Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.183.174.161 (talk) at 19:50, 10 July 2009 (→‎Bal Thackeray). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Additional notes:




    John Lakian

    Would anyone like to please watchlist and or monitor John Lakian for BLP violations and vandalism? Seems like there were some negative, hurtful comments added to the article which stayed in for quiet a while, and the possibility of future incidents seems likely. More eyes on the situation would help.-Andrew c [talk] 18:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've watchlisted it. If this happens again semi protection may be called for. — Jake Wartenberg 04:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A newbie with a redlinked name just removed much of the content and references. I don't know myself how accurate much of that material is, but thought it worth mentioning. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've proposed the article for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And the PROD was removed. The only source was to court testimony, not a valid source, so I've removed it. This article now has no sources. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    David Ferguson (impresario)

    I would appreciate someone looking at a page I'm trying to clean up: David Ferguson (impresario). It's been tagged with many templates and I'm not sure if they're all appropriate. I think this article needs experienced Wikipedians to compare the templates to the contents of the biography. Thanks-- --deb (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the article is fine and the tags unjustified. It could hardly have more or better sources.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Snort... Steve, of the refs on there now, how many are self-published? How many only exist on the subject's own web server? How many are solely based on the subject's own claims without any fact-checking? How many statements are actually disputed by other sources, but any mentions of that were edited out? How many statements are about things that companies did, not Ferguson himself? How many of the refs, when checked, turn out not to back up what they're claiming?
    If the article was edited to only contain facts based on verifiable, neutral, third-party reliable sources, all you'd have left is a stub. The refs as they are now are utter crap, and when the refs are crap, so is the article. That's why the tags are there—readers should be warned that much of what's there is dubious, at best. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion has been moved to the article's talk page Talk: David Ferguson (impresario) --deb (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Frank Guinta

    I have a sinking suspicion that the article about this minor political figure is being edited by his campaign. Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I took off some of the more puffy stuff. I am a Republican BTW. Anyway, the mayor of a city and a candidate for Congress is not so minor. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After taking part in the discussion I have more sympathy for Hipocrite's position. If that is his campaign staff editing the article they are really clueless about what makes for effective publicity. A neutral article would be much more effective in promoting Mr. Guinta's run for Congress than one that goes overboard to the point of silliness to say nothing bad about him and puff up everything good. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now a lot of progress has been made towards making this a good and fair article. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Howard Kaloogian

    This article contains claims that are sourced solely by anonymous blog posts from places such as DemocraticUnderground.com. Definetly not a reliable source. 209.105.130.50 (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have trimmed out most of the poorly sourced material. 203.213.2.194 (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira

    The user above has exceeded WP:3RR while inserting unsourced and poorly sourced (no WP:RS) contentious material to this BLP, specifically in the spirituality section. The user has also removed the BLP refimprove tag despite large sections of the article being unsourced. Their only response has been to editwar against the BLP removals and tagging, and to add some websites as sources for some of the claims (which still don't support the conclusions being drawn). Verbal chat 18:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The user above is constantly reverting tagging/removal of the OR and unreferenced controversial sections. They seem to have similar problems across wikipedia. I would appreciate more input at the article page please. Verbal chat 08:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but yestaerday I spent like an hour inserting many new sources --and you said that a very reliable source such as Musica Brasileira.org is not reliable!! How come!!?? This is widely known and very respect webiste for those who research on music. Out of nothing you just come, after a whole hour of work and delete everything --and I don´t even know if you understand portuguese or has any notion of what is written on these sources. Jackiestud (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't address the OR concern, they are separate issues, hence why they are discussed in different threads on different noticeboards. I have opened a discussion about this unrelated sourcing concern at WP:RSN. Verbal chat

    Baruch Marzel

    This is a minor issue. Is it acceptable to call this Israeli politician "far-right" like this, if there are several newspaper articles that call him that, or is it necessary to qualify the description like this?Prezbo (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's fair to call him far-right. However that doesn't really give us all that much information. BTW Fidel Castro's article doesn't say that he is far-left. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.Prezbo (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Content dispute at Mimi Macpherson

    A single-purpose editor, Dvj2009 (talk · contribs), has persistently removed one sentence in the article on Mimi Macpherson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which mentions her sex tape. This episode was part of the original article as created by 1dragon (talk · contribs) on 20 October 2005. The sentence is a) true, b) well referenced. I have discussed the matter with the editor on the article's talk page, and subsequently rephrased and shortened the episode as well as provided further references.

    Dvj2009's main argument seems to be that mentioning the tape amounts to defamation. I maintain that mentioning it falls well within the guideline for biographies on living persons. Other editors who previously also restored this section include Longhair (talk · contribs) (here and here), Smashville (talk · contribs) (here), and most recently Eightofnine (talk · contribs) (here).

    I seek input and advice from other editors to resolve this issue; in my opinion, the article should be restored to this version. I have notified Dvj2009 about this request on her/his talk page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The article as it stands is humiliating enough to its subject. Why go further, regardless of reliable sources? "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Only a very selective reading of the article could conclude that it is "humiliating"; I count five positive (not all sourced) and three negative items. As to "include only material relevant to their notability": indeed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I doubt her life is five parts "positive" events and three parts "negative" events. The fact that 10 years or so before the events that made her genuinely notable, her ex-boyfriend (or somebody) made an Internet splash by passing a sex tape around to capitalize on her sister's notability really isn't a significant event, and doesn't relate to her genuine notability, which isn't inherited. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From memory, a large part of her notability back in the 90s was her sex tape (and being Elle's sister). WP:UNDUE weight applies. If major reliable sources report on this, it should be included. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. Given the 4-5 cites, neither sourcing nor WP:DUE seems to be a problem. decltype (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I chime in with decltype, after reverting the deletion twice. Perhaps that one line (and that's all it is) is humiliating--that's the problem with being a celebrity, and this information is well-sourced enough and notable, given that the subject's life is still very much a public matter. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK so you're saying that you can see that the line that Michael Bednarek (talk) has insisted be included in the article for the last 2 years is humiliating, yet you say this is ok because she's a celebrity? That's incredible! She is a person first!! Dvj2009 (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mimi Macpherson has called me several times recently asking if I can help her with this. She assures me she has never heard of a ‘Michael Hellwig', and reiterates how horrible it is to have lies and rumours spread about you on Wikipedia. On Talk:Mimi_Macpherson Michael Bednarek conceded: ‘I give up — Dvj2009 wins. The effort required to argue my case further exceeds by far my level of care or interest in this subject.’ Of course the article is humiliating for Mimi (thank you Hullaballoo, I was starting to lose faith!), imagine if the article and this 'one sentence' was on your own sister, or your daughter, or your mother! (or do they deserve more respect?). Now that the page has a WP:TW on it what do I do next? Also, doesn't that one sentence now look a little ridiculous with 6 citations after it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvj2009 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about not signing, I thought that was automatic. Dvj2009 (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Justin Lazard

