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.

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]

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]

Peter Mandelson

Peter Mandelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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. Mango juice^talk 05:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot see any problem, if it is correct. Agree with others, no need to do more than mention as long as it is relevant, and there is a reliable source. Mish (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A similar discussion is taking place here in relation to the adding of Category:Bilderberg attendees to the article on the current governor of New Jersey. This discussion was prompted by my removal of the category from that article. Neutron (talk) 20:01, 11 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]

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.

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]

I think Mish's first suggestion is the best and simplest: rename the article to something like "Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement". That would refect the actual content of the article, which already draws heavily on views expressed by members of the movement besides LaRouche himself. It is a sensible scope, since 3rd-party sources often treat LaRouche and his movement together. BLP would still apply to material about living people, as it does in any article or page regardless of how it's titled. Any objections? Will Beback talk 20:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object. The views that are notable are those of LaRouche. They may be expressed by his supporters if they are verifiably LaRouche's views, and since he is editor-in-chief of EIR, I should think that EIR would be OK. As I said earlier, I think that you may be searching for ways to tar LaRouche with the homophobia brush, in which case you are not satisfied with what LaRouche himself says and you want to indirectly attribute more inflammatory views to him. That's a BLP problem and a coatrack problem. My proposal is this: that the news reports about AIDS-related controversies and the LaRouche movement be added to California Proposition 64 (1986) in a section called "related controversies." That article is not too long, and your news clips could be summarized there without turning it into War and Peace. I imagine that there would also be no dispute over relevance. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The views of LaRouche followers are very notable, both inside and outside the movement. Inside the movement, the publications all feature writings by followers side-by-side with writings by LaRouche. Outside the movement, spokespersons, heads of movement organizations, organizers, candidates, etc, have all receivd large amounts of attention in 3rd-party sources. It is flatly absurd to assert that the views of of members of the movement besides LaRouche himself are not notable. Will Beback talk 21:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also remind Coleacanth that assume good faith is a policy, not just a suggestion. Will Beback talk 21:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The views of LaRouche's associates are notable because of their association with LaRouche. But more to the point, their comments should be included in the "Views of LaRouche" article when they are verifiably also LaRouche's views, such as when they appear in EIR. This is all a bit of a smokescreen, though, to try to shoehorn in the story about a hostile lady who claims she saw a death threat on a sign. Common sense should tell you that this is not a "view of LaRouche." --Coleacanth (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be said that LaRouche's views are notable because he has a following. Again, since the article is already full of views of members of the movement, the simplest thing would be to recognize that reality and modify the name of the article. Will Beback talk 22:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I'd not heard of this guy before today/yesterday. TBH, having read some of the article, I forgot common-sense fairly soon into the article (as I do when reading about people like David Ike and George Galloway). So, Coleacanth, it is one view of laRouche - possibly not laRouche's view of laRouche, but it seems to be her view of laRouche, and from the decision of the court, a view expressed by one of his supporters in the act of representing his views in his campaign. I don't think it tars him more or less homophobic than anything he has said himself - although it does illustrate the sort of responses his views engender. Mish (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political candidates and organizations make their policies and views known through various sorts of official channels, and that is the proper, encyclopaedic way to cover them here. For Will's benefit, the Jeremiah Wright controversy took place because Wright was a supporter, or "follower" if you prefer, of Barack Obama; he made some inflammatory statements, which Obama's opponents then used in an attempt to embarrass Obama. There is no reason to change the title of the "Views" article other than as a tactic to get the disputed material in, and since the material violates BLP no matter how the article is titled, I say skip it. Coleacanth's proposal to find a "home" for anecdotes about rowdy activists at the AIDS initiative article seems like a simple solution. Are there any objections to it? --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how anyone could say that Jeremiah Wright is a follower of Obamah. If anything, just the opposite: Obamah joined Wright's church, so it is more like he is a follower of Wright's, to the extent that Wright has any "followers". It's not a similar situation at all. As for the article title, there's an excellent reason to change it: to reflect the current content of the article The Prop. 64 article is limited to the narrow topic of Prop. 64. Let's keep that article narrowly focused, and the "views" article focused on what it has always been focused on: the views of LaRouche and his movement. As I said opn the talk page weeks ago, if folks want to delete the views of followers it will require a major overhaul. When I suggested that there was no response, so I don't think that's an option. Will Beback talk 03:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, only of the three reported incidents has a source that say it may be connected to Proposition 64. A source we're not using because it's ambiguous with another sources:

Many of the persons who signed the petitions were not aware of the link between the initiative and the LaRouche group. However, a number of letters and telephone calls protesting harassment by the signature gatherers came in to the secretary of state's office, officials said. According to one complaint, a youth yelled at a Catholic priest in Camarillo, accusing him of being a homosexual, when the priest would not sign the petition. In Huntington Beach, a woman coming from a Post Office was accosted for her signature and when she refused to sign, the petition pusher yelled, "You are going to get AIDS!" according to her letter to the secretary.
- "LaRouche is linked to petition , Initiative proposal would quarantine AIDS patients;" Don Davis. The San Diego Union. San Diego, Calif.: May 23, 1986. pg. A.3

The source we're using says:

In the middle-class community of Ventura, LaRouche supporters have set up tables outside post offices and supermarkets with their petitions denouncing homosexuals. One local minister who refused to sign was called 'a queer' and his mother a 'lesbian'.
- "California extremist whips up Aids crusade / US public health debate stirred up by controversial politician Lyndon LaRouche". The Times. London. November 1 1986.

Those might be might be the same incidents, but they could be different ones too. The other two incidents are obviously unrelated because one took place four years before the initative and the other took place in a different state. None of the three is directly connected to AIDS. So it wouldn't make any sense to move them to California Proposition 64 (1986). Will Beback talk 04:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually mean that they are not directly connected to AIDS, or do you mean directly connected to the initiative? Either way, there was already information at California Proposition 64 (1986) that was not directly connected to the initiative, so I set up a section called California Proposition 64 (1986)#Related controversies, which is where I suggest the various stories should go. The NOR rule says "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article," and these stories would be appropriate at that article, while they would be inappropriate to "Views." --Coleacanth (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, none of the incidents is reported, by the sources we're using, to be connected to AIDS or Proposition 64. The matters that you moved to the "controversies" section of that article are all directly connected to the initiative. The topic of the section we're discussing is "gays and AIDS". These three incidents are all directly related to views of gays, not AIDS or Proposition 64. Will Beback talk 20:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Leatherstocking. Please explain how something that is reported unambiguously in a reliable source, and reflected here accurately, with citation of source, can be a BLP 'no matter how the article is titled', and where WP:BLP suggests such material should be excluded, please. I suggested that should this material continue to be excluded, the involved editor should thing about setting up a separate article covering the views of the LaRouche movement in a way that this could be included (with a link in the section). I am informed that such an article already exists - so this material could go there if necessary. Although why somebody of such limited international significance (he was a failed presidential candidate who subsequently spent time in prison for fraud, and conspiracy theorist holding a fringe view on many issues, yes?) needs several articles I am not sure - one for his biography, one for his views, plus another for his movement (maybe others?), which are used in a way that allows editors to attend in micro-detail how things can be cherry-picked and placed according to their rules, by selective application of WP policies and guidelines. At minimum, items that relate to biography should be in the biography, and the items that relate to the ideology of laRouche and the laRouche movement should be located together, and suggest merging the two articles. The way this is set up appears to breach key Wikipedia policies, such as WP:FRINGE and/or WP:SOAP. Mish (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject" (WP:BLP#Reliable sources.) I would not rule out the possibility of it being relevant to an encyclopedia article on some other subject, which is why I favor Coleacanth's proposal. As far as the vast array of LaRouche articles is concerned, I see no justification for it at all. I suspect that it came about because various editors insisted on massively extensive coverage of their pet issues (the one we are discussing here comes to mind) and the whole mess became too big for one article. -Leatherstocking (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggest below, the best way of deciding which issues concerning LaRouche are important is through the filter of secondary sources. Will Beback talk 20:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Applying the filter of secondary sources is definitely the way to go. Material that is only sourced to primary sources and is ignored by secondary sources should not be there. Renaming the article to something like "Views of Lyndon LaRouche and his movement" seems sensible as well. JN466 20:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some good points. The amount of fringe material would be reduced, and adherence to the NPOV and V policies increased, if we relied more on 3rd-party, secondary sources rather than the primary sources used so extensively in the "Views" article. I don't think that any "view" which hasn't been reported is actually notable. Limiting the article in that way reduce it by haf and make merger with one or another article more practical. Will Beback talk 10:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Leatherstocking. I could accept that, except there seems to be a navbox to cover a wide range of articles on the LaRouche movement, which includes (in part):

Compare this with other presidential also-ran:

Al Sharpton

former US Presidents:

or international heavyweights:

This whole series of articles seems to be undue for one man and his political movement; the navbox, micro-detail and expanse of coverage doesn't suggest this is because of his detractors, rather an abuse of this encyclopedia to promote this movement. Mish (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carter and Reagan both have entire categories of articles about them. Category:Ronald Reagan contains 51 articles, plus 11 in "controversies" and 35 in "Iran Contra" subcategories. Unlinke any of those other individuals, LaRouche is the head of an international organizations that has included political parties in at least six countries (U.S., Canada, Australia, Germany, France, and Italy). Unlike the others, LaRouche has a following that has been called a "cult" by observers. And unlike those others LaRouche has hard to summarize views on an extremely wide range of topics. And he's campaigned for president more than all of them combined. Most of the articles in category:LaRouche movement are reasonable, and some of the party articles are practically just stubs. The worst ones are the biography, Lyndon LaRouche, and the Views of Lyndon LaRouche. I've repeatedly suggested re-writing the latter from scratch, as I think it's entirely out of whack and almost unreadable. Once we get this matter resolved I think it'd be worth reconsidering a broader re-write to reduce it down to the truly notable views of LaRouche - those reported in secondary sources. Will Beback talk 20:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but this was not evident from their navbox, which was my point, ditto for Sharpton. I would stress that LaRouche is probably more of an issue in the USA than other countries (like where I live), which must be why I'm not familiar with him. I agree that this group of articles need sorting out, and not in a way that promote his views/movement - and not in a way that they act as a focus for anybody who has something bad to say about him/them. From what you are saying it sounds like six of one & half-dozen of the other - that some of this is sown to pro-laRouche factions, and some of it down to anti-laRouche factions. That doesn't tend to produce good NPOV articles (and 'Views of ...' isn't likely to end up with anything other than 'V' with 'POV' issues). That is all I have to say on this, as it is not of that much interest to me. Mish (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support reducing the whole thing to two articles: Lyndon LaRouche and LaRouche criminal trials. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start by reducing the "Views" article down to what can be found in secondary sources. Once it's small enough we can think about merging it back to the biography or movement articles. Will Beback talk 18:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Le'ts also move the article to "View of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movment", to better reflect the existing content. Will Beback talk 18:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Mateo

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]

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]
- I removed some stray claims that had been missed. –Whitehorse1 13:14, 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

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

Mark Lancaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alcyrty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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]

TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now repeatedly removing content from this page and creating false comments in his/her edits. The user also refuses to debate on the discussion page over the content of the article.

Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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. 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 71.183.174.161 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Taccetta

Martin Taccetta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Should www.crimelibrary.com be used as a relible source? This article draws on it heavily. I started to clean it up, but I need to go offline and I was hoping someone could pick it up and take an objective look. I have a feeling it may need to be cut down substantially. Thanks, ponyo (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Kampeas

My biography (the biography of Ron Kampeas) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Kampeas contains a substantive error of fact and an interpretation of international law that is phrased in a way to suggest that it is fact. Here is the problematic passage:

Ron lives in "an apartment in East Talpiot, one of Jerusalem's post-1967 "new" neighborhoods, one [Kampeas] purchased with a loan that had favorable terms for olim, or new immigrants."[3] East Talpoit is considered by much of the international community to be an Israeli settlement.[3]

In fact, I own the apartment. It should be clear from the source (a blogpost I wrote) that I am writing about an apartment that I own, not live in. It should be clear from the very status described in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry that I live in the Washington area. So, first of all, it should read "Ron owns 'an apartment in East Talpiot...." (By the way, the second reference to the neighborhood is misspelled - it should read "Talpiot.")

The characterization of East Talpiot as a settlement is at least controversial. It is a neighborhood that fell partly within Israeli lines according to the 1949 armistice; it remained uninhabited until after the 1967 war because parts of it were militarized (by the Israeli and Jordanian armies) and parts were no-mans-land. In any case, unlike some of the other "new" neighborhoods in Jerusalem, it was not in an area wholly controlled by Jordan. Furthermore, describing the new neighborhoods as legally settlements also is controversial. Israeli groups opposing settlement are careful to distinguish between neighborhoods such as East Talpiot established in the immediate aftermath of the 1967 war and efforts today to encroach into established areas of Palestinian residence. See the East Talpiot entry in this summary by Americans for Peace Now, a lead group activating against settlement, and republished by a Palestine Liberation Organization website and note its use of "Israeli neighborhood" to describe existing (as opposed to planned) building in East Talpiot: http://www.palestine-pmc.com/details.asp?cat=3&id=1174

More saliently, the phrase "considered by much of the international community to be an Israeli settlement" appears to be backed up by footnote 3; I wrote the blogpost to which footnote 3 refers, and claim no such thing. This at least warrants the removal of the footnote marker so the Wikipedia reader is more able to judge this reference as bias and not indisputable fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameispip (talk • contribs) 21:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I've modified that section of the article, and also cleaned it up a bit in the process. I took out the whole section about what the international community thinks of East Talpiot, because that mention seems to imply a political point that is not supported in the article by sources, and is only indirectly relevant to your biography. Instead I described it as falling within a "ring neighborhood", with a link, and said that they were annexed after the six day war. Anyone who wants to learn more about that issue should be reading about it in the articles about those neighborhoods or about Israeli annexation, not your personal bio... it's poor organization for the encyclopedia to repeat those kinds of political disagreements in every article where they occur.

