Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns

The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons:

Melanie Johnson =

The information added by Shakehandsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and various other users in the past has not been in concordance with the "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link." For example, adding incorrect information re:illegality of all women shortlists, when in fact they were and are legal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/nov/15/women.gender, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1398729.stm) Tendentious editing has been carried about by this user. Unnecessary (and incorrect) personal details have been added re:Melanie Johnson's chldren. Shakehandsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continually edits Women Politician's wiki pages with spurious or incorrect and unsourced information. ARFCRFarfcrf (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James B. Lockhart III

One or more editors from the IP range 141.156.72.xxx have made numerous changes to the page (see diff).

The edits are disruptive not only to the substance (removing relevant, well-sourced, NPOV information, replacing it with redundant recitations of the subject's official bio--political spin and all), but also in form (removing internal links and citations).

This IP range appears to be registered to HUD, raising obvious NPOV and COI issues (not to mention inappropriate use of taxpayer money).

DGG (talk) semiprotected the page against anonymous edits.

Cooperage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user twice (this time and this time) reverted addition of relevant, properly sourced material. (Since, as of this notice, that user hasn't made any additional changes since the last week of December 2008, I am not requesting a checkuser at this time.)

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

I already mentioned this on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to be on the safe side. I wanted to point out that this article is extremely biased by references from far left websites such as CSN.com, Media Matters, The Huffington Post, and MSNBC.com to name a few. I think somebody like an administrator needs to check it out because the article is just huge with far left references. Thanks. Lighthead ^þ 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's pretty bad. Not quite as bad as Public image and reception of Sarah Palin, but it definitely needs cleanup. Kelly ^hi! 07:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck whoever wanders into that outhouse. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references look OK to me. Newsday, LA Times, Washington Post. MSNBC a left-wing extremist site? I hardly think so. It's widely considered to be a reliable source.--Lester 11:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references are ok, some of the others as listed above and apparently ignored by Lester, have been discussed on the RSN and this page in the past with the result of "fine to use when stating their opinion, but not to present facts". On the page in question, they are used for facts and defended vigorously by a stalwart host of editors seeking to defend their article from any attempt at NPOV. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is off topic, but anybody who debates whether MSNBC is far left should watch Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow (Chris Matthews a little); they are just as far left as O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are far right. Lighthead ^þ 21:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On balance, MSNBC is center-left as Fox News is center-right. Certain hosts wander into the fringes, but for news coverage (not commentary) they are pretty much center like all the national media in the US.... (Yes, there is currently a tilt to the left and an insane amount of editorializing masquerading as reporting and of course Obama-worship....) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but importantly, they are both considered reliable sources in our sense of the phrase, at least with respect to their reporting. Editorializing, on the other hand, needs to be handled very carefully anywhere, including these sources. The other sources (Huffington et al) are problematic. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that bothers me is that Sean Hannity is just as bad as Bill O'Reilly, if not worse, but O'Reilly get's more play on wikipedia than Hannity. Could it be because one is more famous than the other? Lighthead ^þ 15:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously papa bear is more famous. Why does this bother you? Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, what do you mean? No, the fact that papa bear is more famous doesn't get to me it's the fact that I checked out Sean Hannity's page just for arguments sake the other day, and it turns out that he didn't have a criticism page (not that he didn't have one, but in the manner that it was done (simply put, he doesn't have one)) like Pappy has. I know that I answered your question with the previous answer but I don't know what to tell you. Lighthead ^þ 09:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too rather confused by your comment. Criticism pages are always very controversial and should generally be avoided as far as possible, as with criticism sections. However in some instances, the level of criticism may leave us no choice. Perhaps this is the case for O'Reilly but not Hannity Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see the point of the Hannity complaint, and the editor's pejorative use (here and elsewhere) of the O'Reilly-like "far-left" (in which category O'reilly includes the NY Times and most major American newspapers) betrays his agenda. It's not surprising, then, that another editor wanting to censor the article objected to the NY Times as a nonreliable source.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the previous comment by Jimintheatl; check out what I said on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) Lighthead ^þ 23:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as to the comment that I started by Jimintheatl, it is not an existential question, does Bill O'Reilly get more lip service on Wikipedia by certain editors, because he is more famous than Sean Hannity. Lighthead ^þ 05:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you come out an say it in the first place then? The answer of course is we don't know and it doesn't really matter. Yes it would be good of systemic bias doesn't exist, but it does so we have to live with it. If you believe Sean Hannity needs improving then improve it. If you feel Bill O'Reilly needs improving then the same. If you feel certain editors are being inconsistent in what they feel is acceptable in articles, then explain when and what. If you feel there is a site-wide consistency in what is accepted then bring up a discussion somewhere with appropriate explaination and evidence. But asking whether systemic bias exists in editors attention to the article is pointless. Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the article is messed up from top to bottom. That's just one example of something that I feel. Lighthead ^þ 22:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Lindauer - Defamatory Content

Page title: Susan Lindauer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Lindauer

Defamatory and dangerous description in 1st paragraph. Use of term "spy" to describe charges against her. She was not and has never been charged with espionage. Therefore the repeated insertion of the term "spy" reflects at least a lack of information. The repetitive use of "spy" is intentional. At the time of the initial charges, "spy" was used with the most dire consequences for Lindauer mentioned. The federal government dismissed the case "in the interests of justice" on Jan. 15, 2009. In the interests of accuracy, the term "spy" needs to be removed as a description of both her charges and activities. That charge was never made.

