Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

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:

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:

Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster

Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I have a few reservations about the controversy section in this profile. The references to the News of the World website do not work anymore and were removed very shortly after the publication of the article. This was also the case for the previous allegations made against the Duke. On the Biographies of living persons within the "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" section it reads:

"Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced."

The controversy section does not have any sources which back up what it is claiming, subsequently, it is my opinion that this section be removed.

I had already changed the section, however, other users are still reverting the edits. Could an administrator please have a look at this situation to assess the next step forward.// Londonfella (talk) 14:25, 24 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.)

Primary sources - the author himself

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." [1] [2]. 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 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: [3]. Fisk also referred to the statement in a lecture given at the Centre de Cultura Contemporánia 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]

While not discussing the sourcing here, the requirement for secondary sources is a clear implication of NOR, whether or not they're BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That about wraps it up, I reckon. The counter-arguments have dwindled away to nothing. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon so too. I could repeat the arguments, but that would be pointless. I could restore the material, but its life will likely be shorter than the block that I will get for so doing. But no matter how we word the material, it will be seen as seriously negative by MS and his supporters, and carefully selected for the purposes of damaging him. It seems that admin have been given the power to revert such material, and block those who contribute it, however verifiable it may be. My impression is that there are well resourced supporters of conservative journalists who dislike us "losers" at Wikipedia, and that admins therefore consider that they cannot be too careful. Viewfinder (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't provided any reliable secondary sources that have discussed the material, and you have been told on the Talk: page by more than one person that it is a BLP violation. For example: Speaking in an administrative capacity, I concur with Jayjg. That indeed about wraps it up. Failing a third party consensus here that it can be added, if I see either of you adding it again, I will first protect the article, and, if need be, block the offenders. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been provided with umpteen sources, all of which you have wriggled around by stretching Wikipedia's requirements well past their breaking points. You and others are making a mockery of your positions as administrators, and not for the first time. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "umpteen sources" like this, a personal website, and a speech made by Robert Fisk. On the contrary, it is you who are trying to make a mockery of WP:BLP; not on my watch, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are listed at Talk:Mark_Steyn#Review_of_.22sources_to_date.22. Unfortunately, whether or not we think there ought to be, there is not consensus in support of the addition of the material as currently proposed. But the incident is verifiable and should be included in the biography. More examples of and excerpts from independent media coverage of the incident should enable it to stick. Viewfinder (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fisk-Steyn break 1

An uninvolved admin – meaning someone who isn't a regular editor of Middle-East related pages, and who is neither friend nor foe of Jayjg – should take this matter out of his hands. I am far from uninvolved by my own definition, but looking closely at the talk pages and the sources adduced thus far, there doesn't appear to be any BLP problem. None whatsoever. There are multiple secondary sources discussing Steyn's statement; all of them are excellent, high-profile mainstream reliable sources. When Jayjg describes an "absence of such reliable secondary sources that actually discuss this statement," he's simply hoping you won't actually check and discover that he's making this up.

The facts here are very simple. In a rather infamous op-ed for a very high-profile newspaper (the Wall Street Journal), Steyn laughingly cheered on the savage mob beating of a very prominent journalist. There are multiple secondary sources discussing the Steyn op-ed – and specifically addressing the very sentence of Stein's that Jay is threatening to block editors for mentioning in the article – including by the victim of the mob beating, the celebrated journalist Robert Fisk. Here's what Fisk has to say about the Steyn quote:

Later reactions were even more interesting. Among a mass of letters that arrived from readers of the Independent, almost all of them expressing their horror at what had happened, came a few Christmas cards, all but one of them unsigned, expressing the writer's disappointment that the Afghans hadn't "finished the job." The Wall Street Journal carried an article which said more or less the same thing under the subhead "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due." In it, Mark Steyn wrote of my reaction that "you'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." The "Fisk Doctrine," he went on, "taken to its logical conclusion, absolves of responsibility not only the perpetrators of Sept. 11 but also Taliban supporters who attacked several of Fisk's fellow journalists in Afghanistan, all of whom, alas, died before being able to file a final column explaining why their murderers are blameless."

Quite apart from the fact that most of the journalists who died in Afghanistan were killed by thieves taking advantage of the Taliban's defeat, Steyn's article was interesting for two reasons. It insinuated that I in some way approved of the crimes against humanity on September 11 — or, at the least, that I would absolve the mass murderers. More important, the article would not have been written had I not explained the context of the assault that was made on me, tiny though it was in the scale of suffering visited upon Afghanistan. Had I merely reported an attack by a mob, the story would have fit neatly into the general American media presentation of the Afghan war with no reference to civilian deaths from US B- 52 bombers and no suggestion that the widespread casualties caused in the American raids would turn Afghans to fury against the West. We were, after all, supposed to be "liberating" these people, not killing their relatives. Of course, my crime — the Journal gave Steyn's column the headline "Hate-Me Crimes" — was to report the "why" as well as the "what and where." Wallis, David ed. Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Print. Nation Books, 2004: 371-373.

Jay says of this passage that its "relevance is unclear," and complains that it was "found by googling Google Books."

Other secondary sources specifically discussing the Steyn quote include the London Independent (a major British broadsheet), Salon.com, and the New Zealand Herald. The CBC's Evan Solomon also discussed the significance of the Steyn quote in an interview with Fisk for the television show Hot Type.

Three things are absolutely clear: (1) there are multiple secondary sources discussing this quote; (2) there is nothing here even remotely approaching a BLP violation; and (3) Jayjg is here as a party to a content dispute, in an area of the encyclopedia where he has a known bias. This last issue is the gravest by far. In misrepresenting his own role here, in pretending to be simply an admin safeguarding BLP rather than a party to a content dispute, Jay is trying to justify the use of his admin tools as weapons in order to win that content dispute. Hence all his threats to other editors. This is a very serious form of admin abuse, the sort that might well merit desysoping. At any rate, this entire episode represents not a BLP issue, but an admin-abuse issue, and should be moved, accordingly, to the AN/I page.--G-Dett (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will preface this by saying that Jayjg has asked for my opinion on this matter. I do not, however, think that makes me biased in the matter -- I don't have an ideological commitment in the dispute, nor indeed a particularly close friendship with Jayjg. I think I can comment sensibly on the matter.

Firstly, with regards to the text in the lead. The absence of discussion of these matters in the body of the article makes them unsuitable for inclusion in the lead, where they have the potential to give a non-neutral impression. If there is substance to the discussion, it should be included in the text of the article.

Secondly, with regards to the quote from the WSJ article. The use of the quotation as it stands is staggeringly non-neutral. As it is, it is a quotation from the middle of the article that does not take into consideration the article's general tone or the context of the statement -- the presentation in the Wikipedia article gives the impression that he considered the fact of Mr Fisk's being beaten up humorous; Steyn's article makes it very clear that it is the irony of Fisk's continued position in the face of his being beaten up that is humorous. The presentation of the quotation is not neutral and as such it is a violation of BLP. If there is a genuine controversy over the statement -- or if it is a significant part of a genuine, documented controversy -- then it could be included as part of a discussion of this controversy. As it is, it is not neutral and Jayjg is quite right to remove it.

As I have not looked too far into the history of this dispute, I have no opinion as to the appropriateness of Jayjg himself taking administrative actions, but I feel very strongly that he is correct to make these removals.

[[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, your post is a very reasonable assessment of the content issue; I find it in many respects quite convincing. And Jayjg is entirely within his rights to agree with you and edit accordingly. Where he is not within his rights is in (a) threatening to block other editors who take the opposing position, (b) misrepresenting this as a BLP issue, and (c) falsely claiming (from the very heading he's given this thread on down) that there is an "absence of reliable secondary sources that actually discuss this statement."--G-Dett (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not going to discuss Jayjg's approach, but it avowedly is a BLP issue. They are both (in their current presentation) non-neutral, negative statements on a biography of a living person. That's about the best definition of a "BLP issue" I can think of. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 18:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of one better: negative material that is dubiously sourced.

Anyway, here's my suggestion. Why don't you take over the matter from here? You can address the neutrality issues surrounding the presentation of the quote, without falsely claiming there are no reliable secondary sources discussing it, without threatening to block fellow editors if they disagree with you, and without pretending that it isn't a content dispute. It's really win-win-win: the article improves; the cynicism that sets in when an admin abuses his privileges is stemmed or even reversed; and the ugly drama of pursuing Jay's abuse as a formal matter is avoided.--G-Dett (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your careful analysis and comments, Sam. You're the third uninvolved administrator who has commented on this issue, and you both have agreed with my view that the material violated WP:BLP. And I completely agree that if there is a "genuine controversy over the statement -- or if it is a significant part of a genuine, documented controversy -- then it could be included as part of a discussion of this controversy." That's exactly why I've been asking for reliable secondary sources that discuss the statement. I've asked a couple of other uninvolved admins to take a look at this too, and am hoping that they will have the time to analyze the issue and express their views. In the meantime, I will continue to act in an administrative capacity on this article to remove all WP:BLP violations, and ensure that none are inserted. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam's stated reason for opposing the material as currently written is completely different from yours. It would be interesting to know who the other two uninvolved admins are, whether you emailed them privately like you did Sam, and whether they took you at your word when you falsely asserted that secondary sources discussing the quote were lacking. If they believed you on this last, that would of course render their opinions on the BLP issue irrelevant.--G-Dett (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fisk-Steyn break 2

Possible compromise:

Noting the irony of anti-Western writer Robert Fisk being beaten by Muslims whom he sympathized with, Steyn called it a "hate-me crime" and wrote "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter."[fn to 15 Dec 01 WSJ] Fisk criticized the remark as insensitive.[fn to book]

This would necessarily belong in the text of the article, not the lead. THF (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THF, my concern, as before, is unlike, say, the Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair that we don't seem to have reliable secondary sources that discuss this "incident". Steyn wrote it, Fisk responded briefly in a speech and in his book, and a couple of book reviews note it. From where would a proper WP:BLP-compliant analysis come? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, I may be mistaken here, but you seem to be requiring a tertiary source. The secondary source is Fisk's commentary (and the commentary of others) on Steyn's essay, and the case has been made that that secondary commentary is notable. The reason we then go to the primary source is to give Steyn a chance to defend himself by appropriately putting his words in context so that the article isn't twisted by Fisk's tendentious reading. You seem to be concerned that the result will make Steyn look bad, but it's only going to look bad to Fisk partisans wearing blinders. Everyone else is going to chuckle.

I agree that the text you removed was correctly removed. But the issue is one of NPOV because of the failure to put the text in context, and that's readily resolved. THF (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm really only looking for secondary sources. Steyn wrote something, Fisk briefly responded; it seems to have pretty much vanished from the public eye since then. Now, if there were reliable secondary sources that discussed this; as you say "put the text in context", then I'd be fine with the addition. That's what I've been insisting on, that's what Sam Korn insisted on, and that's what, I think, you've been talking about too. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief note for casual readers, and others uninitiated in the elaborate wikilawyering GAME being played here: there are indeed several excellent secondary sources that discuss the matter and put it explicitly in context. Jay knows this well, but is pretending not to.--G-Dett (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Fisk's complaint is so ludicrous that only the sympatico are seizing on it. So editors can either leave it unanswered or, more fairly, let Steyn's words speak for themselves. NB it's not just Fisk; Kamiya also made the same disingenuous comment on the language in the Steyn column. So one's hard-pressed to say that it's not notable, when it's been noted, and, realistically, Steyn's columns don't get all that much attention outside the blog world. (Separately, there's an NPOV problem in Robert Fisk, where Steyn's words are mischaracterized.) THF (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, after I warned Lapsed Pacifist that if he added the material to the article again I would protect it, or block him, he added it instead to the Fisk article without an edit summary either. That's the kind of tendentious editing that really makes a mockery of WP:BLP. I'll have to block him if he continues. Regarding your point, I'm not really looking at whether or not Steyn's comment or Fisk's responses were fair, I'm just trying to make sure that it's notable and fairly reported. I'm still not seeing much attention to the comment or analysis of it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree no mention of this belongs in the lead. Your proposed wording is an improvement. I think Sam may still object to it because in his view the article should be careful not to "give the impression that [Steyn] considered the fact of Mr Fisk's being beaten up humorous." I don't fully share Sam's concern here, in part because it's very clear that Steyn did find the beating itself humorous–

You can understand why Mr. Fisk has been in low spirits of late: The much-feared "Arab street" is as seething and turbulent as a leafy cul-de-sac in Westchester County...But last weekend the people finally roused themselves--and beat up Fisky! His car broke down just a stone's throw (as it turned out) from the Pakistani border and a crowd gathered. To the evident surprise of the man known to his readers as "the champion of the oppressed," the oppressed decided to take on the champ. They lunged for his wallet and began lobbing rocks. Yet even as the rubble bounced off his skull, Mr. Fisk was shrewd enough to look for the "root causes."

–and it's certainly clear that the Wall Street Journal's headline writer understood Steyn to be applauding the beating; the article is subtitled "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due." But given that the quoted sentence ("heart of stone" etc.) is talking about laughing at Fisk's response, I concur with Sam that that's how it should be phrased.