Is there a "reliable source" (e.g. a major nonpartisan news article, or even a bio of you written and published by a third party, say a by-line in a mainstream publication, but not a self-published blog or personal website) that can be used to cite your residence being in Washington? Also, does your wife live with you, and does she co-own the apartment? Please forgive these personal sounding questions, they're just for the flow of the document, as you can see if you read it. Again, best to have citations. No disrespect intended, but there are two problems with simply making the claim yourself: (1) we have no feasible way to confirm the identity of anyone who claims to be an article subject - and when we do, it's a very cumbersome process that goes through email to certain parties rather than regular editors who would be on this page, and (2) as a policy matter self-descriptions are seen as unreliable, so we look to verify facts by referencing them to publications that have some degree of editorial process. In the future, if you have less pressing suggestions for your article, feel free to post them on the talk page there. I've "watch listed" it so I'll notice them sooner or later. Hope this helps. Wikidemon (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this helps very much. My biography on my employer JTA's staff page makes clear I'm the Washington bureau chief; this, practically, involves living in the Washington area: http://jta.org/about/staff Most of my bylined articles are datelined "Washington". This is the most recent: http://jta.org/news/article/2009/07/07/1006372/afterv-weeks-of-watching-iran-israel-us-groups-push-forward And here's one from one of JTA's clients, the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, including a photo I took at a DC event during inauguration (just to prove absolute, physical presence in an age where some news services our outsourcing reporting - although, to be clear, JTA, thankfully, is still old fashioned about datelines): http://www.jewishchronicle.org/article.php?article_id=11116 My wife lives with me; she does not co-own the apartment in East Talpiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameispip (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Lyttle page contains libellous material that violates the Biographies of Living Persons Policy

The last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Career" section of the page reads "Also he is currently practicing being a dead beat father, which he is really good at"

This comment clearly violates the Biographies of Living Persons Policy and has been readded repeatedly and is certainly libellous. It should be removed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casy26 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the offending sentence. Even if there were reliable references and some relevance to his notability the sentence would be problematic, IMHO. Smallbones (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was my fault. I was responding to an email and didn't see that sentence when I removed the others, my apologies. BJ^Talk 01:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Corzine as an attendee of the Bilderberg Group

Jon Corzine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Governor of New Jersey and a former United States Senator - Is the fact that Corzine attended the controversial Bilderberg Group meetings in 1995-1997, 1999, 2003 and 2004 significant enough for inclusion in a BLP and an addition to category:Bilderberg Attendees? At the moment this information is being deleted as not significant. An example reliable source has been included on the talk page. —Teahot (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that comments on this idea be added over at Talk:Jon Corzine rather than here. I also recommend that the question be entered as an official WP:RFC to assure that enough people know about it. EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - Raised on on RfC listings. See Talk:Jon Corzine#RFC Bilderberg Group participation. Please raise any further comments there.—Teahot (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– Teahot (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sanchez

Editor Allstarecho appears to be using the article to push an agenda. I tried to trim the opening paragraph to our standards, but was reverted by him. I'd appreciate it if others would have a look and decide whether turning his biography into a political argument is appropriate. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be the one pushing an agenda, here's one diff going back to Oct. 2008 and involving an administrator's contribution to the section you're trying to remove. Scribner (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you've had problems on Obama's BLP and Krugman's BLP and now Sanchez's BLP, in all cases you were pushing a pro-conservative agenda. This isn't a personal attack against you, it's a statement of fact. Scribner (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not notifying me of this discussion ChildofMidnight. Also, thanks for leaving out the fact that I left you a note on your talk page as to my reversion that has absolutely nothing to do with POV. The fact is the article is under Arbcom probation (imagine that.. you involved in such an article) and you made a controversial change that has been discussed already at great lengths and that lead to the subject of the article, User:Bluemarine, being community banned from Wikipedia and Arbcom banned for a year. I asked you on your talk page to read through the talk page archives of the article and I asked you to get a consensus before making any changes to the article. Your reply? You filed a section here at the BLP noticeboard. As to the actual content itself, the consensus was established for that content and for the fact that it's what lead to the article subject's outing as a gay porn star. Your attempts to remove the content, despite the article being under Arbcom probation with a big tag that even says so, shows your own lack of NPOV and attempts at whitewashing. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As ChildofMidnight is making almost the exact same edits that numerous anon IPs on the article Talk Page were advocating (a POV campaign that resulted in the Talk page being semi-protected), I think this looks a lot like meatpuppetry. --StephenLaurie (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To say nothing of sockpuppetry and user:StephenLaurie being the infamous community perma-banned, topic banned (on Matt Sanchez article for a history of BLP violation, incivility, harassment, etc.) editor user:Eleemosynary. Please check StephenLaurie full history, including obsessions with Matt Sanchez, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, Marshall Silver, Mark Simone, et al as well as specific IP pges where he has blanked sockpuppet tags. There were some IP's blocked by administrators, as socks of Eleemosynary over the course of the last year. A simple RFCU should suffice to ban this individual.96.224.149.72 (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that this IP geolocates to New York, which is where User:Bluemarine, aka Matt Sanchez resides. He has an extensive history of socking and avoiding his community ban and Arbcom ban via IPs himself. So if anyone decides to run an RFCU, be sure to include him and this IP. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 18:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness - the IP actually geolocates to New York!?!? Smoking gun! QED! I mean, it's not like anyone else from NY is posting to Wiki, right? 8-/ I'd be more concerned about the topic and community banned user who is flagrantly violating the terms of his blocks right now. That is unless you are willing to look the other way as he falls out on the side of BLP violations you would also like to see on these pages? 96.224.149.72 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears Sanchez (or a blocked editor and Sanchez fan) is once again screaming "sockpuppet" while cowering behind an anonymous IP. --StephenLaurie (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Cope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Cope The last line of "Use in media" is vandalism. However, I can't remove it because it doesn't appear when I try to edit the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneufeld (talk • contribs) 07:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone already removed it. Henrymrx (t·c) 07:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Marks