1) The biography page for Susan Lindauer has been inaccurate since its inception, as far as I can tell. I see corrections periodically but the original error is recreated and posted.

The opening paragraph states:

"Susan P. Lindauer aka Symbol Susan (born 17 July 1963) is an American journalist accused of conspiring to act as a spy for the Iraqi Intelligence Service and engaging in prohibited financial transactions involving the government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein."

Susan Lindauer was never charged with acting as a "spy." I'll quote no less of an authority than her former Judge on the case, former Attorney General, Michael Mukasey who said in his "OPINION AND ORDER" of Sept. 6, 2006:

"The substantive counts of the indictment charge defendant with acting as an unregistered agent of the Iraqi government in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 951 (Count Two); accepting about $10,000 from IIS as payment for "various services and activities," including her trip to Baghdad in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332d (Count Five); and engaging in financial transactions with the government of Iraq in relation to her trip to Iraq in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. (Count Six)." (S.D.N.Y.,2006, U.S. v. Lindauer --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2006 WL 2560622 (S.D.N.Y.) (not available from court online)

She was changed with acting as "an unregistered agent" which is entirely separate from espionage. Therefore the word "spy" is inaccurate. It is also inflammatory and could make her the target of extremists who see her as an accused "spy."

In the same "OPINION AND ORDER" Judge Mukasey explained what may have caused the use of this term. Lindauer was originally indicted with two Iraqi nationals who allegedly collected names for Iraqi intelligence on Iraqi's in the United States opposed to Saddam. Judge Mukasey said: "Their charged conduct, as explained by the government in pretrial submissions, involved principally obtaining the names of expatriate Iraqis in this country who were acting against the interest of the Saddam Hussein regime, and turning them over to IIS. It bears emphasis here that it was never the government's theory that Lindauer participated in such conduct, or indeed that she even knew the Al-Anbuke brothers. Rather, she and they were charged together only because both allegedly conspired with IIS."

In other words, she had nothing to do with these two Iraqi nationals charged with her and nothing to do with them as to their crimes.

Including Lindauer in this indictment without tagging the specific charges for each defendant created the impression that they'd all been involved in the same crime. But Judge Mukasey spelled out what others noticed at the time of indictment -- Lindauer was not accused of the alleged crimes of the Iraqi nationals.

The last sentence in the second paragraph of the biography is both misleading, on one level, and corrective, on another. It states:

"Although news headlines frequently[citation needed] refer to her as 'accused spy', more precise journalists[who?] note that the actual charges carefully avoid accusing Lindauer of espionage."

Even as her case came back to life with the media in the past year, some news groups used the term "spy," while others did not. Instead of "more precise journalists" avoid using "spy," it should read, "Use of the term "spy" by some journalists is inaccurate. Lindauer was never charged with espionage. The continued repetition of this falsehood is an endorsement of it. In this case, the falsehood may turnout out to be dangerous to Lindauer.

2) The federal government dropped all charges against Susan Lindauer on Jan. 15, 2006 giving this reason: "The Government has determined that continued prosecution of this case as to LINDAUER would not be in the interests of justice." This was after five years of Lindauer demanding a trial and the government maintaining that she was not competent to help in her own defense.

I wrote the first news article about this dismissed charges here: "Feds Drop Case Against Accused Iraqi Agent" ^[1] http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0901/S00210.htm

The link to the dismissal is here: ^[2] http://electionfraudnews.com/News/sl/Nolle.pdf

While this is posted on a non government web page, its provenance can be determined simply by contacting the federal district court, Southern Manhattan. Lindauer's case is fascinating and important given her confinement for 11 very difficult months for psychiatric evaluation when the basis of her case, that she was a U.S. intel asset, was claimed to be a "delusion."

She fought back, never got the trial that she demanded, but is now recovering at her home. The continued inclusion of "spy," a gross inaccuracy, is not appropriate for the article. It's also not helpful to her.

Thank you for reviewing this. I'd make the edit myself but I think that the edit would just beget another edit to the contrary. This is a chance for reach final accuracy on this question. She was charged with acting as an "unregistered agent," not with spying. This has been the case since the initial indictment years ago.