How about something like this: Noting the irony of US-foreign-policy critic Robert Fisk being beaten by Muslims whose views he'd championed, Steyn called it a "hate-me crime." Regarding Fisk's subsequent expressions of sympathy for his attackers, Steyn wrote "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." Other commentators described Steyn's remark as "vicious" and tantamount to an endorsement of the attack. Fisk himself went further, arguing that Steyn's remarks implied that Fisk "in some way approved of the crimes against humanity on September 11." Could probably be trimmed and tightened, but that's the essence of the episode.--G-Dett (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"US-foreign-policy critic" for Fisk is perhaps too soft an appellation, since he's a conspiracy theorist of relatively extreme wackiness. "Other commentators" is WP:WEASELly, since it would be of some relevance if they were politically aligned (or not) with Fisk's views. "Tantamount to an endorsement of the attack" seems unfair in the current context, since, after all, it was Fisk's own endorsement of the attack ("I would've attacked me, too") that Steyn was humorously commenting upon (a point that my language above doesn't quite make, either). I'm fine with the choice of Fisk quote; that was certainly how I read Steyn. And Fisk, for that matter.

Of course, Jayjg is a thoughtful and persuasive editor, so if he disagrees with me for reasons I haven't thought of, I may need to reevaluate my position.

NB to interested editors that the same issue arises in the Robert Fisk article. THF (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware Fisk was a conspiracy theorist, but I've only read his major works – Pity the Nation, The Great War for Civilisation, and of course his three decades of award-winning journalism for The Independent, which is one of Britain's two or three top mainstream broadsheets. I am aware that his writing is rhetorically bombastic, and that he takes his own derring-do during the Lebanese civil war quite seriously, sometimes wearyingly so, but that is of course quite a different thing from conspiracy theories. But perhaps you are more deeply read in his minor works, or perhaps you've had privileged access to his personal notebooks or something, and found what you thought was a conspiracy theory, in which case do share. The other possibility is that you don't know what you're talking about, and are parroting something you heard some lantern-jawed illiterate pundit or thoughtful/persuasive Wikipedian say, and are forgetting that this is the BLP noticeboard, good a place as any to start not slandering living people.

If "US foreign policy critic" sounds too euphemistic, could you suggest something else? Forgive my bluntness, but "anti-Western" sounds like something a blogger who doesn't know Fisk's work – and doesn't know what "Western" means for that matter – would say.

It's secondary-source commentators in Salon, The Independent, etc. who thought that Steyn's guffaws as a mob "beat up Fisky!" and "the rubble bounced off his skull" amounted to an endorsement of the attack. His WSJ editors thought that too, which is why they subtitled his article "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due."--G-Dett (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to play Argument Clinic here. Any fair reading of Steyn's column would acknowledge that he was commenting on Fisk's own endorsement of the attack and self-hatred. As for Fisk himself, he's accused the US of faking its account of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon and destruction of WTC7, so "foreign policy critic" is far too mild a characterization of his anti-US extremism; WP:WEIGHT suggests he's lucky to get any mention in the Steyn article at all. "Radical" or "anti-western sympathizer" is not unique with me. THF (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're right and you're wrong about a fair reading of Steyn's column. Only an unusually tone-deaf reader (or a non-native speaker) would fail to see that he's practically wetting his pants in hilarious glee as he recounts the near-fatal beating of Fisk. But you're right that where he explicitly describes his own "laughter," he's talking about his response to Fisk's sanctimonious expression of sympathy for the people who almost killed him.

What does "faking its account" mean? Does Fisk believe the US had a role in the 9-11 attacks? If so, wow, I have never, ever heard this. What I've heard him say is that while he has nagging questions about the attacks, these are rooted in personal and anecdotal evidence not professional research; here's what he says about "ravers" at talks of his who ask him why he doesn't "tell the truth about 9-11":

I have tried to tell the "truth"; that while there are unanswered questions about 9/11, I am the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, not the conspiracy correspondent; that I have quite enough real plots on my hands in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, etc, to worry about imaginary ones in Manhattan. My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?

"Western" refers to a whole trajectory of human culture compassing everything from Athenian democracy and Hellenistic culture to enlightenment humanism and liberal capitalism. There exists a handful of semi-literate contemporary elites, elites who in their own persons, ironically, do not bear much of the intellectual fruit of the Western tradition, who seem indeed not even to know what it is, who when talking about it tend to equate it with American political and military hegemony since World War II; for these hayseed elites, yes Robert Fisk is "anti-Western." For others, he is an extraordinary journalist and fierce, bombastic, and occasionally wearisome critic of American foreign policy.--G-Dett (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fisk-Steyn break 3

I have noted the above discussion with interest. I am a bit concerned about Jayjg approaching other admins on this matter; there is a tendency in such situations, consciously or otherwise, to approach fellow admins likely to be sympathetic. Did he approach the admins who have commented on the talk page? Fisk may be radical but he is a writer for a major UK broadsheet and I see nothing about him that should disqualify him from mention in the Steyn article. "Anti-US extremist" appears to me to be unjustified but even if it is justified, Steyn's laugh about another journalist's response to a mob that beat him up, in an article entitled "a self loathing multiculturalist gets his due", seems pretty notable to me. Viewfinder (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viewfinder, Sam Korn has explained quite clearly the nature of his relationship with me (or lack thereof). I specifically looked for experienced admins with whom I had few interactions, and who felt they were familiar with BLP. I did not approach the editors who commented on the article's Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who comes into this discussion professing neutrality but with the stated belief that Fisk's position on his beating is "ironic" might want to take a closer look at exactly how neutral they are. Jayjg, I notice you have yet to address any of the issues G-Dett raised about your stance. Don't be coy. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wines

Michael Wines is a New York Times journalist who spent many years stationed in Russia. In 2001, Rolling Stone journalist and author Matt Taibbi threw a pie allegedly made from horse semen into his face. This incident has been confirmed by the New York Times, and there is documentary material extant (photographs) showing Wines with pie on his face. The incident is outlined in detail in the Wiki entry on The eXile, Taibbi's Russian newspaper. Attempts to give this incident its due weight in Wines's own entry are being deleted on spurious grounds (which also keep changing): weight, NPOV, BLP etc. The article is a stub, and the incident has been widely reported - don't see how weight is an issue. There's no reason why a factual event that occurs elsewhere in Wiki should contravene the NPOV, nor is it defamatory if it is true (it is), and reliably sourced (it is). What are other editor's thoughts on this? The discussion page on the Michael Wines article gives a fuller account of the issues here.Richard Cooke (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The due weight for this in the article on Wines is zero. The due weight for this on the eXile is either zero or very close to zero. BLP applies on all pages, not just the bio of the subject. DGG (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I'm trying to understand your tersely worded argument but not having much success. The only mention in WP policy I can find about "due weight" is the section entitled "Undue weight" on the page WP:NPOV, which is also the redirect destination from WP:due weight. This section asserts that minority viewpoints in some controversy (e.g. evolution, the death of Napoleon, etc.) should not be given undue weight. But in the present case, there is no minority viewpoint. Neither Wines nor any other party has ever disputed any facts that were being inserted into the article; in fact his publication (NYT) actually confirmed it.

Consequently, I don't understand what relevance the due weight argument has here, or what quantity is supposed to be "zero." If the 5(!) sources available on this subject from other WP pages are added, there is clearly no surfeit of reliable sources and no violation of NPOV, BLP, or any other policy. Please correct me if there's something I've missed.... dsol (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DCG, what is the basis for your claim that this material has "zero weight" or contravenes the BLP? Matt Taibbi is a signficant figure, as is Michael Wines. Surely one throwing a pie in the face of the other constitutes a significant event. At present, your argument seems to be "because I say so". Richard Cooke (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It rises to the level of inclusion if it is noteworthy, ie it has been covered by multiple RS and has some relevance to the article and is not undue weight, ie its 90% of the article. Is this the case? I have no idea. Just my 2 cents. --Tom 15:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just took a quick look at the bio. Still not sure. Wines went to school, works for the times, has wife and kids, and some reporter threw a pie in his face?? His current bio is tiny so this "factoid" would sort of stick out awkwardly. Again, not arguing for or against inclusion, just thinking out loud.--Tom 15:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) After looking at what RC wanted to add, I would be against it. imho, it does give undue weight to eXile and their "award" and to the pie thrower. As pointed out, maybe, maybe, include a breif mention in eXile article or the pie throwers but not needed in the Wine article. Cheers, --Tom 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom - I agree with you that the current inclusion is far from optimum, and that a line or two would suffice. That was the original addition I made to the stub. However, one editor, Idlewild101, seems to be demanding an absurd "burden of proof" involving multiple references and an NPOV provided by putting it in a "XYZ reported" phrasing. He is now claiming that any reference to the event is "scatalogical". Apart from needing a dictionary (he presumably means it is offensive or obscene, rather than pertaining to faeces) this is irrelevant with respect to WP. Is it tasteless? Definitely. Is it noteworthy? Ditto. I would be more than happy to have this pie section pared down to a single line reference in Wines's bio, which seems appropriate given the noteworthiness of the incident in question. Something along the lines of "In 2001, author and journalist Matt Taibbi threw a cream pie allegedly made from equine semen into Wines's face, supposedly to protest the nature of Wines's reporting from Moscow." (referenced using the three links from the three Wiki quality sources on the eXile page). What are other editors thoughts? Thanks Richard Cooke (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing - I've scoured the WP for any reference to "scatalogical material", and can't find anything. Is this a recognized reason for removal of verified content? Any help here would be appreciated. Thanks. Richard Cooke (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scatological material as well as childish pranks are subcategories of non-notable events of no encyclopædic value. That's what you should be looking for when perusing the policy. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 00:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idlewild101 asked me to give my opinion. My view is that the our job, as Wikipedia editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If something is reliably reported and is relevent to the subject then we should summarize it. As for weight, that's a major issue because the article is so short. I believe the most significant element of this story is that the suibject was voted the worst journalist in Russia. If we report positive awards we should also report negative awards. The fact that the "prize" was getting hit with a pie is less important, and the contents of the pie are trivial (and can't be confirmed by photograph). I'd think that a very short version is acceptable, something like, "In March 2001, The eXile declared Wines, at the time the New York Times Moscow bureau chief, the worst journalist in Russia. A pie was thrown at him as his reward." We should be doubly sure that we are also reporting any positive honors he's received as well. Will Beback talk 19:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will, but is the eXile award noteable? I sure wouldn't use them as a citation. Has a 3rd party reported on the award? It seems like a fake/attack type of award, but others hopefully know better. Sorry for not knowing but just repling to your response. I will admitt that I am getting annoyed with the project by the number of times that I hear material should be included for whatever reason, probably since I am serious deletionist/minimalist. Anyways, cheers, --Tom 20:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC) ps, to reply to Ricahrd Cooke, you keep on insisting that this event was noteworthy and I am still not convienced. How widely was this covered? What do others think. If it isn't noteworthy, then don't include it at all, even if its a line or two. Anyways, when I first read this, I thought it said a pie made of horse feces, and I was like wow,nasstttie...--Tom 20:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I would encourage you to go ahead and read the disputed material and the relevant footnotes. Coverage in the secondary sources, such as Media life magazine, the NY Post, and Salon.com establish notability for this content. dsol (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this material was also previously debated at the BLP noticeboard, with the final decision: "The section has been rewritten and now has adequate sourcing; it does not appear to violate WP:BLP policy." dsol (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Will BeBack. I think your concerns (and Tom's) have been dealt with in the previous discussion and resolution of this material on the BLPN with regard to The eXile article, which deals with the above concerns (there are 5 verified secondary sources discuss both the event and the contents of the pie). The only question remaining is one of weight in the context of Michael Wines's article, where consensus is now falling on the side of inclusion. I would encourage you to look at the material mooted for inclusion, and suggest any amendments there. If there are no objections, I will then restore the material. I'm also not sure why Idlewild couldn't contribute to this page himself. Richard Cooke (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask that editors on this page actually go to the Michael Wines and the eXile page to edit them in line with the discussion on BLPN.

User:Richard Cooke and User:dsol simply revert each of my attempts to implement the ideas here. Cooke is clearly misleading people above when he says that what he's putting in the eXile article is consistent with what editors have said here. I don't agree with Dsol's suggestion that because the eXile matter has been discussed before on this page that anything said 2 years ago is final. Dsol has an ownership problem with the eXile [4] and related articles. And please remember that Richard Cooke, not me, brought up this matter here, after inserting clearly inappropriate material in the Micheal Wines article.

As I read it, DGG and Tom say that the material should not be in the Michael Wines article, and that only a minimal mention in the eXile article would be permisable. User:Will Beback, is somewhat more lenient, saying that a fairly minimal one sentence summary might be acceptable (in either article?).

Please also note that User:Richard Cooke and User:Russavia who are both editing the Wines article and the eXile article are almost certainly sockpuppets, based upon their common attack style of writing, and edits such as [5].

Please also note that the eXile's editorial policy, as quoted by The Independent: "We shit on everybody equally." [6] and that it was a tabloid in all senses, but is now defunct. The question repeated above "What do you mean by scatological material?" is clearly not posed in good faith.

The reason that I do not engage in discussion with these people is that from experience, I've found that they simply do not discuss matters in good faith.

This shouldn't distract us from the basic question: How is the following

"In March 2001, "The eXile" set up a single-elimination contest to determine who, in their eyes, was the "most foul hack journalist" in Russia.^[1] In each issue, they paired up the previous week's survivors, who were then compared and analysed. The winner, Michael Wines who was then the Moscow correspondent for the New York Times, had a cream pie allegedly made from equine semen flung into his face by Matt Taibbi.^[2]^[3] Jonathan Shainin of Salon.com confirmed the incident, after seeing photographs of the attack.^[4]"

consistent with basic Wikipedia policy?