I've just spent a fair amount of time cleaning this article about a British pornographer up, removing various unsourced claims, original research, and in particular unreferenced/unverifiable assertions that various named and apparently living persons were involved in various pornographic films; some of the people were independently notable, some not so. Some of the claims are likely true, some apparently quite dubious; under BLP, all the names needed to go. Having started to work on several related articles, I've realized that the entire bloc of articles are very little more than original research published on Wikipedia by now-departed editor User:Gavcrimson, who is now publishing such material on his own blog, and who deleted a large portion of it from Wikipedia a year or so ago with the edit summary "With regret I am deleting all of my original research, as it seems in constant threat of being challenged/deleted anyway, and I no longer wish my work to be associated with this site." But he didn't get all of it. My impulse is to stub all the remaining articles based on his contributions. Absent rescue by other editors in the interim. All that I've looked at raise serious BLP and OR concerns. Examples are Come Play With Me and The Nine Ages of Nakedness (the second not so bad an article as the first.) Is there any disagreement? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is a question better left for those who specialize in porno BLP issues. How does porn fit in with WP:BLP? But, assuming IMDB is considered a reliable source, I'll say that the list of cast members looks ok, but there is no reason to put it in the lede, especially when it's also in the info box. The 2 articles are only lightly footnoted, so feel free to remove the un-footnoted parts that mention specific people, and tag the rest with ^{[citation needed]}. You might go further, since there is nobody around who might challenge a cleanup as censorship, but stubbing the whole lot would be going a bit far, IMHO. Just use your judgement. Smallbones (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is generally not considered a reliable source as its content is user generated. It can be used to support other sources that are reliable. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Davis

I think this article urgently needs more attention from an experienced editor who is knowledgeable about the case and its coverage or has the time to do the necessary research. [12] I have reverted this edit for the moment, but it seems there were earlier, similar editors from another IP that are still in the article. Hans Adler 09:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia L. Davis

Article has possible WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE issues (related: otrs:2009071210033789).

I've gone through the section, tried to expand the possibly subjective summaries of comments with representative excerpts, removed the POV-blog comments, and expanded the range of sources. I don't think it will make her very happy, but perhaps the whole experience can serve as a positive motivator for this experienced politician. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Badmouthing Anita Hill at Talk:Clarence Thomas

Please take a look at Lkoler (talk · contribs) and this thread. I would prefer that our article talk pages not be used to cast gratuitous and unsourced aspersions. However, I have not been particularly successful in my interactions with the user in question, and in fact have given up entirely on our Clarence Thomas article as a hopeless editing environment. So perhaps someone else could have a word with Lkoler, or not. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Benjamin

A lot of blp-violating vandalism at Regina Benjamin. Please keep an eye out. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Isabelle

Katharine Isabelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Now, before I am going to put it's real date of birth with it's reliable source on Katharine Isabelle's article. I already read Katharine Isabelle's talk page. And a few of the users having an argument for it's real birthdate between 1980, 1981 and 1982. But I am not involve with the argument. I was putting it's real date of birth and birthplace on the article once. But then another user remove the date of birth and birthplace because it's not sourced. Also, a lot of IP users putting it's date of birth without a sourced date of birth, and a user already remove it's unsourced date of birth always from some of the the IP users. I know that the fact that the Internet Movie Database or IMDb is not the reliable source for it's information. So I went to a web search Yahoo! or Google. Then I type the search "Katharine Isabelle" then the year of birth and then the birthplace. Then I finally found a different website has it's real information. The website is Katharine Isabelle UK. Before I am going to put it's real date of birth and birthplace to be sourced from another website. I already read it's "citing sources" guidelines and I know how to put sources from different websites. So If you read my comments please let me know in order to resolve quickly. Steam5 (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Plimer