MichaelCollinsDC MichaelCollinsDC (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not the knowledge to get into the content. However, I've removed much of the unreferenced material from the article. This certainly needs a substantial rewrite.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYT uses the "spy" word in a number of articles. [1] [2] [3] The NYT, last I checked, can be used as a source. Most people wold consider taking money from an "intelligence service" to be indicative of performing some work of value for that service. As for "delusion" the articles make it clear that either she is delusional (claiming to hear the voice of God) or she is deceptive in being ruled unfit to stand trial. Collect (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to give the NYT's gloss when we can state clearly she was charged as an "unauthorised agent" of Saddam. Stick to the facts, they speak for themselves.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT used "spy" which is what 99% of people think of when a person is paid by spies of a foreign country (and 90% would call Iraq's "intelligence servie" - spies.) And her mental state is clearly also at issue. Collect (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is what 99% think when they hear the facts, then there is no need to say it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue then is that the facts are defamatory? Collect (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what 99% of people "think", it's about the truth. An encyclopedia is an educative tool, not a mirror of public misperception. We improve the encyclopedia by being honest and truthful, not by repeating the mistakes of others, no matter how well intentioned. NYT is a valid source, but if it's wrong we should not just close our eyes and hope, we should do the right thing, which is to publish the truth. Cottonshirt (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Wikipedia in NOT about the "truth", but rather what reliables 3rd party sources have reported. --Tom 14:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Limbaugh needs more editors on it

This article is only being edited by editors with a pro-Rush Limbaugh POV, who typically cite only to Rush Limbaugh's own website as a source. I am posting here to ask for more editors on the article. An example is the I Hope Obama Fails section. The section is written only explaining "Rush's" side (the editors on the article call him by his first name in the text). This section only presents Limbaugh's statements that he hopes Obama fails, and why he would say that, with no explanation about what made this controversial, or who found it controversial. User:Furtive admirer, backed up by User:Soxwon, are putting in a WSJ op-ed piece that I read and has nothing to do with the "fail" controversy (that also had a race element to it), but Limbaugh continuing to criticize Obama. That's Limbaugh's job - to criticize Obama, and it is distinct from the particular controversy. User:Furtive admirer uses POV language like "The Democrats escalated the issue", and when I revert, I get bizarre talk page messages about how liberal I am and how Obama needs a teleprompter to speak. I'm no longer watching the article, so it could use other editors who care more about WP:NPOV than about their own POV. --David Shankbone 23:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like some of that language has been removed. It's more of an NPOV issue than a BLP issue, so I think this may be the wrong board. If there is a significant dispute, the solution is an RfC or something instead of abandonment I would think. I've got this article watchlisted and occassionally read it over - it's not great, the formatting sucks, some of the sections give undue weight to various issues that aren't really biographical... But all in all, it could be much worse. Avruch^T 00:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be an NPOV issue - I don't care anymore. If other people come on the article I might go back, but it's unenjoyable to be the only one trying to conform the article to our policies and guidelines against Dittoheads, so I give up. --David Shankbone 02:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Shankbone's description accurately reflects my experience and reaction when trying to edit this article a few months ago. An editor is asking for help concerning universal issues about policy, bullying and ownership; why does it have to matter what board it's posted on? Flowanda | Talk 03:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds nore like seeking editors with a specific POV. Last I looked, it was quite replete with criticism of Limbaugh indeed. Collect (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California octuplets

The article looks like it needs some editor attention. For example, it currently has 3 different names for the mother Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to reliable newspaper sources, she has used all three names on different legal documents.IceCreamEmpress (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Martinelli

Jonathan Thompson

Jonathan Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Why is this man on Wikipedia? He was not a Nickelodeon presenter, as any employee of the TV company will tell you. Please call us. Similarly he is unknown to BBC GMR as we have checked with them too. Furthermore, how can he be listed in Old Mancunians and People From Salford? They are two different cities. Take all these alleged facts away and we are left with a businessman - and an unknown one at that; we have telephoned a couple of the companies the article lists. This article should be deleted to preserve the credibility of Wikipedia and to remove any impression that he has worked for our company and others.

Greg Williams (radio personality)

Greg Williams (radio personality) is being hit by several anons and new accounts with nasty BLP violations. AnyPerson (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC) \[reply]

Primary sources - the author themselves

I've run into an issue on a specific biography, but it probably has wider implications. For a couple of years I've been monitoring the biography of Mark Steyn, a columnist and author. Now this fellow Steyn apparently has his fans and detractors, and every few weeks I go in and clear out the stuff that violates BLP. Recently I removed the insertion of a quote from one of his hundreds of columns, as a combination of a WP:BLP and WP:NOR violation. I based this removal primarily on the BLP statement "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves." The material was not published by the subject about himself (i.e. it is not a statement like "I grew up in Liverpool and attended Cardinal Heenan Catholic High School"), was based on a primary source (his own writings), was provided was without context, and was clearly inserted as an attempt to discredit him in some way; thus, its removal. As I said on the article's talk page:

Steyn has written millions of words in literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles. Please explain what makes that particular statement notable in any way; in particular, please find reliable secondary sources that have discussed that statement and provided a context for it. Until then, do not re-insert that WP:BLP-violating original research. Thanks.