Wikipedia:Blp#Basic_human_dignity "Basic human dignity Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

Whereas, the version I've proposed based on discussions at the current WP:BLPN discussion is not considered acceptable?

"In March 2001, "The eXile" set up a single-elimination contest to determine who, in their eyes, was the "most foul hack journalist" in Russia.^[1] The winner, Michael Wines who was then the Moscow correspondent for the New York Times, had pie flung into his face by Matt Taibbi.^[2]^[3] "

I'd personally leave out Wine's name, but in line with Will Bebacks more lenient approach I've left it in.

I'll ask that you consider this basic question and edit based upon your consideration. I will limit any further discussion here to "Have the eXile editors answered the basic question above, or do they simply bluster and avoid it."

Idlewild101 (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, pleace file an WP:SPI. If not -- well, such accusations are not to be made lightly. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 00:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idlewild101, I would, at this point defer to your version or decision. You seem to be acting in good faith and want to do what is best so that would be fine by me. You have obviously spent more time and thought on this "matter" and seem to know the "players" involved. I admitt that I "patrol" this board to help with "obvious" easily fixed problems and add my 2 cents for what it is worth. If you would like more imput or help just let me know and good luck :) --Tom 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the objections to this material have been emotionally based, as opposed to an appeal to actual WP policies. The article should report what secondary sources have found notable about its subject. No secondary source has ever denied that this incident involving a public figure happened, and at least 6 sources, several of them highly reliable, have confirmed it. It has appeared in the lead paragraph of several secondary sources on the eXile and Matt Taibbi. Clearly these numerous secondary sources find the information to be relevant and true. Therefore I don't see what possible reason there could be for censoring the material. dsol (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I am ok with a very abbreviated version on Wines' page, so long as what the secondary sources have to say is available on the eXile or Taibbi's page. dsol (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. WP:IDONTLIKEIT it not a reason for deletion of material. I am actually beginning to question whether Idlewild is in fact the subject, or related to the subject, of this article. As evidenced at Commons:Deletion requests/File:I don't travel to eSStonia.jpg, several editors here are commenting based purely upon their own biases, Idlewild included. WP:BLP does not say anything that would warrant removal. So long as it is sourced reliably, and is written in an NPOV fashion, it is valid for inclusion. As I have stated on the talk page, if one were to remove it, there is nothing notable about this person, and should/will be put up at AfD. Tom has now removed the information again, and Tom, I should point out that Idlewild is a brand new editor, who wouldn't have a clue on the "players" involved, unless of course he is a banned sockpuppet, as he seems to know about policies, even if he does misquote and mispresent them. Wikipedia is not censored and for this reason, so long as it complies with policies, just because we don't like it, that doesn't mean we can exclude it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia and Dsol have avoided the basic question. "How is the material inserted consistent with Wikipedia:Blp#Basic_human_dignity" I've bolded the quotation of the policy above just in case they haven't seen it. The most obvious prohibition is Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly, but each of the 5 sentences quoted prohibit this nonsense.

Russavia has nominated the Michael Wines article for deletion because on "non-notability." I think many people might consider Wines borderline notable, but ... I'll suggest that everybody involved support this deletion, subject - as always is the case - that if anything more notable happens to the guy, that the article can be recreated. The section in the eXile, which the large majority of people here has said should be minimal or totally eliminated, should also be deleted. This will be especially true because the Basic Human Dignity section of BLP says "This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions."

So it comes down to "let's just get rid of everything related to this." I hope everybody will support this. Idlewild101 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also voted delete on the Wines article. I don't agree however that his notability arise only from his victimization -- even he'd just been some random guy hit with a pie that would be the case, but it was his very broadly published work as a public figure that made the incident notable to the secondary sources that covered it. Not writing the article in a mocking tone is not the same as censoring any information that may reflect poorly on anyone. If you can rewrite the section in a way you feel is less mocking/more npov without removing information then I suggest you do so, other than that I would agree with Will BeBack that the secondary sources should be faithfully followed. dsol (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pleasure to see you've stopped accusing me of sock-puppeting Idlewild - you must be feeling a bit sheepish, as Russavia and I have disagreed on several significant issues. I won't await an apology for this disgraceful and absurd imputation. Your argument about Basic Human Dignity isn't any more convincing in bold type, but I will "highlight" my objection to it as well. In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

As the foreign correspondent of one of the world's premier newspapers, Wines is a public figure. To suggest his notability rests solely on a pie being thrown in his face is manifestly untrue. He is not famous for being the victim of a "crime", he is famous for his station. Wines's own reaction to the pie incident was that an award from The eXile for poor journalism was something of an honour considering its source, and as such felt neither mocked nor disparaged by it.

The key word in the Huamn Dignity section is "primarily". Even if you accept that a report of the event in some way mocks or disparages Wines (which I don't) to the extent that his basic human dignity was contravened (which is a stretch), neither his own article nor The eXile article serve to *primarily* mock or disparage him, any more than they are *primarily* about his wife and daughter, or *primarily* about Pavel Bure. Such an extreme interpretation of the human dignity clause means that no negative information relating to public persons could be included in BLPs, no matter how notable and verified (and if this contravenes human dignity, no matter how tepid). On the balance of the basic human dignity clause and the significant public figures clause, given the number of highly reliable sources reporting on the incident, the due weight given to the material, the NPOV and adherence to all other relavent WP, there's simply no reason for it not to be included.

If I can agree with Russavia without Idlewild accusing him of being me again (or is it me of being him?) it does seem that Idlewild's objection, when it boils down to it, is that he finds this personally offensive. In fact he has foolishly admitted as much on his own talk page. "Thanks for your support, and sorry to get you involved in any way with people who I consider to be very nasty. Hitting somebody with a sperm-filled pie just because you don't like his journalism - I can't imagine why anybody would consider that acceptable behavior. Bragging about it on Wikipedia - again, I can't imagine how anybody can do this. Not removing it when it's brought up at BLPN - impossible! Well obviously, there's something about this that just gets to me." In other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Idlewild, in your telling, there's a very revealing conflation between the people responsible for the event, and the people trying to add it to Wikipedia. You seem to believe that myself or other editors had something to do with throwing a sperm filled pie in Michael Wines's face, if your use of the word "bragging" is any indication. This might be hard for you to understand, but I don't have feelings about the sperm pie one way or another. I just believe it is noteworthy, and not in contravention of WP to include it in Wikipedia. For doing so, and having a good faith discussion about Wikipedia policy, you have accused me of being "a very nasty person", suggested I was sock puppeting, accused me or misrepresentation, and repeatedly said, on the basis of no evidence, that I was acting in bad faith. Let me be clear again: I didn't have anything to do with the original incident. I would be surprised if any of the other editors here did either. If you find this pie so upsetting as to make the kind of baseless accusations above, perhaps you should take your considerable WP lawyering skills to articles in which you are less emotionally invested. In the meantime, your "let's just get rid of everything related to this" conclusion bears as much relation to the discussion as I do to Russavia.

You've now tried to have this information removed on the grounds of notability, NPOV, unspecified BLP violations, a "large majority" consensus that doesn't exist, a "scatalogical material" grounds which appears nowhere in WP (and even if it did, would not apply to this article) and now because it offends human dignity. Anything else you'd like to try? Richard Cooke (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Richard Cooke has finally responded to my question on how the insertion of material on the pie attack on Michael Wines in his article and the eXile article is consistent with the Basic Human Dignity (BHD) section in WP:BLP. He just questions the applicability of one of the 5 sentences in BHD – based upon a strained interpretation of one word – without considering the meaning of the other 4 sentences, and then states the WP:BLP section on Public Figures (that says negative information on BLPs may be included if certain conditions are met) must be balanced against BHD. In other words in some situations, according to Cooke WP:Well-Known overrules BHD.

Cooke doesn’t like the 3rd sentence in the BHD section – if other editors can follow his objection, I think they’ll agree that his interpretation of the word “primarily” is rather strained. But let’s consider the first sentence “Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects.” A fair reading of that sentence is “Material that insults the basic human dignity of a person should be removed.” A fair reading of the next sentence is “Tabloid-style material should be removed.” And so on for 3 more sentences. Disputing 1 sentence simply does not remove the applicability of BHD.

Then Cooke says that BHD must be balanced against Well-Known. But BHD and Well-Known each stand on their own. BHD says that mockery or disparagement must be removed from Wikipedia articles. Well-Known says that negative information may, with some conditions, be included. “Mockery” and “information” have very different meanings. There is no conflict between BHD and Well-Known. WP:BLP simply does not say that Well-Known can over-rule BHD.

Well-Known is about Public figures [7] – e.g. politicians, celebrities, or leading businessmen – who constitute a very small subset of people who are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If there is any question whether a person is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, then he is not a public figure. At the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Wines just finished the opinions are about evenly split: 7 say he is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, 8 say keep, he is notable enough . That total includes a “weak keep” from User:Richard Cooke. Surprisingly User:Russavia nominated the article for deletion based on notability considerations, and User:Dsol voted “weak delete.” The folks who are arguing that Wines is a public figure are also arguing that he is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article (or in Cooke’s case, barely notable enough for a Wikipedia article). It’s clear that Wines is not a public figure in the usual sense of the word.

WP:Well-Known also says that if 3 more conditions are all met then an incident “belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.” These additional conditions are 1) the incident is notable, 2) relevant, and 3) well-documented by reliable published sources. If any of these conditions are not met, this section does not apply. None of these conditions apply, especially 3) it is not documented in reliable sources. Russavia and Cooke have not asserted notability of the incident or relevance, except by saying that it has appeared in reliable sources, so that it must be notable, therefore it must be relevant. Actually verifiablility, notability, and relevance are different concepts and different policies, but disproving 3) also disproves the Cooke’s contention of notability and relevance. There are currently 6 sources in the eXile’s section on Wines:

29. Matt Taibbi (2001-04-05). "HACK Eat's Horse Sperm Surprise". the eXile. http://web.archive.org/web/20030625022811/http://www.exile.ru/113/lead.php.

30. a b Matthew Fleischer (2007-12-13). "Matt Taibbi on How the US is Like Ike Turner". LA Weekly. http://www.laweekly.com/2007-12-13/art-books/matt-taibbi-on-how-the-u-s-is-like-ike-turner/.

31. Richard Johnson (2005-03-08). "Editor Out Over Pope Parody". Page Six (NY Post, syndicated by Yahoo News). http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/ps/20050308/111027927700.html.

32. Jonathan Shainin (2005-05-12). "Politics-a-palooza". Salon.com. http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2005/05/12/taibbi/index.html.

33. "NY Times Moscow chief gets a nasty faceful". Media Life Magazine. 2001-04-11. http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/apr01/apr09/3_wed/news7wednesday.html.

34. Renita Steeley (July 1990). "The Year of Dangerous Reporting". Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1523.

None of these are news stories, but rather opinion pieces (or book reviews), except perhaps for 31) which is now a broken link. If I remember correctly, it is not reporting about Wines, but on how Matt Taibbi (the pie thrower) and his editor at a New York weekly tabloid were fired after the tabloid published Taibbi’s mocking of Pope John Paul II, while the Pope was on his deathbed. 29 is not a reliable source by any stretch – it’s stated goal is to “shit on everybody equally.”

30 LA Weekly is a tabloid, the article is a book review, and it mentions Wines in 1 paragraph. 32 is similar, but does not mention Wines. 35 is from 11 years before the incident, and is used only as a justification for the pie throwing. Which leaves only 34, a fairly chatty 2 paragraph piece, and at least they did some fact checking … but it certainly ain’t the Washington Post, or even the Dubuque Herald Telegraph.

Let’s check what reliable sources are in terms of BLP. From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations

News organizations

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press. Some caveats:

News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used. (my bolding)

In short, all the sources fail miserably according to this definition.

To summarize:

Cooke doesn’t dispute BHD’s applicability – only the applicability of one sentence.
He says that Well-Known can over-rule BHD, but that is not in the WP:BLP policy
He asserts that Wines is a public figure, when he obviously is not
He doesn’t even bother to assert that the material is relevant and notable
He asserts that various tabloids and questionable sources are in fact reliable in terms of WP:BLP.

Please note that unless you agree with Cooke on all of the last 4 points, Well-Known does not apply, and the logic of User:Richard Cooke’s position collapses.

Idlewild101 (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the above comment rambling and full of copy-pasted text from policy pages to the point that it is difficult to follow, but I will try to respond.