    I've just stubbed this article, which has been a magnet for unremoved vandalism and BLP violations for months. I couldn't find a "clean version to restore; perhaps someone else can pick one out. Certainly some of the article can be rebuilt, and I may get to it, but given the level of recent vandalism extra sets of eyes would be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That was truly awful, good find. I have restored an acceptable version and watchlisted it. decltype (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Amber Frey

    Amber Frey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — I'm concerned about the "Personal life" section at the bottom of this article. Some of it is unsourced or sourced to unreliable websites. None of it is really relevant to the article. At least the unsourced parts should be removed, but I'd urge you to consider removing the whole section. Thanks. 66.31.202.0 (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've trimmed some of that down. What's left seems sourced and/or uncontroversial, but I'd like an experienced set of eyes to take another look. Henrymrx (t·c) 02:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the article is really sick. Just the kind of thing that makes WP look bad. A person incidentally involved in a crime probably doesn't need an article. I would vote to delete if it was nominated. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a bit more. In general if trial transcripts are to be used, they should be in the criminal's article, not a witness's. The whole article is vulnerable to WP:BLP1E.Martinlc (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading the article, duh that does sometimes help, I'd like to retract my comments. I see that she has written a book about her experiences and has been the subject of a couple of movies. She is important enough for an article and the article is not an attack or scandal page as was my first impression. I would vote keep. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pauley Perrette's wedding

    User:Neutralhomer is repeatedly reverting edits to reinsert references to a self-published blog which contradict/describe as inadequate the coverage in sources that are generally considered reliable. The statements attributed to the article subject are controversial/contentious, and have no other apparent source. Under WP:BLP, these statements are to be removed, but User:Neutralhomer is edit warring to reinsert them. I cannot see any good faith issue here -- statements sourced from a blog report of the wedding, not found in any of the reliable-source coverage of the event, need to be removed from the article. (There is also a subordinate dispute as to whether uncorroborated claims Pauley made when shutting down her blog are to be repeated as factual or as statements she made.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is removing a reference from Entertainment Tonight, a show that has been around for 20+ years. That is not a self-published blog. He has made no efforts to rewrite the page and when I commented on his talk page, it was removed as a "personal attack", which is clearly wasn't. If he keeps it up, I will request the page, one he hasn't edited on ever be page protected to stop his "editing". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the article. The contentious text in question is cited to a buzznet blog -- http://www.clintcatalyst.com/blog/pauleyperrette . The quoted language from that blog, which makes claims about ETs coverage being inaccurate by omission, includes a link to the ET coverage, but the article itself does not otherwise refer to it. It is becoming very difficult, given your continued disputing this point, to continue to see your editing on this point as being erroneous but in good faith. And your comment on my talk page, alleging bad faith on my part, was certainly a groundless personasl attack. It seems to be a fashion here lately to accuse editors disputing buzznet nonsense of bad faith, but it's not appropriate behavior. And, not that it's relevant, a check of the article history would show I have edited this page before. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do me a favor and let's keep this all on the Pauley Perrette talk page, shall we? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? This is mainly a WP:BLP issue, over inadequate sourcing for a controversial claim. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because having essentially the same conversation in two different places is one annoying and two silly. Also, there is not "inadequate sourcing", there are sources, just not ones you like. You have not even looked for other sources, have you? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have. There aren't any. And the burden of proof is explicitly placed by Wikipedia policy on the editor(s) wishing to retain contentious material like this -- which WP:BLP says should be removed "immediately" and "without discussion." And having BLP-related discussions on the BLP noticeboard is hardly silly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is when we have an essentially exact conversation over on the Pauley Perrette talk page, some of your quotes being exact. It is easier to have all the comments in one set place so you don't have to go search around "Jake's barn" for a comment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Brenda Shaffer

    Brenda Shaffer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Two recent edits seem to be a violation, both users banned:

    Thanks. Brandt 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric McDavid

    On another board, Eric McDavid's defence attorney is posting about our coverage of him (here). Some more eyes on this might be worthwhile.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Homeopathy