Since then, the editor who inserted it, and one other editor objected, even restoring the material. When I insisted that they find secondary sources that discussed the statement, they searched the internet, and managed to discover this source, a book review which mentioned the statement in passing. I've continued to remove the statement as an obvious violation of the very principles of WP:BLP; rather than attempt to show what reliable secondary sources have said about the subject, it is an obvious attempt to reflect negatively on the subject, using primary sources (his own writings). I've also warned them that if they continue to restore it, I will block them for doing so. In reply, they have now argued that because I have been removing the material, that means I am now "in a content dispute" with them, and no longer acting in an administrative capacity. I've pointed out to them the absurdity of this claim; it would mean that any admin who removed BLP-violating material was now "in a content dispute" regarding the material, and could therefore no longer act in an administrative capacity, but they are insistent. Given their continuing insistence that the material does not violate BLP, and that by removing the material I have suddenly become "involved in a content dispute", I've come to this board for additional opinions. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I am one of these editors. Here is the compromise material that I proposed at Talk:Mark Steyn. After fellow journalist Robert Fisk, a vocal critic of US foreign policy, was badly beaten up by Afghan refugees, Mark Steyn wrote of Fisk's account of the incident, "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." [4] [5]. The material is very clearly and reliably sourced, and note that the Steyn article is headed "A self-loathing multiculaturalist gets his due", so I do not see any breach of neutrality, and Steyn's remarks seem significant enough to me. Other sources have been given too, but Jayjg claims that they have all mentioned the remarks in passing, and that more sources that discuss the remarks are needed. But discussion mostly belongs in blogs and forums which are not accepted, although the other editor states that Fisk has discussed the subject in his book The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East. If we have to find non-blog and non-forum sources that discuss significance of everything like this in biographies then there needs to be a lot of deleting. What is there to discuss about Steyn's remarks? They speak for themselves. Viewfinder (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say the Steyn's remarks "speak for themselves", but without reliable secondary sources discussing them, what exactly do they say? In the absence of such reliable secondary sources that actually discuss this statement, what can we say about the relevance, notability, importance, etc. of this statement to Steyn's biography, thought, worldview? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how in-depth of a discussion are you looking for, Jayjg, seeing as discussing it "in passing" does not meet your standard? As you've been told, Steyn's remarks are notable because they show a very unusual attitude for a journalist to have toward a colleague. You forgot this link I provided on the talk page: [6]. Fisk also referred to the statement in a lecture given at the Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona on 26 September 2002, and it's discussed on page 371 of David Wallis' Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Print. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for reminding me about the above source. Here in an extract: When he was almost killed by an enraged mob of Afghan refugees during the American invasion, Fisk wrote a column saying if he had been in their shoes he too would have attacked any Westerner he saw, which led some readers to send him Christmas cards expressing their disappointment that the Afghans hadn't "finished the job." This sentiment was more or less echoed by the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, which ran an article bearing the subhead "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due." The right-wing columnist Mark Steyn wrote of Fisk's column, "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." Is this merely a mention in passing? I see commentary on Steyn's remarks here. Viewfinder (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am still unable to see a clause in WP:BLP which demands that secondary sources which "discuss" the statement must be found. If that is our position, I think that that needs stating on WP:BLP more specifically. Viewfinder (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do The Register and The London Telegraph (among others) meet WP:RS for quoting an individual?

I would have thought this to be a no-brainer but apparently another editor disagrees. See specifically this diff and this talk page where the sources were claimed to not meet WP:BLP standards. Oren0 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To expand: The original source here, is a blog from Senator Inhofe's staffer. Who is reprinting some emails, that may or may not originate from the subject. The Register (which i very much doubt is a reliable source) prints a rewrite of this blog, apparently without checking with Theon himself. Finally the London Telegraph article is an Op-Ed from Christopher Booker, who does the same. I've removed the text, since we are talking about a BLP.

I personally think (and have stated so on the talk page) that the originator of the emails, is probably Theon, but since we have no reliable sources to confirm this, i removed it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for the requested material are:

An article in The Register: [7]
An article in NewsMax: [8]
An article by the Institute for Southern Studies: [9]
An editorial in The London Telegraph: [10]
An article in Right Side News: [11]

I could provide others, but apparently aggregately this list does not contain "even one" source reliable enough for a BLP article. Oren0 (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are opinions Op-Eds/Columns/Editorials - and i very much doubt if any of them are doing other than rewriting what they found on the EPW minority blog. What we need is something with editorial oversight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just untrue. Neither The Register article nor the ISS article are op-eds. Furthermore, self-published material from reliable publications are allowable per WP:BLP "so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." I'd ask why you assume that op-eds in reliable publications such as those above and Fox News wouldn't meet this bar? Oren0 (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does BLP really allow Op-Ed's and opinion articles (and yes - the Steven Milloy one is such as well) to be reliable on 3rd persons. And are these really under the newspapers full editorial control? I doubt it very much.