You are interpreting BHD so broadly as to mean that nothing reflecting poorly on anyone could ever be covered. We need to just follow the secondary sources and summarize in a neutral way; see Will Beback's comment above. We should not write the material in a mocking way, but rather report the facts as other sources have done.
Obviously, Wines is a public figure. He puts his name on his articles and editorials, published his own biography in a "meet a reporter" type piece in the NYT, and goes on TV to speak as an expert. The reason I voted delete on the AfD is because he was not covered in secondary sources apart from this incident and by FAIR, not because he wasn't a public figure.
LA weekly is a fairly reliable source, it is tabloid sized but not exactly the Sun -- It hasn't published anything false and according to its WP article there seem to have been Pulitzers awarded to its writers.
The fact that a link is dead is irrelevant, print sources don't have to be available online to be cited. The dead link's material was in the NY post.
The fact that something was asserted in a reliable source is not changed by it being a book review or whatever. We are interested in secondary sources for their reliability and assertions of facts; this is not exclusively news articles. Also, it is not unheard of for a journalist to do some interviewing/fact gathering when reviewing a nonfiction book about contemporary events.
The notability of the material doesn't have to be asserted by Cooke, because it's established by the coverage in secondary sources.
Source 32 is from salon.com, definitely a RS. It doesn't mention Wines by name, but does describe the incident, so it's relevant to the section.
You are grossly mischarecterizing Cooke's position; he is not asserting that any non-RS are RS. You are the only editor among many who have commented on this to ever suggest that sourcing is insufficient, in fact another editor questioned why we need so many. As Cooke notes above, you have only done this after your other arguments, edit-warring, and direct pleas to administrators have failed to work.

dsol (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wines break 1

When I asked Idlewild if there was anything else he would like to try, having now exhausted a series of progressively less convincing arguments to remove this material, the last thing I expected was for him to deny that Salon.com, the New York Post and Media Life Magazine were reliable sources, or to yet again deliberately misrepresent my position. But seeing he has...

"Cooke doesn’t dispute BHD’s applicability – only the applicability of one sentence".

This makes no sense. BHD is of course applicable to all articles, properly understood. Like any policy, it's best understood as a whole, not when it is quoted selectively. You seem to imply that I'm disputing that one sentence in the policy is not applicable, when in fact I'm arguing that it is especially applicable in this case. You can see above that I have quite clearly said that I don't accept that a report of this incident violates BHD, and that accepting that it does would mean countless other pieces of factual information would have to be removed from Wikipedia. What I did say is that even if a person does stretch the definition to accept a pie in the face violates BHD ["(which I don't)" you'll notice I said above], the articles in question still don't serve to *primarily* mock or disparage the subject, and therefore don't contravene BHD. So even in your twisted interpretation of BHD, is correct, which it isn't, there still aren't ground for removal.

"He says that Well-Known can over-rule BHD, but that is not in the WP:BLP policy"

There's clearly a tension between these clauses (a tension being exploited by you now), when a piece of factual, verified information *may* be interpretated as being mocking or disparaging. The Well-Known clause allows for "negative" material, every piece of which could be interpreted, by those taking an extreme position, as having the power to "mock or disparage". As long as this negative information is sourced, notable, and written in a NPOV, it doesn't contravene WP; otherwise, all sourced negative information in BLP could be removed on these grounds. Idlewild is right when he says that "mockery" and "information" have different meanings. Is he disputing that the incident took place? "Michael Wines should have/deserved to have a semen pie thrown in his face" is mockery. "Michael Wines did have a semen pie thrown in his face" is information. I don't think that piece of factual information mocks or disparages Wines, in fact neither does Wines himself, but someone disingenuously searching for grounds on which to remove factual information from Wikipedia might make that argument. As noted aboved, that still wouldn't be grounds for removal under BHD unless the articles primarily served to mock or disparage, and the Well Known clause offers a double protection specifically designed to preserve material like this.

"He asserts that Wines is a public figure, when he obviously is not"

You are now arguing that someone who regularly appears on television as an expert, and is a NYT bureau chief is not a public figure. There was no consensus for removal when the article was mooted for deletion - so what? If anything, that speaks to the fact that he is a public figure. The burden of proof you seem to be using is this: "Well-Known is about Public figures [8] – e.g. politicians, celebrities, or leading businessmen – who constitute a very small subset of people who are notable enough for a Wikipedia article." Can you show me where it says this in WP? Of course you can't. It's just something you made up.

"He doesn’t even bother to assert that the material is relevant and notable"

I don't need to - that's a job for secondary sources - but I have done so previously, and I will do so again. "Relevance" seems to be a bizarre thing to take issue with. Are you saying this has nothing to do with The eXile or Michael Wines? Notability has been established by a large number of RS (which, as you'll see below are about to become larger), but I will make the argument myself anyway. Another editor, Digwaren, made the point that Bill Gates had a pie thrown in his face by a protestor, and that "prank" isn't mentioned in Gates's Wikipedia entry. That's a very pertinent point. Now ask yourself - if that protestor was a published author, Rolling Stone columnist, and National Magazine Award Winner, who was himself the subject of numerous interviews and profile pieces in the Washington Post and elsewhere, and had an extensive Wikipedia entry, independent of his pie-throwing action, would that incident be notable? The answer is clearly "yes". The fact that here the protest was by another prominent journalist, as criticism of Wines's own journalism, makes it doubly notable. And as you're about to see below, the incident has been verified and found notable by The New York Post, Salon.com, The Age, The National Journal, LA Weekly, Media Life Magazine and The Russia Journal, among other RS.

"He asserts that various tabloids and questionable sources are in fact reliable in terms of WP:BLP".

Of all your assertions, this is the most fatuous. A link is broken? Very well, let's make it an offline source, along with "TIMESMAN NAILED WITH PUTRID PIE", p6, 10 April 2001, New York Post, in which Wines himself is asked about the incident and the contents of the pie, and disputes neither, and "Moscow horse pie surprise", Backpage, Edited By John Mangan With Olivia Hill-Douglas, The Age 25 April 2001; or "PEOPLE - PRESS PASS: REALLY GROSS STORY ABOUT Times MOSCOW BUREAU CHIEF", The Hotline, National Journal, 10 April 2001; along with several mentions in The Russia Journal, a Factiva-indexed web report and magazine which also has a Wikipedia entry, and a mention in the St Petersburg Times. Are you saying that these publications aren't RS? Or seriously, that the LA Weekly, whose writers have won Pulizters, is not an RS? Or Media Life Magazine, which published this as a news item verified by the NYT itself, is not an RS? The New York Post has already been found to be a RS - you're free to take all the others to task at the sources noticeboard if you feel they are "tabloid and questionable sources". Good luck. If any other editor would like me to reference the articles with these offline sources, I would be happy to do so. They cost me 12 bucks on Factiva. Seeing other editors have suggested too many RS are the problem, rather than too few, and that Idlewild is alone in pursuing this line of argument, I will assume there is no consensus to do so.

Idlewild, I'm not the first editor to think that your editing is so unusual that you may have a conflict of interest. I don't think you're Michael Wines - I doubt he'd waste his time like this, and I'm sure he'd argue his case more convincingly. But do you have a personal or professional relationship with him? Wines's article is part of a Columbia University project, "a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Columbia University on Wikipedia." Do you have a professional or personal affilitation with Columbia University? Are you part of this project? Is this why you're removing extensively sourced material about a prominent alumnus? I'm not suggesting that it precludes you from editing if you do. Frankly, I'm just trying to make your behaviour explicable. Richard Cooke (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Shapiro

Resolved

– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Shapiro

Fred Shapiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:FredShapiro42754 claims that the article is inaccurate, but the material he is removing comes directly from the biographical squibs of articles written by Fred Shapiro. Editor, often editing as an IP, keeps trying to blank the page or delete the offending sentence; other editors, pounding Shapiro with the COI policy, revert and template his page. The man is of marginal notability at best, and I moved for an AFD, but editors are overwhelmingly voting to keep. (Clearly, Shapiro should have taken the other approach to autobiography and turned his article into a hagiography so that editors would be offended and vote to delete.) I'm trying to reach out to Shapiro on his talk page to find out what precisely is inaccurate so we avoid any BLP, but he hasn't responded to me yet. Can a more experienced editor or admin with a fuller understanding of the nuances of the BLP/COI interrelationship provide another set of eyes to this issue? THF (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that this article has since been deleted as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Shapiro. The title has been redirected to my friend Fred R. Shapiro, the Yale librarian and quotations maven.--Orange Mike | Talk 15:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB some redirects need G8 treatment. THF (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Ayob

This article really needs to be checked out by someone experienced with BLP. There are alot of counter accusations against living people who conflicted with this guy. Links to news articles are given but the tone is not at all neutral and it need a closer examination than I can give it.--BirgitteSB 00:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out this week if I get time. Makewater (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Schwartz

I am the subject of the biographical entry Stephen Schwartz (journalist). This entry has been subject to incessant vandalism over the years, as is reflected in warnings from Wikipedia responsible people on the talk page. A new series of malicious edits took place in February 2009. I was unable to locate a button for an OTRS complaint and therefore went ahead and attempted to revert the page myself to the form it had before the onset of the malicious edits. The malicious nature of the edits is obvious on the talk and history pages, where the individuals who carried out these edits engage in defamatory speculation about my religious choice, among other unsupportable claims. The latter include, for example, turning a couple of comments snipped from a TV interview into a relationship with the intelligence community, claiming that I am a leading figure in the neoconservative wing of the Republican party, charging that I was a propagandist for the Sandinistas. In addition, material was inserted that was contradictory to the previous content with no attempt to make the entry logical or consistent. I don't care whether there are one or two reference sections but it seems to me unfair to delete almost all references to articles by me, and I strenuously object to the inclusion of material describing me as a "whore" or a link to scurrilous gossip produced in an anarchist magazine. Allowing such vandalism, which is also libel with malicious intent to undermine my professional status and personal security, does not reflect well on Wikipedia. I did not add anything intended to promote me and have no desire to use Wikipedia for self-serving purposes. I object, however, to libelous content about me.SulejmanSchwartz (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you've got fair reason to be annoyed. I'll try to keep the article watched, and encourage other uninvolved editors to do the same. Small point, but "references" ought to be for the sources cited by the article - it isn't a place for a list of relevant thinks otherwise, which should be "further reading" or "works published".--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a prime example of what's wrong with our BLP policies and their enforcement. All these little-watched biographies have tremendous potential for harm, and should be deleted. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've been saying that for 2 years now. No one listens. See User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Yeah that is not an example of our better work. Kudos for SS bringing it to the attention of the noticeboard rather than just gutting the article, even though that would have been a plausible choice. cleaned OP's link Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's been more IP POV pushing on this (now reverted), can any passing admin please semi-protect it for a long duration.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict is between editors who have had accounts for several months. Semi-protection would achieve nothing. I also note that there's another side to this coin. Although KevinOKeeffe does not approach biographies correctly in general, the issue that the subject is not editing with the neutral point of view appears to be legitimate, given that the subject's edits also include undoing edits such as this one (both of whose sources do appear to support the quoted material, and at least one of which, being a book review, is directly about the subject's works). Notice too that there's no mention of this content on the article's talk page. It does appear that a legitimate concern about two specific matters has been silently extended to removal of other negative information throughout the entire article, even negative information about the subject's writings on history sourced to accredited experts in the field. This issue is neither a simple nor a strictly one-sided one. Uncle G (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry. Where are the "two sides"? If KevinOKeeffe "does not approach biographies correctly in general" then we have absolutely no business allowing the user to edit biographies of living people. Period. He should be banned. The subject is less than neutral? Well, perhaps. Subjects tend to be. But the subject has an absolute right not to be libelled - and if our bio has been libellous or a one-sided hatchet-job we owe the subject an apology and a guarantee that he not have to endure that again. That he will never need to remove bad stuff from his bio, and even if he chooses not to partol it himself he will not need to worry. Fat chance of that though. Sure, ideally we'd not have subjects whitewashing their bios, but once subjects learn that we let libellers and dodgy editors loose on their reputations, who can blame them. We've failed to be neutral, why should we expect them to be? I'm really sick of us viewing COI whitewash by subject in the same way we look at negative BLP bias. A subject spinning his bio to make him look good (which anyone tries to do with the internet persona) is not in the same league of vice as the defamation engine we've created and allow people who "does not approach biographies correctly in general" to edit with almost total impunity.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The two sides are as I stated them. And what KevinOKeeffe does elsewhere is not the issue here, so stop making it the issue. And stop trying to oversimply an issue that I just said was not simple. I suggest more than the customary BLP Noticeboard Drive-By. This article has a long history. Go and read the talk page, the deletion log, the deleted revisions, and the AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - We have thousands of dreadful articles. If a few bios are maintained by subjects grinding axes, I'm not losing sleep over it. However, no subject, no matter how much they may yield to the whitewashing COI tenancy, should need to put up with editors who are careless with their reputations editing bios. That worries me. The rest I leave others to fret about.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Varian v. Delfino

Varian v. Delfino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ronald M. Whyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jack Komar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Crisler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Suebenjamin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Amberjacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An anon editor is edit-warring to return unsourced material about living people. Sources are likely available, but the article is very much a one-sided affair that needs work.

User:Crisler works on two types of articles -- those relating to this lawsuit, and those relating to the death penalty. The article is awfully favorable to the respondents in Varian v. Delfino, and, coincidentally, the respondents in that case have since written annual guides to the death penalty. "Crisler" is the last name of the human resources officer at Varian whom Delfino and Day had their litigious dispute with.

User:Suebenjamin and User:Amberjacker also only write about this lawsuit, and use the same unusual edit-summary style as Crisler.

(Coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, the litigation involved a corporation overreacting to sockpuppet behavior by ex-employees on Internet message boards.)

The possible WP:COI and WP:SOCK problem bothers me less than the WP:NPOV issue; the article, about a minor California Supreme Court case of little precedential value that arguably flunks WP:NOTNEWS, needs a rewrite, as does the BLP article about Judges Whyte and Komar.