    Actually more of a related discussion, at User_talk:Avathaar#Questions_about_sourcing. Bit of a train wreck there that should probably be on talk:Homeopathy, but it's tied up with a mentoring attempt and a user who's banning status isn't completely clear at the moment. Needs eyes, specifically about the BLP issues regarding a recent court case where the parents of a child were convicted a couple weeks ago. (Needs neutral eyes in general, actually: mine are starting to ache and I think a neutral admin should be monitoring). --SB_Johnny | talk 20:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I fully agree, if only there was a neutral admin mentoring Avathaar then this wouldn't have got so disruptive and could have been sorted out easily on the homeopathy talk page. The sources all meet WP:RS and support the statement in the text. The couple have been convicted and are awaiting sentencing. There are no WP:BLP issues with the sources or the text, so far as I can see. It's very late here, I'll contribute more tomorrow. Hopefully someone can give an overview of the problem with JWSchmidt's and sourcing. Verbal chat 22:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not much to see here. It's a number of editors providing various reliable sources, with on each occasion a reflexive "that's not good enough" from the banned User:Avathaar (aka User:Dr.Jhingaadey) and his advocate. User:Avathaar is restricted to his own talk page anyway. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see - at a glance, I see one serious BLP violation, in which an editor asserts (without sourcing) that Michael Jackson's doctor was responsible for his death. Beyond that, I see a high-profile court case, covered by multiple reliable sources, to which editors are referring without violations of BLP (though perhaps supplying a diff would be useful, if I'm missing something). As a meta-comment, discussion about improving homeopathy should take place on Talk:Homeopathy, not on user talk pages. MastCell Talk 23:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "this wouldn't have got so disruptive" <-- User:Verbal, please explain what you are calling "disruptive". Are you saying that an examination of the reliability of cited sources is "disruptive"? "his advocate" <-- User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris, what do you mean by "advocate"? "It's a number of editors providing various reliable sources, with on each occasion a reflexive 'that's not good enough'" <-- please provide links to these "occasions". As far as I know, all the questions being asked about the reliability of sources have been thoughtfully based on the contents of the sources in question. "an editor asserts (without sourcing) that Michael Jackson's doctor was responsible for his death" <-- User:MastCell, you are misquoting "an editor". What User:Avathaar said was, "...imagine if all allopaths were portrayed murderers/manslaughterers just because Michael Jackson's doctor gave him so many allopathic drugs (all together) that he died!", which is a hypothetical statement and a valid analogy for the context where it was posted on his user talk page. "multiple reliable sources, to which editors are referring without violations of BLP" <-- There were two sources cited in the Homeopathy article that appeared to violate the requirements of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The first was a tabloid newspaper report in which allegations made by lawyers were repeated as fact by the newspaper. The second was a blog post that includes apparently unsubstantiated opinions about two living people. Since these two sources did not seem to meet Wikipedia's requirement for "high quality" sources, I started looking for better sources. --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There are no BLP issues at homeopathy regarding these sources, and JWS has failed to show a problem. His failure to understand the probleem with the Jackson comment is also telling. Feel free to look for "better" sources, but you have to accept that there are no BLP issues with the sources as used, demonstrate it here, or just move on. To answer your question directed to me, I believe your behaviour and abortive mentorship of Avathaar, has been disruptive. Verbal chat 20:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've documented the "BLP issue" at User_talk:Avathaar. If Wikipedia is linking to an external webpage with unsubstantiated claims about living people then it is a problem. It is our job as Wikipedia editors to make absolutely sure that we get this right. --JWSchmidt (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As no evidence of any BLP issue has been presented here, and JWSchmidt is clearly in the minority with his opinion that this somehow breaks BLP policy, unless a new consensus is formed and evidence presented he must now accept that his interpretation is not accepted by consensus. He can look for better sources if he likes, but he must stop further WP:DISRUPTIVE attacks on the sources, and especially the authors of the sources lest he be accused of breaking BLP policy himself, as DrJ has with his MJ comments. Please stop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Verbal chat 11:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "no evidence of any BLP issue has been presented here" <-- Well, there was a claim of "one serious BLP violation". As for the lack of presentation of other BLP issues in this discussion, I think you should take that up with User:SB Johnny, since he started this discussion. "he must now accept that his interpretation is not accepted by consensus" <-- My "interpretation" of Wikipedia policy is that editors have a responsibility to check the reliability of sources. We are not supposed to use questionable sources that make unsubstantiated claims about living people. If a few editors claim to have decided "by consensus" that they do not have to follow Wikipedia policy then I am not under any obligation to stop following policy. "WP:DISRUPTIVE attacks on the sources" <-- Please provide a list of these "attacks on the sources". Pointing out that a tabloid newspaper appears to have repeated an unfounded allegation as if it were fact is not disruptive. "lest he be accused of breaking BLP policy himself, as DrJ has with his MJ comments" <-- Please provide evidence that "DrJ broke BLP policy". If you are talking about this edit, then please explain how a hypothetical analogy used on a user talk page broke BLP policy. "Please stop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" <-- I wish I could, but I have little control over editors who do not seem to listen when I tell them that I am trying to find better references for Wikipedia. I've responded to all of your requests to the best of my ability. I don't understand why, but it seems like you want to go through a matter all over again here on this page that was previously discussed at User_talk:Avathaar. At the same time, you seem to be telling me to stop talk talking about that matter. Your requests seem contradictory, so I'm asking for clarification. At your explicit request I'll repeat the previous discussion, but please do not then accuse me of tendentious editing for complying with your request. So which is it? Do you want me to repeat my questions about the sources here, or not? If your answer is that you do, please explain how doing so is compatible with the purpose of this page. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are any BLP issues regarding homeopathy take them to the homeopathy talk page. Yes, DrJ's comment was a BLP vio. We seem to have a case here where one editor believes they are right, even though many editors have disputed that interpretation. I would rather you didn't repeat the claims you've made on DRJ/Avathaars talk, as they have no substance according to a majority of editors, and you came close yourself several times to violating BLP policy in your unfounded criticisms and accusations against a respected scientist and author. If you have any new, genuine, concerns, then raise them here or at homeopathy talk. Verbal chat 16:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "If there are any BLP issues regarding homeopathy take them to the homeopathy talk page." <-- If your definition of "BLP issues" covers discussions of cited sources that User:Avathaar feels are not reliable, then your first step should be allow him to edit at the homeopathy talk page. As long as he is limited to editing his user talk page, I'll continue to discuss on that page his suggestions for how to improve Wikipedia. "DrJ's comment was a BLP vio" <-- I've previously challenged this claim and I've asked for an explanation of how a hypothetical analogy on a user talk page can constitute a policy violation. No explanation has been provided, so repetition of this claim appears to be accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. "I would rather you didn't repeat the claims you've made on DRJ/Avathaars talk, as they have no substance according to a majority of editors" <-- Are you trying to make some kind of claim about consensus that prevents me from examining the reliability of sources? "the claims you've made" <-- I made the "claim" that some tabloid newspaper articles and a blog post appear to have repeated allegations as if they were facts. I've repeatedly asked other editors to quote the expert medical testimony that supports the questionable claims made in the sources that were cited by Wikipedia. Nobody has provided such quotes, so I continue to look for better sources. "your unfounded criticisms and accusations against a respected scientist and author" <-- Please list all of these "unfounded criticisms and accusations". I've said that I can find no expert medical testimony that supports his opinionated statements about two living people. This makes me question if that blog post can be cited by Wikipedia. If my "claim" has no substance then you should be able to quote the expert medical testimony that supports the questionable claims made in the sources that were cited by Wikipedia. You have not done so: your failure to provide quotes from expert medical witnesses in the trial supports my "claim". "disputed that interpretation" <-- If you want to "dispute" my statement ("I can find no testimony that supports that claim") then you should quote some testimony that supports that claim. I'm trying to find better sources that include testimony about the cause of death. I don't understand how that can upset anyone. --JWSchmidt (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment (just on the first point JWS just raised): at the risk of repeating myself, please note that Avathaar isn't formally banned from the talk page in question. He is currently under what JWS describes as a "voluntary restriction", but AFAIK that restriction is an agreement between JWS and Avathaar, and Verbal is not in any position to "allow him to edit".
    JWSchmidt: you chose to override the "de facto ban", which is of course your right as an admin. However, it's a bit disingenuous to then pass the buck when it comes to when Avathaar is no longer bound by parts of the agreement between you and he. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "disingenuous to then pass the buck" <-- I question that characterization of events. What "Avathaar" agreed to was: "I will only edit my own user pages until the Wikipedia community lifts this editing restriction." In my view, "the Wikipedia community" does not mean "User:JWSchmidt". --JWSchmidt (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wendy Diamond

    Could someone look at this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Diamond

    Here's my comment from the talk page:

    In my opinion, NEEDS MAJOR EDITS I have serious problems with this article. Many of the claims are not sourced. It honestly sounds like this article is written by Ms. Diamond herself. I am not a Wikipedia aficionado so I am not going to try to change much. I would like to see some evidence that her books are best sellers or that she raised as much money as she claimed. As a minor television personality and as an owner of what seems to be a financially unstable magazine (see Forbes magazine article), I question whether she deserves such an extensive entry. Furthermore I worry that Ms. Diamond has had an opportunity to inflate and exaggerate her accomplishments through two bios in which she seems to have exerted a major influence—maybe I am being paranoid. But my point is that if these claims are true, more sources are necessary to establish them. The two biography's I'm speaking of are this one and her Huffington Post biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.152.227 (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.152.227 (talk)

    Agreed, I have indef blocked User:Animalfair as a spamusername. All of that users edits were to Wendy Diamond or adding links to the Animalfair website to dog related articles. That editor had removed maintenance tags from the article. I have retagged the article for its various areas that need work. It needs cleaning up and some of the claims rationalizing into what can be substantiated and what is puffery and not encyclopedic. Mfield (Oi!) 06:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jelena Đurović

    Dakota Fanning

    There are several editors trying to claim that Dakota Fanning has died, though there are no sources for such a claim. They are also editing the Deaths in 2009 article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009 Iranian election protests

    I'm removing inadequately sourced material reporting the death of several named individuals. Tom Harrison Talk 17:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kasey Russell

    This is a real child actress, but the article as created on 30 June is largely a cut-and-paste from Logan Miller. I tagged it db-g3, then realised it might be a work-in-progress, untagged it and watched it. The author Transfromers2 (talk · contribs) did nothing more with it and on 4 July was blocked as a sockpuppet given to "Adding blatant fake information to articles of films and actors" - see here.

    I have blanked the article (as it gives inaccurate information about a living child) and PRODded it, explaining the situation on the talk page. If anyone is interested, one possibility would be to research the real Kasey Russell and make the article accurate. I have posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers in case anyone wants to follow that up; but I doubt if she is notable enough, her IMDb entry shows a single credit for one 2009 film in which she is #26 in the list of "Cast in credits order".

    Posted here in case anyone thinks more drastic action (like zapping it as WP:CSD#G3 blatant misinformation) is required. JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Has now been redirected to Ghosts of Girlfriends Past in which she stars. Not sure that's the best solution though. – ukexpat (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthur Kemp

    I am in danger of violating 3RR. I said that SPLC was an anti-white hate group. I want that section removed because the sources are unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonglerOfRocks (talk • contribs) 16:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Southern Poverty Law Center is a reliable source. I don't see a BLP violation here. -Atmoz (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then look harder. Adding the SPLC's opinion to a bio is undue weight, unless their opinion has been reliably published. 203.213.2.194 (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This was at RS/N not all that long ago. The consensus was that as an opinion of the SPLC, it was usable as an opinion only, and that Kemp's denial was also proper to use to counter the opinion. There is a reasonable belief that Kemp is sufficiently monor that the article should be deleted -- he wrote a book which is not of major importance, and he works for the BNP -- elsewise he has not been actually notable. Collect (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There was a Jan 2009 AFD which said "keep", though there wasn't all that much discussion detail Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Kemp. Could be worth another AFD - I'm not convinced he merits an entry. Rd232 talk 00:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Collect and RD232. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alfred Taban

    Peter Mandelson

    Is a mention that Mandelson attends, or has attended in the past, Bilderberg Group meetings, undue weight in a BLP? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't see how it would be. A mention seems reasonable if there is WP:RS. A novelette would be too much. I'd say at most a paragraph or maybe two, if the coverage is significant. Otherwise a mention up to two sentences probably. Verbal chat 20:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd concur with Verbal's comment. i.e. it depends on the relevance to the article. For an article on the person, a sentence or two might be sufficient. However in an article about their job, I would say it becomes more relevant, and so may warrant a section or even a sub-article if there was sufficient information on the subject. --Rebroad (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mentioning it somewhere in an article of sufficient length seems fine, but it all depends on what the source says and what it implies about what reliable sources think is important. If it's a news report on the Bilderberg meeting that happens to merely quote someone or include them in a long list, I would doubt a mention is even merited: we would have no evidence that any reliable sources think this is of interest to the bio subject's life story. If it's a news report on the person that mentions or is about their attending the meetings, then it's probably worth mentioning somewhere but I doubt it would have much importance. If there are numerous mentions of the meetings and some serious evidence of this being of interest to the public, I think it can get some more mention. And if it's mentioned prominently in a reliable source that is actually a biography or overall profile of the subject, we should follow that lead and mention it with similar prominence. Mangojuicetalk 05:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Views of Lyndon LaRouche#LaRouche on Gays and AIDS