I am involved in a dispute with two editors on a climate change article, Ratel, and of course Kim D. Petersen, who wish to include very prominently in a page on the skeptic Ian Plimer's book, Heaven and Earth, the following very negative, and insulting text:

The book has met with a generally hostile reception from the scientific community. Professor Michael Ashley of the University of New South Wales stated that the book "advance(s) all manner of absurd theories" and "deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken."

This refers to a newspaper review of the book by an astronomer on the subject of climate science. The issues I've raised with this are (1) inclusion of non-specific remarks that seem to add nothing to the article but are merely idly insulting; (2) prominent airing of the views of someone commenting outside his own area of expertise (i.e. the article is making out that Professor Ashley is an expert in climatology when in fact climatology is not even mentioned as one of Ashley's interests on his CV. Ashley's area is astronomy, only at best tangentially relevant to the subject of the book he's reviewing). Finally, the entire article is subject to a neutrality dispute, where it is argued that it is most unbalanced, which seems to be a rather intractable problem at the moment. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven't looked at the article, the text above should certainly say that the critic is an astronomer. However, it seems that the scientist in question (an astronomer in this case) is attacking the science posited in the book. It may not be his area of expertise, but just about any scientist can spot bad science a mile away. It seems relevant. Henrymrx (t·c) 01:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– Resolved per suggestion editor Pete Tillman. Ashley quote shifted to near end of page & replaced w/ quote from climate expert. ► RATEL ◄ 06:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rasul Kudayev

Rasul Kudayev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The information presented in this section are not unambiguously supported by the given sources. "Pentagon claim he had "returned to the fight" and "Department of Defense officials claimed Rasul Kudayev was one of 74 former Guantanatmo captives who "are engaged in terrorism or militant activity" are not unambiguously supported by the NYT's sources or any other source. The section should be removed WP:BOP, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:NPF. I have tried this but have been reverted two times. I think this needs attention here because of WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:NPF. Iqinn (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious what the concerned contributor means by "unambiguously supported". In other, related, talk page discussions the concerned contributor has indicated they have concerns over the basic credibility of the DoD's claim. But the wikipedia's policy on verifiability specifically opens with an explanation we aim for "verifiability, not truth". Those of us who have a concern over the credibility of assertions in our legitimate, authoritative, verifiable WP:RS, are plain out of luck. Those sources, and several others, do report that the DoD claims "returned to the fight" after his release from Guantanamo. The DoD's own press releases clearly state this. Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop attacking me. That's wrong! I have no concerns over basic credibility of DoD claims. If you have sources, add these sources to the section and possible rewrite the section so it can meet our policies. By the way to use a DoD press release as a source for the DoD claim will not meet WP:NPF. If you have other sources that makes this section meet our policies just add these sources and we are out of here. But as it is now, it is something that should be clearly removed now and not reverted back until it meets WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:NPF. Iqinn (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To use a press release from Burger King to reference that "Burger King claims..." is perfectly acceptable. It is not acceptable to say it as an unmitigated fact. In this instance, and all others to which you have pointed, it is clearly used to say "The DoD claims...", and thus its use is legitimate. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the case for some articles but not for an article under WP:NPF. The section in it's current form does not meet WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:NPF and it should be removed first. Also editors should not simply revert the controversial material back. Iqinn (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iqinn, I am not "attacking" you. Rather I put effort into conducting a meaningful dialogue with you.
Iqinn, I don't find what you wrote above clear. You say you don't have any concern over the credibility of the DoD claims -- but then you say those claims don't meet WP:NPF. Why, because being described as someone suspected of supporting terror is damaging? When OJ Simpson was suspected of murdering his wife that too is damaging. Madoff is suspected of swindling a gazillion dollars. We don't suppress coverage of this material because it is damaging to OJ or Madoff.
Could you please clarify what kind of additional sources you think are required? Geo Swan (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "At Least One "Recidivist" Tortured to Confess to Terrorism". Reuters. 2009-05-21. Retrieved 2009-07-15. The former detainee, Rasul Kudaev, has been held for more than three years in pretrial detention in Nalchik, a city in southern Russia, where he is accused of participating in an October 2005 armed uprising against the local government. Human Rights Watch's investigations into Kudaev's case found that he was severely beaten soon after his arrest to confess to crimes.
- "Bush's secret Gitmo diplomacy". Kansas City Star. Retrieved 2009-07-15. The most severely abused was Rasul Kudaev, who was picked up in October 2005 for allegedly participating in an attack on several government buildings in southern Russia. (Kudaev says he was wrongfully accused.) According to Kudaev's lawyer, who visited him in prison shortly after his arrest, one of his legs had been broken and his face beaten to the point of disfigurement. {{cite news}}: soft hyphen character in |quote= at position 12 (help)</ref>
- "US Sent Guantanamo Detainees Home to Torture in Russia". Kansas City Infozine. 2007-03-27. Retrieved 2009-07-15.</ref>