This is cross-posted at WP:COIN#Varian_v._Delfino & WP:NPOVN#Varian_v._Delfino; please respond at WP:NPOVN to avoid WP:MULTI. THF (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting, since still not resolved. I apparently need to bump this every three days. THF (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping to avoid bot archive. Still not resolved. THF (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Shaidle

Kathy Shaidle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – Several editors, mostly anon IPs, have repeatedly added material that is in violation of WP:SYNTH, using selective quotes to demonstrate that Shaidle has "controversial" views. It's pretty clear that she does, but the way these editors are going about presenting this is a WP:BLP violation, I believe. I thought of going right to WP:RFPP but thought I'd better get some other opinions about whether I'm seeing this with clear eyes. I'm also wondering whether a particular remark ought to be removed from the Talk page. Thanks very much in advance. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right to remove the quotes. Unless some reliable independent source has commented on a particular controversy, it's original research to introduce such content into the article. As far as the talkpage goes, I'm in the "as long as it's aimed at improving the article and does not break any laws in Florida, it should stay" camp. I think the article could benefit from semi-protection. 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Now this is a case where semi-protection would be appropriate. However, I observe that the edit war ceased 2 days ago, when discussion on the talk page began. If discussion ceases and edit warring recommences, please let us know. You're right that any personal analyses of Wikipedia editors offered as, effectively, "Here are the raw data. Tell me that my own personal analysis of and opinion based upon those data are wrong!" are clearly in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. For the time being, semi-protection does not appear to be necessary, since the edit war stopped. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giles Coren and his doggie views

An editor has been editing Times journalist Giles Coren's entry in what appears to be an attempt to show that Coren favours Israel and has promoted that country in this article, notably where Coren used Israel as an example of a country that had banned the Staffordshire breed most responsible for the killings of infants. The editor (whose entire list of contributions appears to be in regard to Giles Coren) inserted a soapbox comment into the 'The Campaign to Ban Dogs' section noting how many children Israel had killed in Gaza. Now he's deleted the entire section - shame, as his first edit improved that section. It's becoming somewhat tiresome to continue reverting; some peer comment would be useful? Little grape (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Globestrobe's edits are clearly inappropriate editorializing and synthesis, and there's some POINTiness going on, also. I've told him so.
However, you are edit-warring, which isn't cool, either.
The whole paragraph is a primary source. Why pick out this column out of all the ones he's written? If it's independently notable, cite to the secondary source discussing the column. WP:NOT#NEWS, so it's not a tragedy if the encyclopedia doesn't take note of a two-day-old column immediately. THF (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; fair points. In my rush to write the para I hadn't considered that the original article needed to be noted by other publications, rather than being noteworthy all on its own. Obvious really....Little grape (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coren appears to be an interesting columnist much in the tradition of Mencken. IMHO, use of single columns to ascribe actual positions seriously held by him is either impossible, or just not possible. A splendid case where WP:RS actually allows really bad material to wend its way into an article. Collect (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fans. Yes, he's interesting... and this is an interesting quote from Giles Coren, Times Online, Feb 14 2009: "Israel has gone one better, making the breed illegal altogether - and I doubt there are many who flout that little law. You don't go breeding dogs to scare your neighbours when you know that one false snarl and a helicopter gunship's going to whoop into view, flatten your house, your nan's house and your local school, and then blame it on the dog. And don't think for a minute that I would consider such a response disproportionate." Globestrobe (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natalee Holloway

I've always wondered why this one didn't fall under the BLP guidelines. According to the article, she should be assumed to be alive, and yet there is all sort of repeated speculation about her sex life. There is also the question of three individuals named in the article in connection with her disappearance, but whom have never been charged with any crime. Needless to say, all four people are only notable for this one event. Everything is referenced to media reports. I would welcome a second opinion. Physchim62 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to ask the owners of that article, they hang out on the talk page and are open to answering questions about most things related to it. --Tom 17:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC) ps Good luck.[reply]

The owners have already threatened me with a three-on-one revert war if I so much as touch any of the details! This is why I would like an opinion here. Is it really justified to cite the full names of people who are only notable for having been arrested in relation to a supposed crime and then released without charge? Or any of the other personal details included in that article? The owners will say that it passed WP:FAC in that state, but the question of BLP was never discussed during the featured article nomination. Physchim62 (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you discuss your concerns, with references and explaination of precisely what you want to change on the talk page rather then engaging in revert wars? Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to have a second opinion, but as nobody here seems to care enough to actually go and read the article and give their opinion… Physchim62 (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Adams (politician)

I am being accused of violating WP:BLP on the subject's talk page by using of the word "grooming". I've provided the WP article defining the term, reliable sources describing the subject's behavior without labelling it (The New York Times and the Oregonian), and sources actually using the word. Nonetheless, I am directed to remove the word. My biggest interest on WP is fixing BLP problems. The accusation rankles. Other opinions would be welcome. David in DC (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you violated BLP. It's within the realm of reasonable opinion, and you even provided a cite. If it were to go into the article, it would have to be prefaced as the cited opinion of so-and-so, but you seem to understand that already. THF (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In order to decide whether something is okay by BLP or appropriate for the article, you have to be able to mention what it is that you are talking about, propose it on the talk page, and have people discuss why it does or does not comply. This is Wikipedia, not the Fight Club (The first rule of BLP is - you do not talk about BLP violations...) Wikidemon (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To start off with, there is a problem with some of the contentions here. The talk page is not the place to make accusations about a BLP. Per WP:BLP, in fact the very first sentence which should help indicate the importance of it, it states: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. (emphasis already there). So, no, the talk page is not the place to make unsubstantiated claims, period. I say unsubstantiated claims because no reliable source that could be used in this BLP article has been provided that supports the contention. First, the first article provided to actually use the term grooming in the same article as Sam Adams is an unsigned opinion piece, which to me fails the RS guidelines under BLP (also at no time has David said that according to the Statesman Journal’s opinion Adams was grooming as would be required if that source was allowed to be used since it is an opinion piece). The community blogger would also fail as a RS unless you can show he is subject to the full editorial control of the newspaper, but even then read the article and tell me where the blogger says Adams was grooming. The blogger quotes someone else who uses the term (but doesn’t actually come out and say Adams was grooming, which might be because he is afraid of a libel/slander suit), and then later refers to the conduct of someone else as grooming, not Adams. The last article repeats the quote from the previous article, which is actually where the quote comes from (again not saying Adams was grooming), and the other mentions are opinions of people who called in and from people posting comments after the story, none of which belong in a BLP. The notion that David provided the definition of grooming (using Wikipeida which fails RS BTW), and then used an article that described Adams actions, and then David makes the conclusion that this is grooming is WP:SYNTH, or as it states: Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Now, I am not saying what Adams did was right, or that it wasn’t grooming. That isn’t the point. The fact remains that no RS has come out at said Adams was grooming. What is needed is a RS that comes out and says “Sam Adams was grooming Breedlove” and until a source that says that is provided, mentions of grooming need to be retracted. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "unsigned opinion piece" is from the editorial board of a newspaper, so isn't exactly anonymous or violative of BLP sourcing. The sourced sentence "The Statesman Journal called for Adams to resign for lying and raised the issue of whether he had been "grooming" his teenaged lover" would pass BLP in mainspace, much less the talk-page. The article arguably violates NPOV for omitting it. The entire response above is completely misplaced. THF (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." (emphasis not added). Which if we look above that within RS we have "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press." The Statesman Journal is not the high quality end of the market. They are not in the same league (they are the equivalent of Double AA to the Washington Post being an MLB club), they do not win national awards for quality, and they make tons of errors all the time. Sorry, but an unsigned opinion piece in a second rate paper should not cut it. At least The Oregonian signed their piece. For something like this, we must demand what the guidelines and policies call for, and those given so far do not meet the standards. If mainstream sources think this is what he did, proper sourcing should easily be located. If not, this should give us pause as to why The Oregonian or other newspapers have not come out and called it grooming. Also, if you haven't looked through the Willamette Week newspaper (which is a Pulitzer Prize winning paper that broke the story) you might try it, and their archives do not come up in Google. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be much more impressed with your argument if the Portland Mercury's op-ed and the opinion of the "board of the Portland Area Business Association and the LGBTQ chamber of commerce" weren't in the article without any complaint from you. I detect POV-pushing. Regardless, there is no BLPN issue. THF (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC) retracting 01:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, assume bad faith much? Aboutmovies raised a legitimate point and you ignored it and instead went for an ad hominem attack. Let's stick to discussing the BLP issue. -kotra (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: hypocrisy (real or imagined) doesn't matter. We're discussing this particular issue and nothing else. -kotra (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) There is no BLP issue. My proposed language accurately sourced the material. It's legitimate to discuss the issue on the talk page. The Statesman Journal is more notable than the majority of existing sources quoted on the Sam Adams page, so it's a NPOV violation to exclude them.THF (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment on whether the material should be in the article or not, but an editor has to be able to make a good faith proposal on the talk page, for editors to be able to discuss whether the sourcing is strong enough. BLP does not prevent those discussions. If it did we could not have this discussion either and, in fact, the matter would be beyond discussion - just revert warring presumably until one side wins.Wikidemon (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) First, the argument about is there/isn't there is simply the OTHERSTUFF argument. I didn't add what was there. Secondly, the argument has never been whether grooming should be in the article, that is a secondary issue. The problem has been that an editor has called what Adams did was grooming on the talk page, which as no proper source that could be used in the article categorizes what he did as this behavior, it cannot be on the talk page or the article or on someone's user page (not to mention it was called grooming long before any sources were even proffered). Next, note that my argument above isn't that the Statesman Journal could not be used as a source, it simply cannot in this circumstance for this article. Remember that "How reliable a source is depends on context." (from the lead of RS). Thus in this circumstance the opinion piece fails as an RS. As to the other sources, I didn't add them and thus could not tell you if they are reliable. But I do know that there is a big difference between using a source to say "The Oregonian called for the resignation" which is related to them and is a response to Adams' actions, versus the Statesman Journal in its opinion says Adams was grooming, which is related to their view and classification of his actions. The calling for a resignation will not lead to liability in a libel suit, calling someones actions something can, which is one of the main points of BLP. Now obviously under case law the Statesman Journal is unlikely to have liability as a new source, but individual editors are not news sources and NYT v. Sullivan would not be of much help, which again ties back into why BLP exists, but this is getting off point. As to the last contention, true, but the discussion on the talk page was never about adding it to the article, it was simple categorizing of actions. Discussion whether to add it with the providing of sources to begin with is a different matter. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, the argument about is there/isn't there is simply the OTHERSTUFF argument. No: it's a POV argument. If fringe sources can be quoted on the page, then it violates POV to misuse BLP to prohibit a mainstream newspaper from being cited. THF (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, newspapers or any media outlet are not inherently a reliable source. A RS is determined in the context of how it is used. A peer reviewed, most exalted book ever on insects would be a reliable source for insects, not so much as a source for reliable information on the Presidency of Herbert Hoover. So, the prohibition on using the Statesman Journal is not because the paper itself generally would not be a RS, it is in this context that it fails, as outlined above in the direct quotes from RS. That is to say, the SJ article is an opinion piece, thus per RS, to be used in a BLP, it must be from a high quality news source, which examples are then given. So the only argument relevant in this thread related to the use of that article has to be that it comes from a high quality news source of the level of those proffered in the RS guideline. The other sources are used, so this one should is the OTHERSTUFF argument. You are arguing that the SJ article should be allowed to be used because other low-quality sources are used. That is OTHERSTUFF. The argument is whether this SJ article can be used, period. If you feel the other articles used as sources fail to meet RS guidelines in the context of how they are used, that is a separate issue you are free to raise on the talk page, but it is not relevant to whether or not this source passes RS in this context. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is proposing putting the word grooming in the article. But it is not a BLP violation to use it on the talk page. Both the NYT and Oregonian describe grooming. If an editor cannot discuss the grooming angle in a collapsed discussion on the talk page, we've come to a bad place.

Take the controversy out with a hypothetical. The NYT and Oregonian say Sam Adams put a leash on his dog, stepped out his door, rounded the block, and returned home with his dog. It is not WP:SYNTH to say Sam Adams walked his dog and source it to the NYT and Oregonian.

Now, as for the Statesman-Journal editorial using the word grooming, it is true to say that the reliable source rules prevent the use of the opinion piece to assert that Sam Adams groomed this young man. But it is not a violation of WP:RS or WP:BLP to take note of the assertion in deciding whether to name the young man in the article.

Where an editorial board of a reliable source (the gratuitous knocks on the Statesman-Journal's reputation for accuracy and professional standards border on nonsensical) raises this issue, Wikipedia editors must be able to take that into account when excercising editorial judgment about whether to name the young man in the WP article about Adams.

The reason not to name the young man in the article cannot rest on WP:HARM to him; they rest on harm to any minor now or in the future being groomed by any powerful man or woman. Such a minor should be able to count on not being "outed" on wikipedia, no matter the course the affair takes.

Please remember, the underlying talk page discussion, collapsed for reasons of discretion, is not about whether to put "grooming" in the article. It's about whether to name Adams' erstwhile paramour. The consensus seems to be that his name adds nothing important to the article and unduly risks harm to others. Consensus has not yet been achieved, but that's the direction.

The two articles summarizing, and directly quoting from, the radio program where the head of the policeman's union DID use the word "grooming" seal the deal. They both quote the union chief verbatim.

There are sufficient sources for an editor to introduce the issue of grooming and how naming the young man will harm others who find themselves in the same position, in a collapsed but ongoing talk page discussion about whether to name Adams' former inamorata.