    An editor wishes to replace a stable and undisputed section of a BLP article, Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Gays and AIDS, with a new version that appears to be a WP:COATRACK case. The most contentious point is the editor's desire to include material from a newspaper article about the trial of someone who was charged with assaulting a LaRouche activist. The defendant says that she "was outraged by posters she saw outside the post office which she recalled saying: 'Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor.'" The alleged slogans on the posters, in the proposed new version, are to be presented as a "view of LaRouche," which I believe violates WP:BLP#Reliable sources. This example is only the most contentious of many in the new version, which otherwise conforms to the definition of a WP:COATRACK. Inflammatory views which do not come from the subject himself are being imputed to the subject. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a very skewed presentation. The section in question has been disputed for years. See previous discussions at:
    The current discussions on two other noticeboards should be noted too:
    Last year, in the midst of one of those disputes, I began collecting references for the topic. The excerpts of reliable primary and secondary sources are at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources. This is a topic for which Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement gained considerable attention - probably as much as they received for any issue. That's largely due to California Proposition 64 (1986). That can be seen by the large number of references to it. It's also the topic of much of one book, Conjuring Science, which is available online.[1]
    A month ago, a new editor complained about some minor inaccuracy in the text and we started discussing fixes. Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Misrepresentation in Gays and Aids section. In response to that discussion I went back to the almost-forgotten research and started to make a general overhaul of the section so as to better represent what appears in reliable sources. I presented a first draft on June 23.[2] Other editors, including Leatherstocking, have made cinsiderable additions to what is the current version as I write.[3]
    All of the text is well-sourced and neutral, except for some material added by other editors. The incidents in question are not the only ones which occurred. The Kissinger incident has been very widely reported. Another incident was reported in a highly reliable newspaper, The Times of London. The incident that Leatherstocking refers to was the subject of a court case. All three involve the actions of people acting as representatives of the LaRouche movement, staffing card tables in public places and soliciting money or petition signatures. Harassment of people who refused to sign their petitions was so severe that the California Secretary of State sent a telegram warning the campaign about it, as was also widely reported.
    Further, the statements by the followers were consistent with statements by LaRouche and were not repudiated. In reference to gays and AIDS, LaRouche has made comments about lynch mobs and baseball bats, and has used crude language. This is discussed directly in secondary sources. So this is not a coatrack.
    Lastly, I'd note that the article on the views of LaRouche already makes extensive use of the writings of his followers. When discussed in third-party sources, the views of he and his followers are routinely lumped together, and I've never seen any that describe there being a difference between his views and those of his followers when acting as representatives of the movement.   Will Beback  talk  01:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Will neglects to mention that the present version, which he wrote himself, went untouched for nine months. Then a small inaccuracy was corrected, against Will's wishes, and suddenly he became very agressive, demanding that an entirely new version be immediately posted. The new version is exactly what is described as a "coatrack," because Will has "cherry-picked" his sources to find only items that portray LaRouche as a homophobic bigot. Because the quotes from LaRouche (which are abundantly available) are not homophobic enough, Will comes up with this angle that grassroots campaign volunteers should be considered official designated spokespersons for LaRouche. Why? Because Will has not seen any newspaper articles that say they aren't. Common sense would tell you that some guy on the street is not an encyclopia source for LaRouche's views, especially when there are plenty of verifiable quotes from LaRouche himself. And in the case brought up by Leatherstocking, I flat out don't believe that LaRouche activists displayed a sign that said "Kill the faggots, kill Elizabeth Taylor." They aren't morons, a sign like that would probably be illegal. The newspaper that is being cited doesn't have to vouch for the accuracy of the report on the sign -- they say that the woman on trial "recalls" seeing such a sign, not surprising since she was on trial for assault and had to come up with a sympathetic story. But in any event the idea that this belongs in an encyclopedia article on "LaRouche's views" is just over the top. --Coleacanth (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Destroy psycho-boomer beastman Josh Bolton."
    "LaRouche says: The president is a mental defective surrounded by a bunch of mental defectives."
    The list of sources has been open for over ten months. If you have additional sources that show the matter in a different light then please add them. However this is an article on notable views, not things said in private and unnoticed by the rest of the world. Primary sources for speeches and writigs are great, but we should rely on secondary sources to show what is notable. As with any article, we should verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.
    Regarding this particular incident, it was the center of a court case with several witnesses. The report doesn't mention anyone, even the other NDPC representative, disputing the wording of the sign. It is consistent with other incidents, such as the LaRouche followers who called a minister "queer" and his mother a "lesbian" when they wouldn't sign a petition, and the incident when another LaRouche petition gatherer told a woman who wouldn't sign, "I hope you catch AIDS". Not to mention the highly publicized incident of asking Henry Kissinger, in front of his wife, whether he still slept with boys. If there are other incidents that I've missed which show a different picture, say cases of LaRouche supporters bringing meals to AIDS patients or promoting tolerance, then please add them to the source page.
    "Global warming: as fake as your girlfriend's orgasm."
    As I pointed out before, the Views of Lyndon LaRouche page is already filled with the comments and actions of his associates and followers. The movement is known for keeping close communication between the HQ and the field offices, with daily meetings, telexes, and reports. These incidents were never disavowed by LaRouche or his spokesmen. LaRouche representatives at card tables have a long history of making provocative statements or writing outlandish statements on posters. Twenty years later that hasn't changed, so it is presumably with the blessing of the head man. It's how LaRouche has structured his movement.
    We've already discused this stuff on the article talk page - let's get some input from uninvolved editors.   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very uncomfortable attributing views to any public figure based on the behavior of supporters. I would think there need to be reputable sources saying that Larouche either espoused the views or at least refused to dissociate himself from them, in order to use them. There is always a temptation to tar political figures with the misbehavior of their supporters (think Jeremiah Wright), but we should resist giving in to that on WP. Looie496 (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you had a chance to read the draft? It does not attribute the views to anyone. The actual text currently proposed is:
    • In 1982, a LaRouche follower shouted to Henry Kissinger in an airport, "is it true that you sleep with young boys at the Carlyle Hotel?" In response his wife, Nancy Kissinger, hit the follower. The follower pressed charges which led to a brief but prominent court case, in which Lyndon LaRouche called Kissinger a "faggot" in a deposition, and Ms. Kissinger was acquitted.[1] In 1986, an minister and his mother who refused to sign petitions were called a "queer" and a "lesbian" by LaRouche supporters staffing a table outside a U.S. Post Office.[2] In 1987, representatives of LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee staffing a table outside a U.S. Post Office got into an altercation with an AIDS worker who said they had posted signage that read, "Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor." The woman was found not guilty of battery. Dana Scanlon, spokewoman for the movement, said that the followers were trying "to help fight AIDS politically, to return to traditional health measures."[3]
    Do you think that readers would believe it was LaRouche himself who made the statement?   Will Beback  talk  02:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the point. The point is that the article is Views of Lyndon LaRouche, not Views of Lyndon LaRouche and his supporters. Introducing material that doesn't speak to LaRouche's views has the feel of coatracking. The Kissinger incident is probably relevant because of LaRouche's deposition, but for the other items it seems more doubtful. 02:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, it is "views of Lyndon LaRouche and his movement", because a large percentage of the views are in fact expressed by his followers. As I suggested on the talk page, it would take a complete overhaul to remove all of the followers' views. LaRouche has said that he think history will look kindly on lynch mobs who kill AIDS carriers, and that teenagers will likely start killing gays with baseball bats, so the followers were just using similar language.   Will Beback  talk  04:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • The point is fast approaching, that increasing portions of these populations will focus upon the fact, that a dead AIDS carrier ceases to be a carrier. If governments were to proceed with repeated mass-screenings of the population, and isolation of carriers, the likelihood of a teenager lynch-mob phenomenon would be small. If not, then other ways of reducing the number of carriers will become increasingly popular. In that case, the lynch-mobs might be seen by later generations’ historians, as the only political force which acted to save the human species from extinction.
    • You can't interfere with an AIDS victim killing hundreds of people, by spreading the disease to hundreds of people, which will kill them, during the period before he himself dies? So therefore, should we allow people with guns to go out and shoot people as they choose? Isn't that a matter of the civil rights of gun carriers? Or, if you've got an ax — if you can't aim too well, and just have an ax or a broad sword — shouldn't we allow people with broad swords and axes to go out and kill people indiscriminately as they choose, as a matter of their civil rights? Where did this nonsense come from? Oh, we don't want to offend the gays! Gays are sensitive to their civil rights; this will lead to discrimination against gays! They're already beating up gays with baseball bats around the country! Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball bats, and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to recruit children, and they take their baseball bats and they beat them up pretty bad. They'll kill one sooner or later. In Chicago, they're beating up gays that are hanging around certain schools, pederasts; children go out with baseball bats and beat them up-which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It's a matter of children's civil rights!

