and many thanks, pedrito - talk - 13.01.2009 16:15


    Ummm, if the father's dead, then I don't see what BLP has to do with it. Impious or not, dead is the state of not being a living person.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's more of an insult to the surviving family members, and to the memory of the family as a whole. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 13.01.2009 17:03
    Note: there is an even stronger version being pushed, which says the father "initiated" the explosion. The above wording is actually my compromise attempt to simply tone down the material (and improve the phrasing), but even that is being reverted. --Nickhh (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the "insult" phrasing by Pedrito is rather questionable. By that logic, we couldn't say anything mean about Richard Nixon because it would be an insult to his daughters. Wrong place, wrong time.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no BLP issue here - the father is dead, as is the daughter who is reported having made the claim. BLP is being trotted out by an edit warrior who got blocked for his edit war AFTER THE FACT, as a way to either exonerate himself or get a license to renew the edit war, against the consensus of multiple editors on that page. I've noticed a trend of abusing BLP in this way (since it is one of the exc3ptions to 3RR) and it's time to draw the line against this kind of behavior. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deaths occurred 2-1/2 years ago and, according to the article, the Israeli Defence Forces concluded that the explosion may have been the result of unexploded Israeli ordnance. The present implication that the unexploded Israeli ordnance accidently went off by the father's touch doesn't seem to amount to a BLPN issue. However, the statement should not be in the lead. Per Wikipedia:Lead section, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." The statement doesn't represent a summary of the important aspects. As for Ilham's statement, The Independent reported two days after the explosion on June 11, 2006 that "In the shelling, which all but wiped out the Ghalia family as they were waiting on the beach for a taxi to take them home, Hadeel's 15-year-old half sister, Ilham, was decapitated."[39] It seems unlikely that Ilham made the statement in 2006 as now claimed in 2009. -- Suntag ☼ 22:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ilham Ghalia has been reported dead in several reports, and hospitalized in others [40]. As this 2007 news article covers Ilham's discharge from an Israeli hospital, she was probably not decapitated back in 2006. ליאור (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The first ynetnews.com story lists Elham's age as 21 and spells her name differently within the same story. The second ynetnews.com news story, published about six months later, lists her age as 17. The lead paragraph in Wikipedia's article recently read:

    Huda Ghaliya's sister Ilham, who was decapitated in the blast,[10] was reported as saying her father caused the lethal explosion when he handled an unexploded ordnance left behind from a previous incident.[41]

    It was added and removed a few times. I removed the "decapitated in the blast" portion. Admin Elonka posted a note on the talk page about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. -- Suntag ☼ 13:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary Husband again

    I've blocked User:92.1.40.145 for block evasion (User:Levelub44h, indef blocked for legal threat, earlier for edit warring). Gwen Gale (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alan Harvey

    This biography is undergoing replacement by a largely unreferenced piece by an anonymous editor, who may well be the subject. I'm not sure how this should be dealt with so I am posting here. An article on this subject was deleted previously, I guess because of similar material being placed there instead of a proper article? --Utinomen (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Both Alan Harvey and British National Party, reported above at Noticeboard#BNP, are listed in Template:UK far right. At 21:05, 11 January 2009, User talk:91.109.229.243 received a Template:uw-huggledelete1 post. 14 minutes later, User talk:91.111.114.37 received a Template:uw-huggledelete1 post. -- Suntag ☼ 23:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone should see if the article qualifies for speedy deletion under G4. If not, then you may want to consider listing the article at AfD. -- Suntag ☼ 13:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Roberta Baskin

    There is a concerted effort by one individual to defame the name and work of television investigative reporter Roberta Baskin. Please refer to the wiki cite. This person repeatedly had deleted all FACTUAL references to her career and awards and, instead, wants to focus on a defamation of character lawsuit filed 15 years ago against CBS which later was withdrawn. Furthermore, this person insists on tying the "Gotcha" label to Baskin's current employer, WJLA-TV which had no part in that earlier lawsuit. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldoggy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have put the in-line references back in. However the IP has restored the external link to the defamation lawsuit, which does make interesting reading, and I think may be notable in her career as an investigative journalist. The adding of the Gotcha label and some of the other edits do seem to violate WP:BLP (note I have never heard of her before today). Martin451 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    VirtualSteve blocked Waldoggy at 06:31, 14 January 2009 for 31 hours. The Gotcha! link to the defamation lawsuit contains material that can be integrated into the Wikipedia article. It probably would fit better on the article talk page as a suggestion to where someone can find material to add to the article rather than as an external link. -- Suntag ☼ 14:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tite Kubo