Two other points:
1) Libel/slander is a red herring. WP:BLP rightly imposes a stricter standard than libel/slander law. I'm arguing that I've met that standard on the talk page in my comments about grooming.
2) I've commended aboutmovies on his talk page for his approach here. I repeat that commendation here. It's the mark of an adult to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. I have no monopoly on wisdom and appreciate civil attempts at content dispute resolution. My thanks go out to everyone who is treating this with the seriousness and civility it requires. David in DC (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any harm in David's use of the term in the context of discussion. Immediately following his first use of the term, David said "Not illegal." The behavior is not illegal; in the course of the discussion, it's pretty clear that it is alleged, but not 100% understood to have occurred. Partly because it is not illegal, it's a term that's open to some interpretation; in general, one person could argue that grooming took place in a given scenario, and another could argue that it didn't, without anybody being factually incorrect.

So I believe that what David said, although I do not agree with it, was no violation of WP:BLP. I don't believe it causes harm to Sam Adams. I think it's within the realm of the kind of discussion we need to be having in making editorial judgments. However, I do think it's always worth carefully considering the way we phrase such things, and it might be a nice gesture on David's part to retract a key phrase voluntarily, provided that it doesn't obscure an essential element of our discussion (i.e., provided that the transparency of our reasoning is preserved).

In response to THF, I'd like to just add my personal opinion, from having worked closely with Aboutmovies for several years: Aboutmovies has worked on innumerable articles (probably more than anyone else in the state) and consistently shows a strong adherence to Wikipedia's policies. More strongly than anyone else I've encountered on the site. Of course nobody is above the occasional effects of personal bias, but it simply rings false to me that it would be the case here. And THF, your words do nothing to convince me otherwise. -Pete (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRIKING text below, as it's been pointed out that it's off topic. -Pete (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to David's other point (the one about article content), I find the argument about harm to others, in this case, unconvincing. I do agree that "outing" in general raises this concern. However, I don't think it's accurate in this case to refer to including B.B.'s name in the article as "outing." For someone to be "outed," they must first be "in." B.B. explained the issue on Myspace; he then granted numerous interviews, including two on national television; and now he is posing nude in a magazine. He's well past the age of consent now. What we are talking about is common knowledge, and furthermore, knowledge that he doesn't seem to object to. So for us to include the name does not go against his intent, and therefore sets no precedent for future cases where the so-called "victim" does not wish to go public. I respect David's concern for society at large, but in this instance, I believe that concern is misplaced. -Pete (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that this discussion be kept to only the issue raised here, which is the use of the term grooming. Whether or not to include the name is a separate and unrelated policy matter with very different arguments. I will now explain synthesis with a hypothetical situation to show why it is not allowed and how in this case using the NYT/Oregonian combo is synthesis (assume all sources meet RS for their purposes in the context used).

Source A: Bob watches cartoons; Source B: Serial killers usually watch cartoons; Synthesized sentence: Bob is a serial killer. (here you see why synthesis is not allowed, and what it is; here and in the grooming context it is taking a persons actions, then taking a description of the same type of actions that has a value judgment and then attaching that value judgment to the actions of the person)

Source A: Bob watches cartoons; Source B: Bob is a serial killer; Non-synthesized sentence: Bob is a serial killer who watches cartoons. (this is proper as it is taking the actions/attributes of the person from both sources and simply combines them into one sentence where two sentences could easily be used; both sources refer explicitly to the actions of Bob and Bob alone)

The first example is not allowed as it takes the actions of the person and then adds the opinion of the Wikipedia editor that since those actions meet a definition of some attribute, then those actions must be that attribute. That is OR/SYNTH.

Honestly, the example at WP:SYNTH explains it all, and is what is being put forth here:

This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.

Now convert to the situation at hand:

This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the [New York Times]' definition of [grooming], [Adams] did [] commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the [Adams] and [grooming] dispute and makes the same point about the [New York Times]' and [grooming]. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.

As to a BLP violation and talk page and what not, bringing up grooming is one thing. Outright labeling a BLP's actions as grooming, which is what was done here, on the talk page or any page (as I quoted above from BLP) is not in itself a problem. It becomes a problem when then no proper sources back up that claim when sources for that assertion are requested.

Lastly, as to the "knocks" on the Statesman Journal, those are extremely relevant. In fact if you want to use the SJ article here for the use of the word grooming, that is the only thing relevant. As I pointed out with the relevant guideline that I quoted from extensively above, the only way to overcome that is to show that the SJ is of high quality on the level of newspapers such as the Washington Post. I don't think you can, its simply not at that level. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aboutmovies, you make a strong case. Do I understand you correctly, that you have no policy-based problem with the general thrust of David's arguments, but only with the direct assertion that the article's subject had engaged in a specific kind of behavior? Are you saying that if David had prefaced his remarks in one or two places with "I believe that..." or "It's arguable that...", that everything would be OK? It seems like a fairly minor issue, but if the standard is "Harm," and you're arguing that the statement causes harm to the article's subject, then the scale really doesn't matter. Our policy does not state that we will seek to avoid large-scale harm, but that any kind of possible harm to the article's subject is one of the most important factors in making this kind of determination. -Pete (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. First "Harm" is not the standard, that was removed from WP:BLP, so that is irrelevant for any policy based decision here (the more appropriate choice of terms from BLP would be verifiable/accurate). Of course we could go IAR, but then if you live by it you die by it, and that would justify the inclusion of the name people that started the original discussion. The problem we have here is there are clear guidelines/policies in place that directly address this with SYNTH and RS/BLP. In sum it says, BLPs are special, don't use opinion pieces except in certain circumstances (which are not met here), and the BLP rules apply to all pages on Wikipedia (that is this includes the Adams talk page). The assertions on the talk page that Adams groomed are presented as fact, not opinion, but in many ways that doesn't matter too much. That's because if it is merely an editor's opinion, then that is OR and can't make it into the article. But what's more then is that the discussion becomes about people's opinions about the subject of the article, which is off-topic and anyone can remove, as everyone here knows talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not people's opinion's about the topic (in theory at least). So in that case, changing the wording to opinion does in fact solve the BLP issue as it no longer is an assertion of fact that is unsupported, but it becomes another issue that keeps it off Wikipedia. That's why my suggestions have focused on providing a proper source, not what is acceptable wording. To address the BLP violation issue and how can we raise things like this on the talk page and allow for discussion contention that seems to be floating out there, its rather simple. Placing content that is unsourced into a BLP is not in-itself a particular issue. It is like anytime content is added without a source, it is subject to challenge and removal. If a proper source is not provided, then just like on any page the information needs to be removed. Now in the case of BLPs that means this applies to the talk page as well. So, in the future, if someone wanted to raise an issue such as this on the talk page, they add it as was done here, then if someone challenges it (as was done here), then a proper source needs to be given or the info removed. The alternative is to leave unsourced contentions on the talk page that have been challenged, such as someone claiming Bill Clinton is an alien from outer space (I'm fairly certain I've seen that contention on the cover of one of the tabloids at the grocery store checkout at some point). This is obviously an extreme example, but I don't want a closer to reality speculation about say someone's sexuality or mental competence, and I believe there is a published source for the information. Allowing material that makes assertions about activities that have negative connotations about a BLP to remain in articles or on talk pages after being challenged goes against what the lead covers at BLP. Of course this can all be solved simply with a better source. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. I used the word. Aboutmovies asked for sources. I gave sources. Aboutmovies judges those sources to fail WP:RS. I judge them to meet WP:RS. The NYT and Oregonian articles describe grooming, the same way in my hypothetical above the narration describes walking a dog. The Stateman-Journal piece uses the word. The Statesman-Journal is a reliable source. You can call it a duck or a liverwurst sandwich, but that doesn't make it any lerss a reliable source.

The two sources quoting the police union spokesman indicate he used the word on a radio program. While the spokesman's words themselves are a verboten primary source, the radio program is a completely legitimate secondary source, and the articles transcribing the quotes on the radio program are a tertiary source. David in DC (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the NYT/Oregonian combo, I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand SYNTH. Your dog hypo doesn't work, and here is why. The Oregonian talks about Adams' actions, the NYT does not talk about ADAMS' actions. It talks about grooming and doesn't mention Adams. If it did, no problem. Your dog hypo says both sources mention Adams, thus no SYNTH problem. If both sources mention the person, there is not a problem, as SYNTH explains. And there is not a RS problem with those, SYNTH is part of original research.

Again, with the police union boss, he doesn't say Adams was grooming. It says "...which most psychologists call grooming". What the caller is saying is basically the same thing as your SYNTH problem. He describes the behavior, and then says psychologists call that grooming, which we already know from the NYT article that this type of behavior is grooming. Problem is, the caller (the head of the police union) does not say "Adams groomed XXXX" or some other direct allegation. He tiptoes around it. So, its not about what kind of source is used, it is that he did not say Adams groomed (reading it that way is reading between the lines). As to the "you think it is RS and I don't", well actually its not my guideline, its RS, which is a community guideline created by consensus. I had nothing to do with its formulation or revisions. So, what part of: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." does the opinion piece from the SJ not fit? It looks like an opinion piece to me and it looks like an article about a living person, so check and check. That leaves you with "what is a high quality news source" which is: "particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press." So, does the SJ stand up to the quality of those types of sources? That's your only argument and you continue to avoid it. The SJ is not even in the top 100 by circulation in the US, which means it is highly unlikely they are a high quality source on the level of The Washington Post. Its pure economics. The NY Yankees have a winning record pretty much every year, and they spend the most on payroll almost every year, and in general teams with the higher payrolls tend to win (there are occasionally outliers, but in general). This is because high revenues allow you the opportunity to purchase top talent, which affects quality whether that be baseball or newspapers. The SJ has about 1/5 the circulation of The Oregonian, which itself is the 23rd largest by circulation in the US. Compared to the Washington Post, the SJ is a small town paper, not a high quality new source. To address the outlier issue, out of all the journalism categories for the Pulitzer Prizes the SJ has zero nominations or wins going by the prizes' website. The Washington Post has 9 winners alone in the first 4 categories (including 7 winners in commentary alone, thus why we would allow opinion pieces from the WP), after that I stopped counting. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aboutmovies, in your discussion of RS above, you seem to be making two claims. First that WP that says something is "preferred" should in fact mean "required", and second, that a paper's circulation is reflective of its reliabilty. By your strange Yankees rationale, the National Enquirer is more of a RS that the Chicago Tribune "because high revenues allow you the opportunity to purchase top talent, which affects quality whether that be baseball or newspapers.." Does that still apply if the revenues come from the Moonies? Does your analogy still hold if Tampa Bay make the World Series?

WP specifically outlines what RS are *not*, but leaves what they *are* largely up to discretion, in this case only saying they should be "high quality news sources only". The SJ may not have a high circulation, but a reputable mid-sized city broadsheet that undergoes significant fact-checking, reports with attributed sources, and has experienced reporters on political rounds should constitute a high quality news source. In fact, for many notable events outside major cities, these may be the only RS available. It's my understanding that it's not sufficient for editors to simply assert here that something is not an RS, as that may have ramifications elsewhere. The place to do that is on the sources noticeboard, where there is no beef with the SJ I can find. Richard Cooke (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Mytton

Resolved

– deleted

The subject of the article is requesting deletion via a prod, this isn't possible though as the article has been kept at AFD twice before. Maybe someone would like to renominate it for AFD. RasterFaAye (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the previous AFD discussions, the article was only just kept. Martin451 (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how to deal with sources that require a login and password

how do we deal with reliable sources (hollywoodreporter.com) in BLP artciles that require a login and password and require payment to view the article. should this type of source be treated as any other source and just assumed to be accurate even if the material in the source cannot be verified as being accurately represented? Theserialcomma (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not just a summary of free internet sites. Many reliable sources require expenditures of time, money, or energy for verification. For example, most peer-reviewed scholarly papers can't be accessed for free. Editors who add material from such sites can do a courtesy to others by quoting the relevant excerpt in the footnote, but that's not required. Will Beback talk 06:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

then how do we verify that the material cited is true if we cannot see it for ourselves? i thought BLP was more sensitive than that in order to prevent someone citing archive.reliablesource.com which requires a $50 fee but claims something that may or may not actually be represented in the source because no one wants to pay $50 to verify it Theserialcomma (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can see it for yourself by paying $50 (or whatever the fee is). If the assertion were derogatory, or raised a red flag, then it might be more of an issue, but calling the subject a "gonzo journalist" doesn't seem like an exceptional claim. I did a quick search in a a news archive that I have free access to, and it mentions the subject in the context of gonzo journalism. Does anyone honestly dispute that he might have been called that? As for the article and NPOV, you can attribute the claim. Instead of "Tucker is a gonzo journalist", you can say "Tucker has been called a 'gonzo journalist' by the Hollywood Reporter." Will Beback talk 07:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

calling someone a gonzo journalist doesn't seem like an exceptional claim to me either, except the fact that it's in the lede. the lede of a BLP is exceptional and should probably be better sourced than just an archive that is inaccessible without paying. isn't that kind of undue weight? one off-hand mention in an article that mentions the word 'gonzo' one time, and that goes in hte lede? there is another source calling him 'gonzo', though. but that is from a variety.com article that quotes tucker's co-worker as saying his style is gonzo, so it's not variety saying it, it's a quote from a friend. are these 2 sources good enough to keep it in the lede? that is what i'm questioning Theserialcomma (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lede should summarize the article. If a topic is covered fully in the article then it might be touched on in the lede. So the body may say, "Tucker has been called 'X' by Y and Z in source V" while the lede might just say he's been called that and leave the attribution for later. Two sources seem like plenty, unless there are other sources that contradict them. As it happens, the source I mentioned calls his "gonzo" credentials into question, but in a way that just underlines how unexceptional the claim is. Will Beback talk 08:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases (I don't know whether this is true of Hollywood Reporter) one can verify the sources by walking into a physical library that carries it or (in the case of scholarly journals and university libraries) that provides electronic access to it. The internet is not the only way to access information, even these days, and we shouldn't restrict ourselves to only the information that can be found online. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paysites on BLP - NO