And i really doubt it in this case, where its pretty obvious that all of these are using a single resource to their texts: the EPW minority blog. (in the ISS case, its even quite obvious)

These are all political opinion pieces, with a very limited sourcing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think its time to get 3rd party input here, since we can alway continue bickering on the talk page. We are obviously of differing opinion - so nows the time for outside input, which is why you posted it here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Whether you believe that The London Telegraph or Fox News or others would put their names on an article without subjecting it to editorial control is speculative and goes against WP:RS. Whether you think these sources did their homework is irrelevant as well. It'd be one thing if they all said, "according to the EPW minority, Theon said ...", but they don't, they quote him factually. We are in no position to speculate how they got those quotes nor is it relevant if they report it as true. I'm fine with an outside opinion but I already had a response written when you wrote that. Oren0 (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get the name right, please? It's the Daily Telegraph (or on Sunday, The Sunday Telegraph). Just because it is published in a city doesn't mean we can arbitrarily give it the name of that city. British newspapers do not work that way.

Secondly an opinion piece in any publication is not particularly good source. The newspaper, Daily Telegraph, is otherwise a very good source.

And now framing: the fact we can state is that the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe's outfit, reports that Theon wrote them an email, from which they published excerpts, declaring that in his opinion climate models are "useless" for predicting global warming, and that scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. This news has not been carried by many sources so it shouldn't be given much prominence. --TS 06:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not just EPW who reports this. Nor is it an opinion piece, but several. WP:BLP allows this provided the columnist is under the editorial control of the source, and I don't see why that would be untrue. Oren0 (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US Government site (Senate) is RS for what it says was sent to the committee. It is, in fact, illegal, to misrepresent who you are when sending emails to a committee of Congress, and therefore the minority "blog" is not a "blog" in the "self-published" sense, but actually a higher level than newspaper blogs which are specifically allowed in BLPs. The requirement is that "editorial control" exist, and it clearly does. Once that is accepted, the quotes in the newspapers also reach RS as they are not citing a "self-published blog" but documents of the US Government. Collect (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incorrect assessment. Since it wasn't sent to the committee - but to the minority, or rather more specifically to Marc Morano, Inhofe's press officer. The minority blog - is a blog. It has no editorial controls, since its neither official nor is representing the committee. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense is the EPW cite not official? Here, let me check the URL: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs. Hmmm, it appears to be hosted directly from senate.gov. That looks pretty official to me. I would think the US Senate would object to unofficial things being hosted there. Especially given that they ARE the minority and could be easily overridden on their use of the domain. This appears to be an official blog of the minority side of the EPW. And it does have editorial oversight, Marc Morano is the editor and Inhoffe undoubtedly reads the things he posts there. And then there's all those other sources which reviewed the material before they posted their versions. And that's just the obvious stuff.

Regardless, the site is clearly a reliable source for hosting the materials they receive. So as long as the text is attributed to the EPW Minority Page it shouldn't be a problem. The fact that all roads lead back there should be totally unsurprising since that is where Theon chose to make his announcement. --GoRight (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Cross-posted at WP:RS/N since there doesn't seem to be much of an audience for this matter on this noticeboard. Oren0 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flavio Briatore

I have removed a lot of defamatory content from the Flavio Briatore article as well as the article on his wife, Elisabetta Gregoraci. The material was sourced from an Italian newspaper, but I felt the comments were unsuitable to be included in articles on living people, as they mentioned corruption, exchanging sexual favours to obtain work, and affairs with Italian politicians.--jeanne (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Phillip Freeman

Front page news, alleged murder, no inline citations. Needs to be adopted by responsible experienced editors lest we get Seigenthalered. Skomorokh 13:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that this article is inappropriate and have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Phillip Freeman.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Obama's arrest