    We've uncovered an unusual situation on the Tite Kubo article, and would appreciate some outside input. Essentially, we are debating whether material with a reliable source can be included if the source's sources are suspect - in this case, a newspaper article that reports as fact information that was removed from the Wikipedia article some time ago as a potential hoax. Doceirias (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would rely on the common sense approach -- extraordinary claims require more than using an RS relying on a suspected non-reliable source (yes, I would not have put in the Martin Eisenstadt material into any article). There are those who think that because an RS was taken in, that therefore we should hang our brains at the door <g>, but that is not just "buck passing" it is "hide head in sand"ing. Also remember that some RSs do not attach corrections to the original article, which makes this an even more difficult situation. YMMV. Collect (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Joel Osteen

    Joel Osteen article needs intervention, as well as Lakewood Church. User:MikeDoughney has continually removed a section from Criticism & Controversy, citing a variety of policies. When questioned as to why he thinks those policies ban the material, he simply restates them or says that "You should read the policies." The policies don't in any way prohibit the material added, the fact that a person who made international news for the criticism of Pat Robertson(albeit this submitter) both wrote a book and held a protest outside Osteen's church(verified with both a video of the event and the mention of the event in two federal courts, both sources properly cited) meets all WP standards. I have attempted discussion with User:MikeDoughney several times, including on the talk page, but he has yet to respond. He, however, continues to delete the material. Adamkey (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Adamkey, it looks to me as though you're trying to sell a book which is critical of Osteen. My outlook is your edits to the article stray from WP:Soapbox, WP:COI, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP all at once. Taken altogether, there are deep neutrality worries with what you want to do. The short pith is, you can't paraphrase your own book (published, self-published, or not) only to smear a living person in a Wikipedia article. Moreover, YouTube is not thought of by most editors as a reliable source. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a COIN report here. -- Suntag ☼ 15:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wording question

    I don't edit many BLP pages, so I'm pretty much unclear about this. In this edit to Diana Napolis, the words "who harassed individuals she believed" were removed citing BLP and OR. I don't know about the OR and am pursuing with the editor, but is it a BLP concern? The section discussing the harassment is sourced to Cyberstalking, published by Praeger Publishers (now the Greenwood Publishing Group). Is it adequate? Are there other concerns? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it is a BLP worry. If there are criminal charges or notable commentary along these lines, they should be cited to a reliable source and directly attributed to that source in the text, which cannot in its own narrative voice characterize her in such a sweeping way. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Napolis page cites the "harassment" bit in the body, but did not in the lead (where the phrase was located before being removed). The source (linked in google books above) states "'Curio' was the nickname used by a woman who harassed a group of people over a period of five years. Curio's harassment grew out of a number of ritual abuse scandals that emerged in the 1980s and early 1990s." It therefore is directly attributable to Cyberstalking in both details (harassment and relation to satanic ritual abuse that followed the phrase). If I added a footnote to this source in the statement removed from the lead, would that be adequate? Napolis was later charged with stalking Steven Spielberg and Jennifer Love Hewitt, with sources justifying it coming from four newspapers (the Sunday Mirror, the The San Diego Union-Tribune twice, The Australian and City News Service) and two books (Cyberstalking and The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic published by McFarland). For most of the editing I do these sources would sail past reliability, but BLP I'm less certain. I appreciate the input since I think this is one of only two pages I have ever created about a living person and the only one that is controversial. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can see, the only worry is with the wording. Some spin on charged with harassment by... may be ok, who harassed individuals she believed is not ok, moreover if she wasn't convicted of a criminal charge or was not the subject of a judgement in a civil trial. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see the difference I think. Thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anderson Cooper

    Input is needed relating to a blurb in the Anderson Cooper page, located here. The gist of the situation is how other people (not Cooper himself) are commenting on Cooper's alleged homosexual lifestyle. There is an extensive debate on the talk page, but there are only 4 editors involved, and it seems as if there are 3 in favor of removing the blurb; one in favor of keeping. This is a touchy enough subject such that outside input is needed. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Haaretz2009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    2. ^ EJC, Israeli Press Review of 22/6/06
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=264042244"