Comment: Since we let anyone edit, our only safeguard against slander is that things can be verified by other users. Now, that a pretty weak safeguard, since it assumes that someone else will check the facts and remove the crap and bias. So, in BLPs with controversial or negative statements verifiability needs to mean ABLE to be VERIFIED NOT JUST IN THEORY, but realistically by wikipedians willing to do it. For that reason, disparaging information sourced only from paysites, or obscure publications is unacceptable, since it defeats any chance of quality control. My further point would be that allowig such sourcing is bad for bios anyway. If someone referred to someone as a "gonzo journalist" and the only web-reference to that is a paysite, then it is highly unlikely that the remark is notable, substantial or significant, and lacking any evidence of such it should be excluded. Paysite would be fine if it were a case of saying "x called y this, which caused a media debate"<ref>see these 10 accessible refs for the debate, and this one paysite for the original article the debate refers to"</ref>.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, suppose that I put some information into a BLP, and cite a book. You don't know anyone who owns the book, and your local library doesn't have the book, although you can order the book on Amazon for $50. In that situation, you are ABLE to verify the source, you're just not WILLING to pay $50 to buy the book. Why is that any different to citing an otherwise reliable paid website that requires a $50 registration fee? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because a book or periodical of sufficient note to be a reliable source can be consulted at a library through interlibrary loan. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can't you also do the same with The Hollywood Reporter? --NE2 15:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the information in the book is negative, concerns a living person, and there is no mention of it anywhere on the internet, and no allusion to it in any online source (including the thousands of international newspapers available on line) then, if challenged, it would be correct to exclude it. Until and unless a second independent person collaborates the claim. Otherwise I can put any libel on any BLP and reference a big expensive book on Amazon, and unless someone order the book to call my bluff, the libel remains.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I once had to pay $10 to research an interlibrary loan and would have had to pay more if they were able to find a library that had the book, which they couldn't. If the BLP material was seriously libellous, and if the editor was active and refused to quote the relevant excerpt, then that could be handled differently. Every rule has exceptions and there's even WP:IAR. But I don't think we want to go down the road of saying that only free internet sites are suitable sources. Will Beback talk 17:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember one can request that a direct quote from the source be inserted in the footnote to make sure that the source is not being misused. For example: "There are a lot of gonzo journalists out there. SOme people think Mr. X is one, others don't." Obviously that would be an different interpretation than one described above. People usually don't fabricate things, but often misinterpret them, sometimes out of excess enthusiasm or sloppiness. So this is a good check. And discussed under WP:V or WP:RS or both; I forget which. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stick with excluding all such material as practically unverifiable by our systems and, in any case, violating WP:WEIGHT. It is highly unlikely that a salacious quote, unavailable on any mainstream internet source belongs on a BLP. Until we have a better system for avoiding libels, insisting that the ordinary reader can verify everything is the least we can do. I find any other suggestion unacceptable. We don't have an absolute need to include any information (or to have a bio at all) we do have an absolute duty to avoid libelling people.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this in reference to any particular article? Will Beback talk 22:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- for me, the importance of BLP is that we get it right. if we can't verify what the source actually says, how do we know we're getting it right? some random editor might come forward and claim that they verified the source in the library, but is that really good enough for a BLP? how do we know they are telling the truth, or that they verified it accurately? it seems very risky. people make honest mistakes in synthesizing sources, or claiming sources said things they actually didn't say, even when the source is available for everyone to view. when only a single person or small group is able to verify it for themselves, we can get into dangerous territory involving the potential for plenty of errors. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is keeping you from verifying the source? Research takes time, money, and energy. If an editor is unwilling to devote what it required, does that give them veto over other editors who have spent their time, energy, or money to find the sources? That seems a way of lowering the quality of the encyclopedia rather than improving it. Will Beback talk 00:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) I am strongly opposed to limiting "what we can verify" to mean only "what we can verify without charge from the comfort of our own homes". This is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of the web, but a full encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FUTON bias is a bad thing for Wikipedia. It's FUTON bias that usually gets us into trouble in the first place, especially in this particular corner of the encyclopaedia. Ironically, the sources that one might have to pull one's finger out and put some effort into reading are usually the sources that are best for biographies of living persons. The last thing that we want is a foolish bias against such sources simply because it requires lifting more than just one finger to read them. Uncle G (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we have no other effective method of quality control for potentially libellous material. The only other way is to trust the writer, which we cannot afford to do when the writer could be anyone. Point-an-click verification is the only thing protecting victims from libels. If you've got a better idea fine. (We are here only talking out negative material on living persons.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of "potentially libellous" "salacious quote" are we talking about here? Is this all hypothetical or are we talking about an actual case? Will Beback talk 05:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

who are we to judge what is potentially libelous or not? either it's verifiable through third party, reliable sources, which would make it not libelous; or it's hypothetically verifiable (visit to the library, pay for access to a journal/magazine archive) but also potentially misrepresented from the source. if it's misrepresented from the source, whether we consider it libel or not, it's up to the person suing to decide if they think it's libel. anything not true that is construed as negative to someone's career/reputation can be libel, right? someone could literally sue for wikipedia claiming they were born in kansas when they were born in california. isn't it better not to take any chance and just stick to eminently verifiable sources so there is no possibility of libel whatsoever? in this litigious society, what's not libel to you might be libel to a sensitive person... if we stick to reliable sources that are verifiable and adequately represented, there is no problem there. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in the efforts of doing no harm, i really think we shouldn't take the word of a single or an elite group of editors. at least for BLPs. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask a third time. Is this in regard to an actual biography or are we just shooting the breeze? Will Beback talk 06:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've received a reply elsewhere, to the effect that this is inspired by the Max Tucker discussion above, but that it's mostly hypothetical. This is not the best place to discuss policy changes, but there's obviously opposition for changing the policy to require free websites for sources. Specific, legitimate disputes over problematic material that appears to be properly sourced yet can't be verified are best handled on a case-by-case basis, on this noticeboard if need be. Uninvolved editors may have suggestions or even access to additional sources. Will Beback talk 10:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've referring to avoiding libels on 300,000 articles, which is hardly "shooting the breeze". We have a piss-poor system for preventing libels as it is: removing all poorly sourced and practically unverifiable negative allegations is the best we've got for now. I've no intention that we weaken that policy. A negative allegation based solely on a paysite will always be removed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can choose to ignore all rules if you choose, but you should be prepared to defend your individual decisions. If there is an actual libel, then we can do something. But right now there isn't any libel that you've identified that is only sourced to a pay site or, God help us, a book. Will Beback talk 11:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm applying the rules. When we've "got an actual libel" it is too late. We need systems that realistically minimise and prevent them. The problem with your "show me a problem and I'll fix it in that case" approach is that it simply doesn't upscale. We can't maintain any realistic quality control if we relax sourcing rules - we need to tighten them - much much tighter. Anything else is ethically and systemically irresponsible.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check WP:V and WP:BLP. I don't think you'll find anything that says books and magazines that require time or money to verify are not reliable sources. This isn't the place to propose policy changes. If I come across someone removing material with citations to what appear to be reliable sources I'll generally revert the change unless there's a good explanation. Removing sourced material is a form of vandalism, so if you're going to do it make sure that you are ready to defend you action. I don't believe your view is in sync with the rest of the community, as shown in this thread. Will Beback talk 19:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to differ. I find your interpretation of policy erroneous, unethical and harmful. But I don't expect that to dissuade you.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with not online sources that anyone can verify. The fact that they cost money to obtain isn't relevant to WP:V. Moreover, attempting to make such a distinction damages neutral point of view by making things unduly sympathetic and massively increases systemic bias but focusing on internet sources. When a source is not online or costs money to obtain unless we have a reason to think that the user in question is lying (such as they have made up sources in the past, or the claim is particularly unlikely given the context), there's no reason to remove them. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NIK GOWING

His entry states that he "received a BAFTA in 1981 for his exclusive coverage of the imposition of martial law in Poland and won a medal at the New York Television Festival for his nightly coverage of the 1991 Gulf war" I have examined the lists of both Bafta and the New York Television Festival online and his name is NOT mentioned in any awards. 89.243.83.169 (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Brown NFL Team Owner

This page is wrought with poorly sourced, unsourced, and non-neutral information. A complete mess. I tried to clean it up, but I fear it is beyond my wiki-knowledge to even make a dent. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. (User_talk:Amishlliason) —Preceding undated comment was added on 05:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Assume you are referring to Mike Brown (football team owner) ? Exxolon (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Amishlliason (talk) 18 February 2009

Feedback requested on a BLP related proposal

Note: don't go vote, read and comment on talk: Wikipedia:Search Engine NOCACHE by default proposal or WP:NOCACHE. The point of it all is plainly simple and obvious. rootology (C)(T) 07:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krister Linder

The article was edited today by Kristerlinder (talk · contribs), this may need some eyes on it for now. Not that there's anything wrong with it, I just spotted this in recent changes. --Litherlandsand (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any BLP issue but you may wish to bring this up at the conflict of interest noticeboard. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sirico

User:VeritasEst, citing documents from "riteofsodomy.com," added potentially controversial claims about a living person, the subject of the article. After removal by myself, user has repeatedly reinserted content despite warnings about the BLP req't for multiple independent sources for such assertions. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The site's personal content is not referenced except for scans of actual documentation that is available in public records. These materials themselves are valid references. The opinions of the person hosting them is incidental and were obviously not used. However, I also used several other references which were deleted en-masse! That was just one source and you deleted them all Mr. Clark!

To the Admins, note that by searching the history of this article that the user DickClarkMises has made several deletions to the article anytime someone tries to make progress on it or add content, referenced or not. Notably, anything related to Rev. Sirico's work towards promoting gay rights. Is this sort of discrimination acceptable on Wikipedia? I think not. I request an admin add the NPOV dispute and help restore referenced materials to preserve neutrality. Thank you for everything you do for this wonderful source of free information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VeritasEst (talk • contribs) 04:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources should only be used if they've already been mentioned in reliable secondary sources. See WP:PSTS. There are numerous problems with using primary sources on their own, including misidentification and misinterpretation. Will Beback talk 21:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Glenn

A young boy allegedly made a YouTube video of himself abusing a cat. (More info available here and elsewhere on the Web.)

I preemptively create-protected Kenny Glenn and a few variations. It was brought to my attention that somebody had bypassed this protection by using the title Timmy (animal abuse suspect). I have subsequently deleted this article and create-protected it and its redirect as well.

I invite review of my actions by other admins. This is a sensitive situation involving serious accusations, video evidence, and the biography of a minor.

Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good on both actions. Daniel (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not break out the backslappings yet; this edit was just made to the Anonymous (group) article; more are likely at 4chan, and the local area articles. Skomorokh 10:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably need to do a better job of comunicateing with the editor involved though[9].Geni 12:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more reliable sources are starting to appear [10]. May need to rethink at some point.Geni 12:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bilderberg attendees

This list was previously mostly unsourced and defamatory (individuals on the list are accused of participating in a global conspiracy to rule the world or something.) I removed all unsourced individuals, and have since been removing any additional unsourced additions. One user has a problem with the removal of living George Pataki from the list, and has now reinserted his name multiple times. This article has external attention from less-than-responsible sources. Assistance would be useful. Hipocrite (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list looks like a WP:COATRACK and does not seem to serve any useful purpose. Is there anything special about going to this particular invite-only event (as opposed to, say, TED (conference) or a party at the Playboy Mansion) that makes it a notable subject on Wikipedia for which we need an article? I see no reliable source to suggest that the defining criterion for list inclusion, being part of the corps of attendance at the conventions, is a notable in its own right, only that attendance is considered by some conspiracy theorists to be a sign of participation in a world domination cabal. That makes the entire list article a problem for several reasons. Why not nominate the article for deletion? Wikidemon (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd happily do so if I believed it had a chance in hell of passing. However, external sites of less than reliable nature would make that nearly impossible. I attempted to PROD the article, hoping that would be more "under the radar" and the prod was featured on a less-than-reliable website as a conspiracy to cover up the truth. Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's not just an innocent bad article. It looks like the remnant of some tinfoil hat thing, which discredits the project. It does not matter how many people !vote to keep, they would have to come up with a valid policy reason. IPs, SPAs, and new accounts would be discounted anyway - but better act fast now that it's here because people are known to make sleeper socks. If there's evidence of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, external canvassing, and such we can deal with all that. This wouldn't be the first time. Maybe I should do it because I've never edited the article, never even heard of this conference before today.Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock pupptery? When somebody disagress with hipocrites blatant vandalism hes a sock puppet? Nonsense and its nothing but a ad hominem attack against me User:Butcer