See Family of Barack Obama#George Hussein Onyango Obama (talkpage discussion here). An element of "recentism" and a BLP vio, due the nominal level of the charges? Or, properly notable, due its being in keeping with the tenuousness of George's notability, itself? ↜Just me, here, now … 16:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The half-brother of the US President arrested for dope possession. I'd say notable, but not prominent. Existing as a note on a low-profile list of his relatives is probably about right. --Scott Mac (Doc) 17:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A story like this that's in the headlines one day then gone the next is probably not notable (per WP:NOT#NEWS and recentivism), but notability is not the question - the question is BLP. We don't add rumors, claims, charges, arrests, etc., to most people's biographies. Newspapers print claims, allegations, scandals, arrests, and minor traffic accidents of celebrities and famous people because it is news. Many have police blotters too but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. Even if we treated George Obama as notable in his own right (which he is not - he's an estranged relation who the President has met once or twice), the fact that he happens to have been arrested for marijuana possession in a third world country does not illustrate his own life. An unproven criminal claim is certainly not a reliable source that he actually committed the violation (some versions of the material people sought to add included assertions that the charges were true). For it to be appropriate at all to an article, it has to be significant and relevant to the article subject. It may become so in the future - perhaps he will be convicted and sentenced to a jail term. Perhaps it will come out, in trial, that it was a false arrest for some political purposes or due to a broken police system. We just don't know. But a minor arrest does not make for an important or relevant biographical detail. Wikidemon (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that seems very short-sighted. As of now, any reliable source is almost certain to mention the arrest when talking about Obama's brother. It's resulted in the most anyone's talked about him to date, and how his life is treated by the media is absolutely the reason why he's notable enough to be talked about at all. There need be no inference of guilt or significance, but at the end of the day Obama has a half-brother who's known for living in far more modest conditions than the President and an arrest for drug possession shortly after the inauguration. Incidentally, if the arrest is politically motivated, then it is probably even more relevant to the article. Bigbluefish (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How were the Bush daughter's drinking arrests covered in WP? Seems to be a fair precedent, no? And I would not call the brother "estranged" as that implies a substantial family fight, for which I see no evidence. Consistency seems at this point to be wise. Collect (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News has just broken that the charges have been dropped, police saying that he had simply been picked up with people who had possessed marijuana. I think that pushes the incident from a fairly justifiable public judgement of character to a minor mix-up with a slightly tabloidy over-hype in its initial reporting. Bigbluefish (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Siegman - "anti-Israeli" criticism

I believe the "criticism" section of Henry Siegman's bio needs some serious revision.

Poorly sourced - the whole "criticism" section refers to four articles - 3 of which are editorials and the last is arguably a fringe/extremist publication.

a. CAMERA - what appears to be an editorial

b. Middle East Quarterly - questionable quality article

c. Two editorials from The Jewish press - editorials are not appropriate to use as sources of a BLP, since they represent the views of the authors and the author alone

As WP:BLP clearly states, "If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." - from what I can see of the sources, they are quite biased, and not appropriate for a BLP. If the criticism of his work is so widespread and "anti-Israeli" as the sources contend, surely better quality sources can be found? Should a BLP really be using WP:coatrack articles?

Also, WP:UNDUE - This section serves to represent a minority view. The information presented is neither proportional nor neutral. Additionally, no counter-arguments are presented to offer balance.

I really don't have the knowledge to do a major edit of this - perhaps someone can have a quick look-see? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part it looks more like a sourcing / NPOV / weight, relevance, and WP:COATRACK issue than a BLP violation. It's legit to point out that this individual has been criticized by a number of partisans on the other side of the issue, preferably by citing neutral third party sources that cover the criticism rather than citing the critics' own work as a primary source. Repeating the criticism in detail seems to go too far, and the quote about him being an anti-semite does in my opinion cross over the BLP line. Citing in the text who made a defamatory comment does not always take it out of BLP territory. "X is a baby-smacker" cited to an op-ed would clearly be a BLP violation. "Professor so-and-so claims that X is a baby-smacker" is still a problem.Wikidemon (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on - I'm confused here. Editorials are, by definition, representative of the opinion of the author, and nothing else. Isn't it blatantly inappropriate to use them as a source for anything? Balance issues aside, isn't it spitting in the face of Wiki guidelines to use them as reliable sources for anything but the opinion of the authors? How are they "legitimate criticism"? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Hrmm - misread the statement. Ignore. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very often a person's career is significant for taking courageous, unpopular positions, and as a result it is also significant that powerful, irresponsible extremist organizations have attacked that person. The specific charges, even if they are false, are also significant, because the article must make clear whether or not they are false.

What would you include in Debbie Almontaser? The scurrilous, clearly false attacks are the most significant part of her biography. Nbauman (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(people taking popular positions are subject to character assassinations too) In those cases we would need secondary sourcing to show that the attacks have taken place, and they need to be filtered through NPOV, WEIGHT, BLP, etc., rather than using the attack organization's own website to self-verify its own importance. Also, to maintain neutrality if it is a mere attack rather than a widespread criticism it would have to be covered as such, rather than recasting it as a legitimate criticism or controversy to be weighed against other opinions.Wikidemon (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nbauman, Debbie Almontaser's article is handled quite differently. It documents the controversy in a neutral and balanced manned, focussing on the facts and sequence of events. This is entirely different from inserting a quote from an editorial, which makes repugnant claims of anti-Semitism - without providing any sort of balance. If it's a serious issue that has widespread media coverage, then it should be easy enough to find neutral 3rd party sources which document the controversy. I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion here...

1. You claim that, "WP:RS doesn't mean accuracy[12]" - and are thus quite happy to put any old rubbish which appears in the anywhere on the web, in a bio. WP:RS specifically states, a "...reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is a key feature of a reliable source. You're at odds not only with me, but with one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia.