    Those are two quotations by LaRouche predicting or endorsing the killing of gays or AIDS carriers.   Will Beback  talk  04:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think either quote is an "endorsement" of killing. They both strike me as fairly heavy-handed satirical/ironic comments in the style of A Modest Proposal. I'm pretty sure that the BLP policy discourages us from calling people would-be murderers unless the evidence is incontrovertible. As far as your attempts to make your case using guilt by association tactics is concerned, I think that Looie496's analogy to Jeremiah Wright is apt. In cases where the views of LaRouche's supporters are veriably the same as those of LaRouche, it's all right to use them in the article, but not to build a case for attributing something sketchy and defamatory to the subject. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite posible the followers were using the same satirical/ironic style as their leader. Obviously, they were not intending to murder Elizabeth Taylor. I don't think the Wright matter is apt. Does Wright have a hardcore set of followers who write hundreds of articles a year, or campaign on street corners where they become the subjects of court cases due to their inflammatory language? Maybe, but I've never heard of it. Here are quotations from reliable sources:
    • The LaRouchites accompanied their 186 and 1987 California AIDS quarantine voter initiative campaigns with streams of antigay propaganda.
      • Fascism: Post-war fascisms, By Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman [4]
    • LaRouche maintained that these extreme responses to AIDS were necessary public health recommendations. In reality, he manipulated the AIDS crisis to further his antigay political agenda.
      • All things to all people, By Mark R. Kowalewsk [5]
    • Finally, at least one political organization, Lyndon LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee, advocates mandatory screening of the entire population and isolation of all infected individuals. The LaRouche forces backed an unsuccessful referendum on the issue in California in 1986. Their idea, presumably, is to achieve a "final solution" of the AIDS problem; I use the that term advisedly, in view of the massive coercion their plan would require.
      • AIDS, By Inge B. Corless, Mary Pittman [6]
    • Neofascist hatemonger Lyndon LaRouche was among the first in the paranoid right to move the homophobic campaign into the political arena. LaRouchians spawned restrictive propositions ... that essentially called for firings and quarantine for persons with signs of AIDS. LaRouche even obliquely suggested murder as a tactic, writing that history would not judge harshly those persons who took baseball bats and beat to death homosexuals to stop the spread of AIDS. [7]
      • Media, culture, and the religious right, By Linda Kintz, Julia Lesage
    • Parents and school officials in the Pilsen community have earned applause for the way they have faced the challenge of a child with AIDS. ... Beyond that, the Pilsen parents have been subjected to shrill badgering by a bunch of LaRouche cultists who, for their own mysterious reasons, have decided to turn this into a cause. ... The LaRouche gang repeatedly has disrupted such meetings, held sidewalk rallies and passed out scare leaflets, all in an effort to frighten parents into resisting the child's enrollment. Why? No one outside the cult is likely to figure that out. It's what Lyndon LaRouche thinks, so it is what his followers think.
      • "PILSEN PARENTS VS. THE BOGEYMEN" [editorial] Chicago Tribune Chicago, Ill.: Mar 14, 1987. pg. 10
    • The LaRouchites know how to fight dirty-when they are trying to silence an opponent, they are trained to shout "He has AIDS! He has AIDS!"...
      • "THE HIGH ROAD WHEN A CHILD WITH AIDS COMES TO SCHOOL, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A CRISIS; " Article by David L. Kirp. Chicago Tribune Chicago, Ill.: Dec 6, 1987. pg. 12
    • A campaign booklet issued by Lyndon LaRouche in support of Proposition 64 has linked actress Elizabeth Taylor to "satanism" and actress Patty Duke to "wild exhibitions in the street" against the AIDS initiative.
      • "LaRouche Ties Liz Taylor To 'Satanism'"; Randy Shilts. San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco, Calif.: Oct 7, 1986. pg. 10
      • LaRouche also mentions Taylor and her ties to satanism in an undated piece titled "How all my enemies will die" which predicts the destruction of the "satanists" who've opposed him and ends with "Satan and his evil mother shall die."[8] Though possibly apocryphal due to it's location on mysterious website, it's been cited before.[9]
    These help to show that, in mainstream 3rd-party sources, LaRouche's effort was seen as connected to antigay propaganda or goals, and that such sources lump LaRouche together with his followers, who are characterized as having been "trained" to make attacks on opponents.   Will Beback  talk  20:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there would be any objection if you added a sentence saying that "LaRouche's effort was seen as connected to antigay propaganda or goals," sourced to a few good sources. However, you are filling up this board with a tremendous amount a verbiage which does not address the issue that was raised, which is that an inflammatory sign that was "recalled" by a woman on trial for assault should not be included in an encyclopedia article on "views of LaRouche." There is plenty of first-hand, verifiable material available on LaRouche's views. --Coleacanth (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of sources that say things like this:
    • But the new attacks on gays lend credence to critics who contend that LaRouche and his followers are motivated by a long-standing hatred of homosexuals. LaRouche and his supporters also frequently attack people they consider enemies by labeling them as homosexuals in print, often in vulgar slang terms.
      • "Paper Tied to LaRouche Attacks Gay Movement" KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 6, 1986. pg. 21
    That's a secondary source which says LaRouche and his followers use vulgar language to attack their perceived enemies. So the dispute incident is just an illustration of that sourced phenomenon. In ancy case, oin the article talk page I've proposed compromise to get past this dispute.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a slight chance that you may have missed the point about Jeremiah Wright. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I must have, because I don't see any similarity between the Wright movement, if there is one, and the LaRouche movement. For example, are there any news stories or books that use phrases like "Wright and his followers" or "Wrighties"?   Will Beback  talk  03:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the draft section(s) linked to, this does not look like a coatrack, because the article itself is a coatrack, and the issue is about using the article to include an item that the coatrack was not intended for. If this were a biography, then the answer would be clear - unless the views expressed by supporters were about LaRouche himself, then any material attributing views to LaRouche that are voiced by his movement should be removed - whether about gay/AIDS or other topics. However, this is not a BLP, it is an article about a living person's views which has been bought to the noticeboard.