The law in many countries for example Germany distinguishes between "Well-known public figures" and "People who are relatively unknown" OJ and Madoff are Well-known public figures and you can almost publish everything even it may damage their reputation. But Rasul Kudayev falls under the category "People who are relatively unknown" and for these people there are a lot of restrictions, to protect there privacy and reputation. Yes being described as someone suspected of supporting terror is damaging to them. And generally not allowed under the law of many countries. Wikipedia could be possible sued for that. That's why we have to be very careful to meet requirements of WP:NPF. I had a short look at the sources you have provided and do not have much hope they are suitable for the section we are speaking about but i will have a closer look tmw. I have put more information here.Iqinn (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple, highly reliable sources" are required. You may can use some of your provided source after rewriting the section. But even you provide sufficient sources there are further requirements for inclusion under WP:NPF. Some of them are not met now. I have put information about that on the articles TalkPage and i suggest we continue our discussion there. I have also removed the section from the page and i hope now you can agree that it should not be re-included until controversies have been solved. Iqinn (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple users have chastised Iqinn for removing references including the New York Times, the Pentagon and other notable sources who can be assumed to be trustworthy enough to at least report that "The Pentagon claims that..." or "The New York Times reported...", which is the case here. He has a history of removing all footnotes from an article, and then calling for the article's deletion on the grounds of no footnotes, and otherwise seems to demonstrate questionable-faith actions specifically related to these sorts of articles. Attempts to resolve the issue on article talk pages, and his own talk pages, are just met with standard "Stop attacking me!" remarks and playing the martyr. FWIW, my opinion suggests this is a case to be decided on the talk-pages of articles, not a BLP noticeboard. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ad hominem what you say here is a good example. This board is not there for the same people who resist the removal to come out and try to disturb the process. It is there for uninvolved editors and administrators to have a second look at the material and possible remove it, if it does not meet WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:NPF what is clearly the case here. Iqinn (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte Gabriel

Some fresh eyes on this on please. I took a look at it today for the first time in several weeks and it has got completely out of hand - there are way too many quotations from her books and similar material. I think a major chop job is in order but I just don't know where to start. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dash Snow

Rumors of his death are spreading, & the page already has him listed as dead, though it hasn't been confirmed. Not sure what the proper templates, etc are for this; thought it best to bring it to everyone's attention. -- mordicai. (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times ArtsBeat blog is reporting this as a fact, confirmed by his grandmother Christophe de Menil. Roberta Smith, "Dash Snow, New York Artist, Dies at 27", New York Times, July 14, 2009.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked the ibox, named the NYBlog reference and updated the talk page template. – ukexpat (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Gratzer

I would welcome a quick look by someone of a dispute emerging at the David Gratzer page. I do not not normally write at Bio pages but I think I started this article and have contributed to it on and off and now a dispute has emerged with another editor deleting material citing BLP SYN and OR. It seems some third editor had been adding POV and weasel words and these were used to make more sweeping changes. I have added back the main text without the problem text but now I am being told that the material breaks BLP.

Comments welcomed.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My issues originated with these edits by User:DickClarkMises which seemed to me to remove material which rightly belongs in the article. They did however contain some very strong worded elements which I think have been added recently by another editor. I reverted the deletions but took out the objectional elements as I saw them. However User:DickClarkMises has deleted again claiming breaches of BLP POV and OR.

here User:DickClarkMises claims there is a synthesis of sources. However, in the earlier reference, Gratzer points out that Goodman had made the connection and the element which has been deleted merely traces one example of this. This is not really a criticism of Gratzer but somehow backs up what he has been saying. I personally believe that this is worthy of retention in the article and does not constitiute WP:SYN. I don't think that it really matters WHICH earlier piece by Goodman made the connection but I think it is fair to show that Gratzer was being honest when he said that Goodman had made the same connection.

here User:DickClarkMises claims is about the use of the term "embroilded". However, the element that has been added back is that the issues below are all about his alleged misuse of statistics. But the first dispute in the article is not about a medical dispute and indeed Gratzer was not the source of the disputed statistic. The second dispute listed is again about another person's misuse of a medical statistic. Guilliani is not an expert but his people have Gratzer as the source. Gratzer did not deny this but said Goodman had made the same connection. (my previous point refers). The third dispute was about Gratzer allegedly misleading a congressional committee. For these reasons I think "embroiled" is a good word to cover all three incidents as it does not imply that Gratzer was misleading in all three disputes even though he was personally involved in all three.

here User:DickClarkMises deletes the entire substance of the dispute about misleading the congress. The reason stated was "transcript of a cable news exchange is not encyclopedic". But we have the words in the video. Again, the words when orginally put in the article were substantially from the video. It seems that someone else has modified them since I orginally placed them in the article here.

It seems that another editor User:Apatens has been making edits which seem unhelpful such as this one which removes relevent material from a lead paragraph, and this one [13] which is ostensibly about whether the article was peer reviewed. However, I had already addressed the point with this edit which put the text in without reference to "peer review". User:DickClarkMises again deleted the para again here, now claiming WP:OR.

A pair of neutral fresh eyes to reviiew what has been going on here would be welcomed.--Hauskalainen (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to go into detail now, but the Allegations of misuse of statistics clearly has WP:UNDUE problems (most obviously with the long media quotes), and the list of "selected" publications is far too long. It may be that Grazer is particularly known for this episode, but it still has to be summarised appropriately in a reasonably brief way, not fisked to death. Rd232 ^talk 16:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rush Limbaugh Show

Annemarie Eilfeld

An edit war going on there between two editors, with some moderate incivility on the part of one of them (stop getting on my nerves then). There seems to be some dispute over whether certain sources are used. In addition, it appears that IP editors are adding cruft to the article. Probably needs some attention. McJeff (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see my talk page, see vandalism report, see semi-protection and revert. --JD {æ} 13:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Tanthalas speaks any German? I don't believe that. Why he and not a native speaker? 79.214.201.13 (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annemarie_Eilfeld&diff=302220261&oldid=302220144 This is definitely not the "good" version according to Tanthalas 79.214.201.13 (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the most important thing here is and will be: you try to ban me as a vandal (and faker) from en as soon as you can because i am a shame for every severe wikipedian. ah, okay. --JD {æ} 21:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

btw: you got banned for 12 hours and in the moment you are avoiding this by using another IP. --JD {æ} 21:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is also weird. Tanthalas: Protected Annemarie Eilfeld: persistent unsourced additions/speculation/external links ???? 79.214.201.13 (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jani Allan

I believe that the entry is biased and reads like a subtle defence of Jani Allan's notorious public image. I also think that the detailed explanations, quotations, and cited reference amount to original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. The entry simply does not read like an encylopaedic entry. What is more, it has been written, edited and rewritten by a single user, who, apart from defending the subject, constantly adds irrelevant detail.

EmjayE2 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Duke

Mike Duke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mike Duke is the CEO of Walmart. The article had a poorly sourced "controversy" section which was referenced to a blog post and a piece on The Advocate's website which talked about the blog post. According to the blog, Duke had signed a petition in support of placing Arkansas Proposed Initiative Act No. 1 (2008) on the ballot. The implied bias is that Duke is homophobic. The section seems to clearly violate WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP guidelines about sourcing contentious material. I posted my reasoning on the article talk page and removed the section from the article. An editor has reverted my changes, including one which merely replaced a dead link with a functioning one. Since I have a pre-existing conflict with this editor, I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the content from the article. IMO, it doesn't belong there as per WP:BLP. I'll mark this as resolved but continue to watch the article.

Resolved

– -shirulashem^(talk) 01:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but take a look at the references. How can I put this? There has been an extremely sneaky effort made to use the Advocate article as a reference for Duke's starting date, rather than any number of business articles, and to use a copy of a petition from the previously mentioned blog post as a reference for Duke's birthdate, which is WP:OR in itself. Can I suggest that you restore the article to the last version I edited? It also has a fix for a broken link to Wlamart's official bio of Duke. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– I've changed those as well -shirulashem^(talk) 01:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for not informing of this discussion. There is no BLP vio in the content. It's sourced, validly, to a national magazine, a national web site, and a government document signed by Duke himself. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 05:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Woodhall

Is it an irrefutable fact that Richie Woodhall has a "beautiful wife called Jayne" ? Surely this statement is subjective, & should therefore be removed. It suggests the article has been written by the subject matter, his wife, a close personal friend or a relative. "He is married, to Jayne." will suffice in my opinion.

^ 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).
^ "California extremist whips up Aids crusade / US public health debate stirred up by controversial politician Lyndon LaRouche". The Times. London. November 1 1986.
^ 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)

[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)

[1]

[2]

[3]

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