2. WP:RS states, "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact". They're horrible sources for facts or news. If it's a large enough issue, then surely 3rd party sources can be found. If there's no source to cover the claims of the issue - then it's probably too minor or simply false - and in either case, doesn't warrant inclusion in a BLP. This, however, seems to be something that you disagree with - and are quite happy to use a slanderous editorial as a source, for something as trivial as someone's ancestry. I'm not happy with this. BLPs need -GOOD- sources. Not "whatever's out there".

3. not hiding - I never proposed that controversial issues should be kept out of BLPs. I stated quite specifically, and repeatedly, that they need to be done -WELL-. Using a couple of inflammatory editorials as the main sources, and a full quote from one of those - with _NO_ effort to put those claims in context - that's what I'm opposed to. If it's done in a balanced and impartial manner, then fine - it has a justified place in a bio. If not, then it has to stay out. WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:RS - these need to be addressed before anything is included in a BLPGrizzledOldMan (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing in four more articles

Actually, very similar material seems to have been adde to at least two other articles, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA)[13] and Rashid Khalidi.[14] I see that there are citations throughout the encyclopedia regarding claims made by CAMERA, and that last year CAMERA was caught in a coordinated effort to plant partisan material into Wikipedia.[15] This brings up an interesting and improtant issue. If a partisan group criticizes a living person on its website, blog, a newspaper op-ed, etc, what if anything would justify adding a statement to Wikipedia that the organization made the attack? What if the group or person issuing the criticism are notable (e.g. a professor, politician, a notable writer)? I'm very uncomfortable that a partisan organization could bootstrap its way into Wikipedia. Do we always need secondary reliable sources of sufficient weight to cover the fact that the organization made the attack in order establish significance and relevance to the living person in question? Are there any other requirements? Wikidemon (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...A fourth article, Moshe Ya'alon, probably the only article where this belongs at all but it still has to conform to WP:V, NPOV, and BLP. I've edited that one accordingly.[16] - Wikidemon (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...fifth.[17] Reverted. Wikidemon (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got a little confused by this topic fork. I was responding to GrizzeldOldMan. But I think I addressed your concerns, Wikidemon, in the section above.

I don't see any problem with having an irresponsible partisan group making false attacks on somebody, and including those charges in a biography, as long as we make it clear that they are false. That's the way we handled Debbie Almontaser. As long as the false charges are well-known enough to meet WP:NOTABLE and WP:WEIGHT, they should go in the biography -- along with the rebuttal. What's wrong with that?

On a separate matter, I think User:Historicist should take a history class, or a college freshman English class, in which he'll learn to separate fact from opinion in his writing. It's ironic that he included a picture of Herototus on his user page, since Herodotus was noted for presenting the accounts of both sides, as he did with the story of the Persians and Phonecians, from the very beginning of the Persian Wars. Laudatur et alget. Nbauman (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I've referred the matter to AN/I, here. Wikidemon (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NX Zero

I don't know if BLP can apply to a band, but accusations of plagiarism should apply to the members of the band, and it's being done without sources. All such claims should be removed unless verified. AnyPerson (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any allegations about living people fall under the BLP policy. Unverified stuff gets removed. Offenders get warned and then blocked.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir‎

Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is the new Prime Minister of Iceland (as of 2009-02-01). She is apparently also the first openly gay head of a national government. There has been some editwaring about whether she is gay/homosexual/lesbian. However I think that this article needs a close eye kept on it for vandalism (of which there has been a little bit already). Martin451 (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Shafi

Blatant self promotion: Pages being deleted on wiki on violation of the same rule.

quote "She received a Lifetime Achievement award at Nestle Pakistan fashion awards in 2002. Currently, she's the spokesperson for Pond's in Pakistan". The awards are neither regionally nor globally recognized. The "Ponds" product is not distributed outside Pakistan

"She did her first shoot with Dawn/Herald with Fifi Haroon in 1993. Her style appealed to the elitist fashion industry but not the general public" - Again this is an opinion and NOT a fact

"She remains a popular figure on the social scene & fashion industry due to her positive image and ettiquetes".- I am sorry but what is this?. A school rating report?

In short, the self promoting article does not show that the subject of the article has achieved anything significant in her career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.69.195.220 (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Tanya was one of the leading "supermodel" in Pakistani fashion scene during 1994-2006." - Citation needed. Source??