Case in point - Butcer is a 2-year old account with a dozen or so edits, most in the past day. Has been warned, comes right here with accusations of bad faith against me just for looking into the issue. Probably ought to be blocked or topic banned if this keeps up, no? Wikidemon (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

help at Ray Joseph Cormier

I think some uninvolved admins should take a look at Ray Joseph Cormier. My sense is the subject has annoyed a number of users on-wiki and that resulted in an AfD nom (along with "applause" for that nom from another user). I think the page should perhaps be protected (though of course I think the current version is the Wrong Version) for a bit. 19:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, is there a BLP violation on that page? I must be missing the uncited information about a living person. Hipocrite (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but I figured this was the right place to bring the issue as it involves editor conduct involving a BLP. ANI seemed like the wrong place. Hobit (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what, exactly, is your concern with the article, other than your constant assumptions of bad faith? Hipocrite (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are editing an article about someone and pulling information out that is not in dispute. Things like where he lives currently and his birth date. It involves an active on-wiki user. The talk page is full of back and forth between you and that user. I think it needs more eyes. So I came here. Hobit (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I left in the purported birthdate, we'd have a violation of Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_personal_information. Hipocrite (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Summers

A few of us are having a dispute over the inclusion of the level of detail necessary and permitted for Lawrence Summers's grandmother. Additional voices and eyeballs would be appreciated. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Percival Davis

Article is undergoing repeated attempts for release of personal information that is 1. Personal -and/or- 2. Unsubstantiated -and/or- 3. Malicious. This war began due to user Orlady bearing a grudge against myself, as I disagreed with her about a separate article. Orlady has now followed me to this particular article, and is attempting to revert edits in revenge. In addition, she has enlisted 'friends' to help her continue to alter the page. This is causing an innocent third party (Percival Davis) to suffer. As with Lawrence Summers' grandmother, "Additional voices and eyeballs would be appreciated." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audreetucker (talk • contribs) 05:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with Audreetucker. Since the initial post, dissenting users who are attempting to minimalize the information are being blocked or repeatedly reversed. Until the situation is resolved, there needs to be a LOCK on this posting, with minimal information published. The game-playing in here is ridiculous. Advocate4us (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Murray / Centre for Social Cohesion

I'm not very experienced with BLP, but I'm expecting that this isn't ok: A new SPA has included on the page for Douglas Murray (Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion Civitas-owned think tank) praise from the British National Party. Is this trying to force guilt by association? I tried to find a guideline with an express instruction about this, but failed. I'm a bit out of my depth, to be honest almost-instinct 08:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget guidelines and go with your instinct. If something smell bad on a BLP, remove it. If you meet opposition, come here. The SPA needs blocking in this case. We don't need a policy to stop hatchet-jobs - although I'm sure there is one somewhere.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it twice now today. I'll link to this conversation on the talk page. I'm not going to be on WP for the next 24 hours though, so if someone else could keep on an eye on it that would be great. The edits were made by

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

Bye for now almost-instinct 09:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted a well-referenced hatchet-job by the same editor on Centre for Social Cohesion. Please watch.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to accept helpful factual corrections (as already done today) or to address issues of perceived bias in edits. I will, however, continue to engage with wholescale revisions to previous versions which lack unsubstantiated evidence. I will also continue to work within the Wikipedia guidelines to address any application of double standards as regards what may constitute an authoritative source and address content that lacks adequate references in support of the claims made.

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

Well that sounds like we're all singing from the same hymnsheet now :-) so I guess this is

Resolved

now almost-instinct 12:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Thanks. AdamMarchmant (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Rancourt

Since the Denis Rancourt article survived a deletion review, it has been under continuous attack by two single-purpose accounts (User:FeetsDontFailMeNow and User:Letsgoridebikes) determined to make him look like a nutcase. Here you can see Letsgoridebikes tacitly admitting that he believes Rancourt is a "nutcase" and all he's doing is making that fact clear to people. Letsgoridebikes edits just three articles, and literally the only article FeetsDontFailMeNow has edited is Denis Rancourt. Between the two of them, they have removed 90%+ of the original content of the article -- the very article which survived deletion -- and replaced it with material which they've cherry-picked to make Rancourt look mentally unstable. This is clearly unacceptable in a biography of a living person, especially their most recent hobbyhorse, which is using Rancourt's criticism of Zionism as a rationalization for implying in the first paragraph of the article that he's an anti-semite.

I have been hoping that the two of them would lose interest and move on so that I could revert everything they've done in one go, but they seem to be sticking around. In the mean time, Rancourt was just featured in a New York Times editorial, and people coming to Wikipedia to find out about him are treated to what may be libelous material about him. -- SmashTheState (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wikipedia. Posting a request for assistance in removing libelous material has had the result of simply attracting one more person pushing the same bias. Suddenly I'm becoming much more sympathic to Daniel Brandt. -- SmashTheState (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been predictable - this noticeboard reads like a roll-call for anti-BLP activists. Suggest you e-mail a sympathetic Arbcom member directly (JoshuaZ ffs?!! - that's wolves guarding the sheep if ever there was an instance). Try Newyorkbrad or Cool Hand Luke. Even Jimbo would be a decided improvement than this shower.220.236.235.163 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see joshua Z's latest edit, [11] as totally appropriate. DGG (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Phillips

This article has extensive parts of personal details that are unsourced. Seems to be a new user who has worked on this and so in the interests of WP:BITE, I thought I'd leave this one for those users with experience and tact in this area. --Jza84 | Talk 13:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biography of Subhash Kak

Biography of Subhash Kak has been hijacked and libelous material posted on both the biography page as well as disparaging comments about this person has been made on the Talk page of the same article.

The editor has also changed the page to protected status, preventing further edits, while refusing to engage in a discussion on the merits/demerits of his editorial hatchet job on the article itself.

I view Wikipedia as an unbiased repository of information, compiled for public good. I bring this article to the noticeboard, so that the concerned panel can review this page and decide whether some of the material on this page isn't borderline libelous.

If you cannot represent someone in a fair manner, without the editor's personal bias getting in the way, delete the page. It is better that people don't get to read the biography, instead of reading someone's politically motivated diatribe against a scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlahiri (talk • contribs) 14:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Buttars

Chris Buttars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An editor is repeatedly calling Buttars a racist and homophobe in the intro. While this may be true, it is in violation of NPOV and BLP policies. -R. fiend (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Sher

Please someone has an eye on Neal Sher article. A libelous section has been repeatedly inserted, and my removal has been labeled as vandalism. Only one source for the claim in the article is given, and apparently, according to google news this is the only source. I could not find any reports in mainstream newspaper. Furthermore, the section does not faithfully presents what the source says, if anyone would care to read the article completely instead of just the first paragraph one would clearly see this (in a nutshell, nothing is official as all parties agreed not to disclose any details, thus all claims must be treated as speculative or alleged). I am also worried that the article seems to concentrate on negative aspects of his career, completely ignoring what he is more known for, ie is job as the head of the USJD Nazi prosecution unit. I removed already some other parts, to restore at least some balance, but still this article seems to be edited mostly by peopel who are more interested in adding negative information than in writing an encyclopaedic article. So please someone has an eye on this article, thanks.

two IPs (from whom one or the other could have a conflict of interest) continue to delete passages from the neal sher article. one has already been warned, afterwards another IP assumed the job. although only one source for relevant passage is stated one can find more in the IT (which i don't consider necessary as this one source can be considered reliable).the passage was depicted almost literally from the source. the IPs problem with the edit is revealed on the end of his above comment: that something "negative" about this person is depicted. someone sholuld have an eye on the article,indeed.--Severino (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article with more extensive sourcing and detail. The previous version of the article was unbalanced; the DC bar spat was not the most significant event in Sher's life. THF (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marlo Morgan

Resolved

This article seems to have suffered a hatchet job last year, and needs some serious help. I don;t have time to do much at the moment, so extra hands would be welcome. Kevin (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been stubbed by someone else, and I'll put it on my watchlist. THF (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Byrd no longer longest serving member of the house

Resolved

John Dingell, D Michigan, became the longest serving member of the house on feb 11 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.135.241 (talk • contribs)

Robert Byrd is not in the House, and this isn't really a BLP issue. THF (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Victoria Hervey

Is FamousHookups.com a reliable source for Lady Victoria Harvey's relationships? Also, is The Daily Telegraph's Top 50 dumb blonde quotes a reliable source, if this is a living person? In fact, I wonder about most if not all of the information in this article, if the standards for BLP are applied. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Telegraph is a RS. FamousHookups is not, I've sourced three of the four claims, and deleted the other. The article could use some more scrubbing, but it seems consistent with press coverage, though whether the article survives WP:BIO given the WP:NOT#NEWS rule is another question. I'd delete it, but I'd imagine it would survive an AFD. THF (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would survive afd.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Shelby

Left-wing blogs are encouraging vandalism of this article, and the RPP request has gone unnoticed for half a day, so please look out for violations by IP editors (and experienced Wikipedia editors who should know better). THF (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Turville

I semi-protected this page a while back after various IPs repeatedly added links to an inappropriate blog. I've just taken the unusual step of semi-protecting the talk page as well, as the links have been added there a couple of times by different IPs. I'd be grateful for some other watchers on this page, as the links have now twice been reinserted during periods when I've been away from my computer for a few days. Thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real name at Nug (graffiti artist)

Swedish graffiti artist Nug has been in the Swedish news in the past weeks and now has an article. All the Swedish news only mention his artist name, Nug, but one American news blog writes his real name and people are using that as a source to add it to the article. I have removed it several times per WP:BLP#Privacy_of_names, but there are now two people reverting me. The same issue at the Swedish wp, but I don't know if you can help put there. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's an issue of whether or not the source meets RS. While it's technically a blog, since it's attached to the Chronicle of Higher Education it might be an acceptable source, which I think would make the name ok. Also, this google search turned up a few Swedish pages that do give his real name (I don't read Swedish, though, so no guarantee they're not just translations of the Chronicle one)—you just have to be careful not to confuse him with the tennis player of the same name. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is a (mostly) reliable source, same as most newspaper blogs. Still, all Swedish media withhold the name. That American news blog is the only exception. Are we suppose to publish name if any single reliable source does it? The Google hits are private blogs, webforums and the like. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If only one source uses the real name, I would not consider that "widely disseminated", so one could cite Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy of names for removing it. However, I think the issue in this case is does the individual wish to remain anonymous? I can't read Swedish, so I don't know if that is the case here. If there are sources that make it clear that he does wish to only be known by the name "Nug", I'd support its removal, but otherwise, I think it's useful information and should be included. This is a pretty borderline case either way. -kotra (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons of Summer Flame

Resolved

– What more can be done? Reopening to prove a point is pointless!

Dragons of Summer Flame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An administrator has placed a BLP violating slur on the author in an edit summary and I'm not sure how to get it out. Could someone with skills please remove the BLP violation. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight isn't used to remove BLP violations from the history of an article unless the subject has asked the content be removed (also dependent on other reasons) or Wikimedia counsel tells us to. Generally speaking, the history of an article is kept intact so the article's evolution can be retained. The edit summary in question was a bad idea and in poor taste, but it's not a particularly egregious BLP violation, and buried as it is in the edit history of a low-traffic article, I doubt more than a handful of people will ever notice it. -kotra (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize it would require oversight to remove his ill-thought out slur on this best-selling author. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly a slur. I can't imagine that BLP prevents me from saying that Stephenie Meyer is not a very good author and that Jimmy Breslin is a pretty damn good one. If I want to use some more descriptive language than that to say that Stephanie Meyer writes boring books filled with Mary Sues and plot holes, I suspect that BLP would afford that as well. Also, if someone has noted that the author is "schlocky", then it isn't even remotely close to a BLP violation. I don't suspect this is the case, but it doesn't really help to get worked up over that level of commentary. Protonk (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Worked up?" Seriously, I asked for a simple removal of a one line BLP vio, not for AMiB's head on a platter. I thought this was a simple press of a button, but I was wrong about that. No need to escalate this to drama Protonk. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man, and here I was slaving over a hot stove for AMIB brains under glass for you, Kyaa. Way to disappoint me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I guess BLP is a joke. Wait, I misquoted you: Silly. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the 'resolved' -- as there is no consensus it's a BLP violation, the resolved notice shouldn't say it was. And I agree that it wasn't a BLP violation. dougweller (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there more to be done here? No. Resolved. Closed. Completed. Making libelous statements about authors in history is a-ok. 11:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b Matt Taibbi (2001-04-05). "HACK Eat's Horse Sperm Surprise". the eXile.
^ ^a ^b Richard Johnson (2005-03-08). "Editor Out Over Pope Parody". Page Six (NY Post, syndicated by Yahoo News).
^ ^a ^b "x-Rated Journalism". Critic. 2003-03-24.
^ Jonathan Shainin (2005-05-12). "Politics-a-palooza". Salon.com.

[exilewinesprank-1] Matt Taibbi (2001-04-05). "HACK Eat's Horse Sperm Surprise". the eXile.

[yahoo-2] Richard Johnson (2005-03-08). "Editor Out Over Pope Parody". Page Six (NY Post, syndicated by Yahoo News).

[critic-3] "x-Rated Journalism". Critic. 2003-03-24.

[salontaibbiinterview-4] Jonathan Shainin (2005-05-12). "Politics-a-palooza". Salon.com.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

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