    • One way to deal with this would be to rename the article to clarify the extent to which BLP policy applies to the article as a whole - by renaming the article 'Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement' (or similar) - then all this material can be dealt with even-handedly (and BLP policy would only apply to what is attributed directly to him, rather than the selective way being called for now).
    • Make it a proper biography, and remove all the material not attributable to LaRouche, apart from verifiable comments about him - that is not possible, because he already has a BLP, and this is an exposition of his views (including their reproduction through the movement that supported him). If one section is to be singled out as subject to BLP policy, then this policy should apply throughout the article - all references to views that are not by him or about his views should be removed.
    • If involved editors are not willing to allow certain material into this article/coatrack/exposition of his views, nor allow for a name change that reflects that the content, which would be the most straighforward remedy - then there seems to be plenty of material to warrant an article on LaRouche and his followers' views on gay/AIDS and this could become an article in its own right, and one which could be linked to from within the article. This is not what I would recommend, as it is effectively a fork, but one necessitated because of the way the article has been constructed - being about an individual's views, containing some views of his supporters, but not allowing all such views.

    I would plump for first suggestion (as it easiest) - rename the article to avoid forking, future BLP concerns (because the article is about an ideology, but given the name of a living person) and ensure balance and neutrality; if this is not acceptable, then I'd say rigorous enforcement of BLP policy throughout the entire article, and it for some reason neither of these gets to happen - make the material an article in its own right, with a link from within the existing section of gay/AIDS. Mish (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The "views" article is essentially an overflow article from Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche movement has its own article. BLP rules apply in any event -- they apply to references to living persons in any sort of article. I would say that it is safe to assume that activists in the LaRouche movement subscribe to LaRouche's views, but not necessarily vice versa. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, that is what I said, so if this is an article where BLP applies, then those policies should apply consistently throughout - so it should be confined to views by LaRouche, or views about LaRouche, and views of members of his movement should only be included if they are expositions of his views, or about him. This would then be applicable throughout the article, not simply one section. It cannot be selective - if any views of members are regarded as being relevant to laRouche's views, then there is no obvious criteria why one particular section of members views (which appear to coincide with his own published views) should be excluded. Otherwise it is an arbitrary criteria, and that is not good enough, because it lends itself to breaching NPOV (one set of members' views is OK because we don't mind it being here, but another set isn't because we'd prefer it was left out). Mish (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I take it that the objection is this:
    • In 1987, representatives of LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee staffing a table outside a U.S. Post Office got into an altercation with an AIDS worker who said they had posted signage that read, "Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor." The woman was found not guilty of battery. Dana Scanlon, spokewoman for the movement, said that the followers were trying "to help fight AIDS politically, to return to traditional health measures."

    Perhaps it could be phrased better, thus:

    • In 1987, representatives of LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee staffing a table outside a U.S. Post Office got into an altercation with an AIDS worker, against whom charges were brought. In her defense she claimed a sign a LaRouche supporter held, saying, "Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor", had provoked her, and was found not guilty of battery. Dana Scanlon, spokewoman for the movement, said that the followers were trying "to help fight AIDS politically, to return to traditional health measures."
    But it is not clear why that would not be allowed, when this is, from La Rouche vs. the Media:
    • One example that has appeared in many press accounts is the claim that LaRouche said "The Queen of England is a drug dealer." According to EIR, this "bit of black propaganda is a reference to the book Dope, Inc., first published in 1979, which laid bare the role of the London-centered offshore financial institutions and allied intelligence services, in running the global drug trade, from the time of Britain's nineteenth-century Opium Wars against China."[51]
    This is not attributable to laRouche, nor is it about it his views, it is about what other people have said about him, written by an editor of EIS. Mish (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Julio Mateo

    Julio Mateo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I have a question for those more familiar with dealing with contentious material on BLPs:

    • By way of the Random article feature I came across "Julio Mateo", a sportsperson BLP (baseball). There hadn't been any significant editing activity on the article in the past year. Since it was unreferenced, I added {{BLPunsourced}} here.
    • The content included claims about an incident involving police. In light of the mandate to remove contentious, esp. potentially libelous, unsourced material, that needed sourcing & cleanup or removal as appropriate. A search returned reliable published sources covering the matter. As well as using those I adjusted the wording to clarify the distinction of convicted vs. alleged. Diff.
    • Last, I swapped the template to {{BLPsources}} as the sports-oriented content remained undercited (here).

    I'd like feedback from those more familiar with this area on whether my adjustments were okay, if removal was preferable, or whether a different approach would have been better. Please could someone cast an eye over it? Thanks, Whitehorse1 01:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    You did fine. The source was reliable and the paragraph was rewritten with a neutral point of view. Good job. =) Aditya α ß 11:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback, Aditya. I appreciate it. :) –Whitehorse1 18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    P. J. Proby

    Resolved
     – Material removed, plus semiprot'd for 3m by an admin. Few days elapsed without further problems. Whitehorse1 11:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    P. J. Proby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Anonymous IP keeps adding unverified disparagement and reverting other editors. Please can somebody have a look and deal with matter as they see fit. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been involved in reverting some of the edits mentioned by Richhoncho. The anonymous IP has written to me by e-mail stating the claims are 'true' as he knows Proby personally - but, critically I feel, there is no given source.
    Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a clear issue. The disparaging content included specific quantity amounts or names, which were not only minutiae (WP:UNDUE) but unreferenced (WP:OR; WP:BLPDEL). Another editor has now removed it and issued a first warning notice to the user. If the IP editor continues they face being blocked. The IPs offsite claim to "know" it's true by way of insider information is neither here nor there; anybody could claim the opposite were true. It should not be added back unless supplied with reliable published sources and the sources make clear it is necessary to an understanding of his life & career. –Whitehorse1 13:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Boyko Borisov

    There is serious facts about Boyko Borisov that can't be masked. I am not much experienced wikipedian, who can write strong facts without allowing NPOV and controversy. I am sure that if I don't look for the article, all facts will be deleted. --91.124.250.109 (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthew Brown (producer)

    Mmmbrownn (talk · contribs) tagged Matthew Brown (producer) for deletion, writing that "There is inaccurate information on here. Please delete this page as I did not approve." Could someone take a look at this article? I can't see any errors or BLP violations. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Notability is asserted, but I don't think there is enough there to meet WP:BIO, so I've tagged it for proposed deletion. snigbrook (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You then removed the assertions of notability. That's not proper. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The assertion of notability is as producer of films, and I didn't remove it. I don't think that a role as company director is an assertion of notability unless there is an assertion that the company is notable. snigbrook (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexander Lascelles

    Unsourced information about Alexander Lascelles having a child and no information about a wife or the mother of the child. Can this be sourced, or should it be removed? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed it; only Google results were forums and a personal website that appears to belong to an editor of the article. snigbrook (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rand Kannenberg under attack by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jezhotwells:

    Jezhotwells made 8 edits yesterday. Jezhotwells accused 4 users of being the same person(s) with different accounts. Jezhotwells needs to know that this user is not affiliated with another account. Jezhotwells blocked users from using Wikipedia! Jezhotwells is attacking a legitimate BLP that is more than 2 years old. Jezhotwells is attacking a legitimate BLP with more than 12 different editors. Jezhotwells is attacking a legitimate BLP with a history of several independent positive reviews on quality and importance (in 2 categories). Jezhotwells took advantage of one user lowering a rating yesterday (not improving it!) to start the attack. Jezhotwells does not recognize that this article adheres to all policies on biographies of living persons. Jezhotwells should be asked to please leave this article alone. Jezhotwells is being reported to the Notice Board for these reasons. Thank you. CommCorr —Preceding unsigned comment added by CommCorr (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC) CommCorr (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    On 7 July User:OlEnglish reported concerns about Rand Kannenberg at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Re:_Rand_Kannenberg_and_possible_impropriety.2C_process_not_followed about the article apparently having been awarded GA status by one of the article editors without nomination or review. A reassessment tag was placed on the article and I conducted a review (Talk:Rand Kannenberg/GA1. The article was in an appalling state [10], badly referenced, evidence of COI, certainly not good article status and I delisted it and reduced importance to low, class to start. User:Cjas "promoted" it class A, importance high. Notes were left at Talk:Rand Kannenberg explaining that self promotion was not possible. On further investigation I considered that User:Cjas (Criminal Justice Addicts Serve) had a WP:COI. I reported the user-name as a span name and it was subsequently blocked. I also reported User:Cjas, User:MisterMeth, User:CommCorr and User:Usjails as possible socks. This was declined by the reviewing admin - insufficient evidence. User:CommCorr has since removed referencing tags from the article and changed the references, but many are still not verified, unreliable or unverifiable. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments: (1) I don't know if all four accounts are operated by the same person, although there are some similarities which suggest at least that there is collaboration; the CheckUser request was declined because any evidence that there was had not been provided, (2) Jezhotwells is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia, so cannot block users, (3) importance is decided by WikiProjects, and quality is determined by uninvolved editors – there is a process for anything to be rated as a Good Article or above, and I doubt this would be a Good Article, although maybe it is more than Start class, {4} which independent reviews are being referred to here? snigbrook (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anton incident

    Anton incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Offliner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing "alleged" from the article[11]. It was already discussed here, yet Offliner is insisting on reverting, creating a potential BLP violation. As I understand it, kidnapping is a serious crime and unless a court of law has proved guilt one must use the term "alleged", otherwise it could be considered libellous. While Anton's father is not mentioned explicitly, there is enough information to cause potential problems. Could someone look at this. --Martintg (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kidnapping is the word used by sources. Therefore, it is not a BLP violation; it is sourced info. Offliner (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That source only states that a kidnapping investigation has been started. But the investigation has not resulted in a verdict in a law court, hence we can only say "alleged kidnapping" otherwise it is damaging to a person's reputation if the subsequent court case (if it even goes to court) acquits the person. --Martintg (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the sources are predominantly non-English, are we sure this incident merits an article on English Wikipedia? There doesn't seem all that much evidence of wider significance. Previous AFD in May (under the name of the child) was closed "no consensus". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Salonen. Rd232 talk 14:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the article needs to be AfD'ed, for all the reasons in the original AfD and more. There are hundreds if not thousands of child custody battles resulting in abductions every year, and this one didn't even make it into the English media. The article was created by a known Finnish political activist User:Petri Krohn, now banned, who has written extensively about this case on his Finnish political blog, I don't think Wikipedia should be a soapbox. If you would re-nominate it for AfD, I would support it. --Martintg (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton incident (2nd nomination. Rd232 talk 09:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Lancaster

    User is continuing to make disruptive edits by adding possible BLP violations to the article. snigbrook (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Garside

    Robert Garside's run around the world was dogged by well known and well documented controversy. I've been trying to add a section to this effect (with sufficient referencing) to his bio page. However, someone - I strongly suspect Garside himself, given that the IP address used corresponds to his mother's known location in Slovakia - keeps removing the information without discussion. This may need some sort of protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.217.186 (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Krugman

    The criticism section in this article seems over the top to me, appreciate admin feedback. Mentions like, "spoke of his "gratuitous spleen", "He behaves like someone with a massive chip on his shoulder.", Krugman's critics have also accused him of employing what they called a "shrill" rhetorical style. Also, does this section seem too large? Shouldn't it be integrated into the article. Thanks in advance. Scribner (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    On hold (I've integrated the criticism section into the article and removed the edits mentioned above.) Scribner (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Christian Bowman

    I've just stubbed this article, which was miserably sourced and promotional in a very odd way (it made the subject's early life sound like something out of Lemony Snicket's novels, with too many references to skydivers, suggesting a substantial chance of hoaxing). Other eyes may be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bal Thackeray

    There is a serious issue with the page on Bal Thackeray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Many of the critical issues, such as controversies that may involve Mr. Thackeray have been deleted and replaced with obviously biased statements such as "He his couragious Marathi man to opppose any bad activities by any one.Because of this character he is linked with various controversies.He is great Patriot" (sic). This is noted in the Early Life and Career, Controversies, Views on Muslims, and Views on People From North India sections. At the moment I have not edited it as I fear I lack information and citations to correct this. But there is little doubt that this article is clearly not up to the neutrality (and factual-based) standards of Wikipedia. 71.183.174.161 (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, I'm going to restore an earlier version; looking into the history a user deleted all controversial statements and replaced it with bias flattery. 71.183.174.161 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, there's a small issue. Over 20 sources were deleted. Looking back at the page history, the article previously had nearly 30 references, which detailed controversies. The current article has 8 sources. Can someone help me restore this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bal_Thackeray&oldid=300936613 19:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

    Martin Taccetta

    1. ^ Carl M Cannon. (1988, August 7). HANDLING OF RUMORS STIRS DEBATE IN THE MEDIA. Philadelphia Inquirer,C.1. Retrieved June 28, 2009, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 1350979931).
    2. ^ "California extremist whips up Aids crusade / US public health debate stirred up by controversial politician Lyndon LaRouche". The Times. London. November 1 1986.
    3. ^ Olnick, Philip (SEPTEMBER 2. 1987). "Woman who works with AIDS victims found not guilty of battery". THE FREDERICK POST. (FREDERICK. MD). {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=301427934"