Dan Rooney

This entire article consists of two parts: (1) a description of the selling of the Steelers, which has very little to do with Dan Rooney himself, and (2) a discussion about a comment he made regarding a Steelers player. Being that the first is irrelevant and the second presents a very biased view of his life (a good overview of him is available on the NYT here), this entire article may be considered questionable. -- 136.142.15.231 (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Breggin

There are editors adding BLP vios. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some independent input here would certainly be welcome. --Crusio (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The judicial opinions are good sources and do not constitute a BLP violation. Skinwalker (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't even check that that's a judicial opinion. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "they"? Skinwalker (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crusio, Rockpocket and Nmg20. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you know that, exactly? Rockpocket 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hoyt

A NY politician who found himself in an unfortunate situation. The information concerning his situation keeps being removed from his bio, one would assume by himself, his friends, or his staff. The information is accurate, verifiable, public, non libelous etc...How can one stop this from continuing to happen? I have only posted it once but can see that there has been an editing back and forth going on for some time. WNYBuffalo (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're being paranoid. You linked a blog file, which is unverifiable. Please familiarize yourself with WP:V for future references. I dug up a NYT article covering the material in question, which should be more suitable. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm - maybe you're not paranoid. Seems that controversy has a long history of being removed. Might be good to get an admin to have a poke around. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will correct my cite, I meant to link it to the official sanction letter he received from the Speaker's Office in the Assembly, which apparently is no longer at that link. I will find a better source for the letter and cite it appropriately. Could you advise me on how you request admin to look at it? Please. Thanks. WNYBuffalo (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current references are sufficient - the actual letter doesn't really add anything to the bio. Given that WP:RS seems to have been the reason of the reverts, hopefully that's the end of it. Admin intervention shouldn't be necessary. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morton Brilliant (2nd nomination)

WP:COATRACK deletion nomination of extraordinary violation of WP:BLP1E. Systematic misunderstanding of WP:N is being used to argue that single-sentence mention in 32,000-circulation newspaper in different context justifies BLP violation. THF (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Single action? Nope. Mentioned multiple times in NYT for his political position unrelated to his perversion of WP. Collect (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request immediate Admin review of abusive editing by 'uwishiwasjohng' on David Ferguson (impresario) article

'uwishiwasjohng' has submitted more than 30 edits since February 1, 2009 on the David Ferguson (Impresario) article. This recent flurry of editing activity is a reaction to the removal of the Legal History section in David Ferguson's article -- a section which 'uwishiwasjohng' crafted and maintained for several weeks, despite his self-admitted COI with the subject David Ferguson. This Legal History section was removed after ~~Wiki Admin~~ Red Pen of Doom and Wiki users Cottonshirt and Orderinchaos challenged 'uwishiwasjohng's reliance on primary source material and criticized the overall defamatory tone of the Legal History section.

'uwishiwasjohng's new strategy is to destroy the David Ferguson bio through relentless editing and unwarranted text removal. Much of the text removed was essential to defining Ferguson's career as a record producer (much of this text was restored on Feb 2, 2009, but these details have previously been removed on multiple occasions). This text was supported by valid citations which were provided in direct response to the terrific number of 'citation needed' requests with which 'uwishiwasjohng' has stocked the article since he taking control of it back in November.

Could an admin please review this abusive editing? Is it possible to take steps to block 'uwishiwasjohng' from editing the article because of his intrusive COI with Ferguson? DrJamesX (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX[reply]

<snort> "Relentless editing"? I thought that's what we were supposed to do on Wikipedia!

I notice that you neglected to mention the dozens of changes that you (and User:64.95.122.34) have made to the same article in the same time period.

I also notice that you neglected to mention that most of the edits to that section made by User:Uwishiwazjohng and myself were to take out the unsourced/badly sourced bits you keep adding.

And I have to say, in response to "This text was supported by valid citations which were provided in direct response to the terrific number of 'citation needed' requests"—most of those {{fact}} tags were added by me. And they were added because this article has never had valid citations. The citations on this article have ranged from non-existent to almost entirely a load of crap, which is why the article has been whittled away.

If the guy is actually notable, it shouldn't be that hard for you to find solid third-party verifiable sources (i.e., not blogs, student pages, wikis, or press releases). Could you please do that instead of reverting and griping? The fact that you add positive, unsourced information, and that User:Uwishiwazjohng and I then delete it (because it's unsourced, not because it's positive) doesn't make it a BLP issue. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I don't think I'm editing any more than usual, I'm just using a different style. Rather than make a general statement for a whole range of edits, I'm making specific edits and commenting specifically about what I'm editing. So the while the number of edits has increased, I don't think that I've removed or added any more then I usually do since I've 'taken over the article in November'

--Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Guard

The Aryan Guard is a neo-Nazi group, so it's particularly important not associate anybody with the group, without reliable sources to back up the claim. In this this edit a user labelled a picture with the caption "Members of the Aryan Guard at an anti-Israel rally on January 10, 2009.". The problem is most people, including the person at the front, were not members of the group. They were marching in a common protest, but weren't members. The intent of the editor is to make all protesters appear to be Nazis or friends of Nazis. --Rob (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0901/S00210.htm

[2] ttp://electionfraudnews.com/News/sl/Nolle.pdf

[1]

[2]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards