Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

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)

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 [1] 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)

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)

I agree that the article may have lingered too long on the dispute about prostate cancer survival but because the error was pointed out by experts and Gratzer continued to defend his position it seriously calls into question his value as a source of reliable information. Similarly in the argument with Kucinich, he clearly tried to present a false picture to the congressional committee and answered questions he was not asked and failed to answer properly the questions that Kucinich put to him. As he was there as an EXPERT WITNESS it is clearly important that his testimony should enlighten and not mislead. Now User:Apotens has removed any reference to the reliability of Gratzer as an expert witness and the Kucinich accusation has been reduced to the single word "clash". IMHO that is in itself a clear distortion of what happened. And the reference to Goodman as a source for the identical source has gone altogether and the only reference to Goodman is a puff piece from his book on the people who helped him write his book. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The changes made in the last 2 weeks have completely transformed this article, mostly for the worst. --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A further dispute has arisen. The article in the opinion of two editors reads more like an advertisement for the gentlemen, listing sequentially all his academic achievements (which are not notable) and his writings (again, most of which are not notable). This has effectively buried any criticism of his mis-use of statistics in the U.S. political sphere (for which he has become notable) much harder to see and even what was there has been watered down to the point that it is almost invisible. Some of the edits, quite frankly, look as though they must have been made by the subject of the article (though perhaps not the more reent ones). Frankly, the article now reads more like the man's resumé than a proper WP article about a minor bit player in U.S. politics.--Hauskalainen (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This has topped the list for a while. How does one get attention here?--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• This listing could use some attention from fresh eyes. There is a lot of POV-pushing to the detriment of a living person going on, and intervention by an uninterested third party would be helpful in reaching a stable version here, rather than the present edit war. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bob Ainsworth

Source: The Minister and the IRA fan club by Peter Hitchens in Mail Online, last updated at 1:17 AM on 19th July 2009

Bob Ainsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A defence minister in Britain's Labour government, Bob Ainsworth, has been the subject of an article in the conservative Mail on Sunday News of the World by Peter Hitchens, who edits here as Clockback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The article sites an unnamed spokesperson for Ainsworth confirming that in 1982 he attended two meetings of a left current then inside the Labour party, the International Marxist Group. Discussion on the Talk page concerns the relevance and balance of referring to Clockback's article in the article, especially since the source is unnamed and is cited only by that article. Clockback is a newer contributor and, while other editors have pointed him to Wikipedia's policies, he feels that bias by other editors is preventing his article from being cited. He intends to add the reference to the article without winning consensus. Others' opinions are welcomed. --Duncan (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, not the conservative "The News of the World" actually, but the "Mail on Sunday", a regrettable but telling example of Duncan's imperfect grasp of the argument and facts I've been putting forward for some days now. Is he paying attention? What the politics of the newspaper have to do with it, others may judge. The Minister's spokesman, a government employee, is unnamed because of a normal journalistic convention governing the making of such statements. The statement has been published in a national newspaper and not denied or challenged by its subject, since it is an accurate account of what was said. I have offered to provide the spokesperson's identity on the same basis to Duncan, should he wish it. The issue is not over the citation of my article, which in any normal circumstances would be unproblematic. I would actually much prefer it if someone else rather than me would insert the fact. It is over the objections of Duncan and another editor to the inclusion of this fact about Mr Ainsworth in the article. These two editors have also agrred on the removal of other material on Mr Ainsworth, which I argued should not be removed until it could be replaced by the accurate and verifiable information I seek to include. The other editor unilaterally removed the earlier material, without any substitution, against my clear objections. I have not myself so much as touched the article. I have attempted for several days to achieve consensus and been met with an utter unwillingness to compromise, combined with various peremptory warnings. I have therefore given a fortnight's notice of my intention to include the disputed fact, and sought to involve other editors as widely as possible, believing my case to be sound. Others' opinions, as many as possible, are indeed welcomed. hence the fortnight's notice. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction Clockback. --Duncan (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement must be verifiable using a reliable source, and I don't think rumours mentioned by columnists have the same status as news stories. If the spokesperson were named and directly quoted in a story by a national newspaper like the Mail on Sunday—or if the newspaper story unequivocally repeated the allegation as a fact (not as a rumour)—it would be a different matter. If their lawyers don't want to take that step, why should Wikipedia? - Pointillist (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please pay attention, and stop trying to say this is not what it is. It's not a 'rumour mentioned by a columnist',(please try to avoid personal attacks, such as the implied slur on my competence in this expression) but a direct factual quotation obtained by me through an official statement on a government e-mail made by the taxpayer-financed spokesperson of the Secretary of State for Defence, who made it after consulting personally with that Secretary of State. By long convention, such spokespersons are not named. This has no bearing on the value of the story. Had the story been an unverified and untrue claim, it would have been denied ( as it has not been) . This is why newspaper stories (with the sole exception of this one) are used as verifiable sources on Wikipedia. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Being a columnist isn't a bad thing—Bernard Levin, Woodrow Wyatt and Hugo Young did it pretty well—but that sort of writing doesn't get the same pre-publication scrutiny as news stories. In The Daily Telegraph, for example, Con Coughlin sometimes writes as a journalist and sometimes as a columnist, Boris Johnson is always a columnist and the old Peterborough column was an unashamed step or two below that. This isn't rocket science: if you can find a rock-solid verifiable reference in a proper news story that has had real editorial/legal clearance, then there's no risk to Wikipedia in repeating it. - Pointillist (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist still appears not to have read the item with any care, and is simply mistaken about the way journalism works. It is an implied personal attack to suggest that someone is retailing an unconfirmed rumour, and I suggest he withdraws this baseless suggestion. Also, I think I know more about newspapers than Pointillist, though he is welcome to cite experience if he has it.. Every word I write ( and I have been a newspaper reporter since 1973, having served the indentures then required, studied newspaper law, learned shorthand, reported trials and public bodies, been deputy political editor of a national daily newspaper) is subject to exactly the same editorial process, oversight and legal constraint as the rest of the MoS. The opinions expressed are my own. The facts I produce are facts and must be substantiated. Since (unlike many columnists ) I am a reporter by trade, I regularly obtain and research my own facts. It is perfectly true that columnists sometimes hint and insinuate, without offering facts. Hints and insinuations cannot be used as verification. At other times they can state confirmed facts, as I do in this case. It is not the vehicle that decides the nature of the contents. The contents must be judged on their merits. I repeat, this is a statement given on the record by the official spokesperson of a Cabinet Minister. I might add that none of the information on Mr Ainsworth currently given in his political biography appears to have any referenced verification at all. Yet my opponents, whose rigour appears selective to me, are not proposing to remove this material. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"none of the information on Mr Ainsworth currently given in his political biography appears to have any referenced verification at all". Assuming you're referring to the WP entry and not something else, almost all the info is in fact referenced. Rd232 ^talk 11:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems here is that Hitchens is (apparently) both the Wikipedia editor wanting to add a fact, and the external source on which that fact draws as a (hopefully) reliable source. This wouldn't be so bad if he could firewall the two (editor/source), and only draw on the public information. But instead he is drawing on his private knowledge of how that source was produced (having produced it), to provide non-published context and detail for the published source, in order to make the source appear more credible than the published information suggests. Some of this shades, inevitably, into WP:OR territory, and this complicates matters. For me, too, the fact that Hitchens' article [2] seems to raise the IMG link primarily to smear Ainsworth by linking him (without, seemingly, any evidence other than attending a couple of meetings at the behest of a friend) with IMG's support for the IRA ("The Minister and the IRA fan club" subheadline!) obviously can't violate WP:NPOV, but it makes me uneasy, especially as no other press appears to have picked this up. Finally, there is the WP:UNDUE issue - it's all very well for Hitchens to make columnistic hay out of "a couple of meetings", but is that significant enough to merit inclusion in Ainsworth's encyclopedia entry? It has to be noted that Hitchens has demonstrated precisely zero significance for these meetings (indeed the only evidence is that they were insignificant, merely confirming Ainsworth's view that he wanted nothing to do with the IMG. (Hitchens blog, which doesn't work in Firefox but does in Internet Explorer - [3]). Finally - I almost forgot - another troubling aspect of this is that hitchens apparently came across the story from reading Wikipedia (his article and blog refer to "stories", which he's declined to identify), where a completely unsourced assertion on the subject was found until I removed it, leading to the present debate. This, again, is a troubling interaction between Wikipedia and a published source, this time going the other way. Words of wisdom, anyone? Rd232 ^talk 09:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not use the original reports as a source rather than Hitchens' column? If these stories are on wikipedia, then, I think they're very shady. But if they're in other news outlets then they're probably OK. DrKiernan (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK the trail stops at the Peter Hitchens column. Is that correct, Clockback? - Pointillist (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read some of the talk page discussion: it strikes me that this isn't an argument over sources. Clockback wants to remove the "candidate member" bit and add that he attended a couple of IMG meetings. That's fine. The source does support that he attended a couple of meetings, whether the spokesman was named or not is irrelevant. As rightly pointed out, this is just a standard journalistic practice. The question is over whether that is notable enough for his biography: as the biography is very short and requires expansion, the answer to that question is yes. I think the sentence suggested should be added. DrKiernan (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, but the text in Hitchen's column doesn't make any statement about the relationship of the spokesperson to the subject. "I was interested to see stories ... so I asked a ‘spokesperson’" is all we get. It isn't enough, IMO. If Clockback is really Peter Hitchens the solution lies in his hands: publish more concrete allegations in the Mail on Sunday. - Pointillist (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you mean. It's probably unfortunate for Hitchens that he chose to put spokesperson in inverted commas. It does reduce the force of his statement. I'm coming around to your view that it is less solid than we would want. DrKiernan (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that because the biography is short the issue of balance is important. I'm sure Ainsworth has attended several meetings of several organisations. If we select one fact, about not-notable two meetings in 1982 which are not notable to any other source, then that seems to me to be an innuendo pushes Peter Hitchen's POV that the cabinet is under the influence of revolutionary Marxists. If the statement from the "spokesperson" were in the public domain, and we had a primary source, then we could assess it. That said, there's no echo in the media or civil society from the 'revelation', and it's not notable. If Ainsworth's biography is written, there can't be more than a few sentences on it even if the work is hundreds of pages. --Duncan (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A standard I often apply is whether something would be mentioned in a person's (reasonable length - a page or two of a newspaper) obituary. Something only a book-length biography would mention is WP:UNDUE for a standard WP entry. (For very long WP entries - people about whom loads is known - a standard somewhere inbetween can be applied, but that's not the case here.) Rd232 ^talk 13:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, honestly, there we were on the verge of sense, and the fact that 'spokesperson' was placed in inverted commas is dragged in. This is not a serious point. Think a moment here. What exactly could this punctuation possibly mean, that would in fact detract from the verificational nature of the quotation? Let's not get tangled up in inverted commas. I put 'spokesperson' in inverted commas because I disapprove of 'inclusive language' and so I think it's a stupid word, and that's what I do with stupid words. As a columnist, I am able to do so. It is, however, the word the person involved specifically asked me to use when we agreed the use of the quotation. Please do resolve this. I'm off now till 9th August. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought that's what the inverted commas meant. But there is the alternative meaning too that they're not really a spokesperson. The author of a source coming here to tell us how to interpret it is one of the problems I alluded to above. WP conversations are not normally citable sources (also, while I have no reason to doubt it, there is no external evidence I'm aware of that Clockback is actually Hitchens; that WP identities aren't verified is one of the reasons on-wiki statements can't normally be sources). Rd232 ^talk 06:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Then assume that 'Clockback' is not Peter Hitchens and you still have a MSM reference for the info 'Clockback' seeks to include in the article. In assuming 'Clockback' is simply a third person/WP editor it removes one of your objections to his edit, namely that he is the author of the source. Simples! The other objection, that the info will be taken as this or that by a reader should, IMHO, be dismissed - we should not presume to know what a reader will make of info, we should simply provide it. Peter Hitchens was himself a member of the International Socialists if memory serves me well. He declares this and it's up to me what I make of it. Ainsworth is a prominent politician, this info should be declared, it's not like he's an ordinary person with no defence. We should state relevant facts about politicians and this is a relevant fact not that he once dated Joanna Lumley or picks his nose (I made those up). That politicians attend such a meeting more than once as an adult should be noted. That 'Spokesperson' is in quotes could be easily dealt with by Peter Hitchens mentioning the fact again in his sizeable column without quotes. But would that confirm to you that 'Clockback' is in fact Peter Hitchens and confirm an objection? I'm familiar with Peter Hitchens' work and a more fussy person with regards to words and grammar I think it would be difficult to find. So what does 'spokesperson' mean? I put 'Clockback' in quotes because it is a username not a real name. But he exists and I can quote him. It seems to me that 'spokesperson' is in quotes because the poor woman sending the email in question is probably not employed under the job title 'spokeperson' but under some other title, yet has been charged with this duty. That happens a lot. The difficulty therefore is whether WP is prepared to accept the statement by Peter Hitchens writing in the MoS. It's MSM and a creditable source. Include the info. Mimi ^(yack) 09:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Miamomimi is quite right about Clockback's identity: it's irrelevant for BLP RS purposes. Personally I don't like this source because it isn't specific enough. It looks like someone trying to make bricks without enough straw, and I don't think it should be repeated in the Bob Ainsworth article. If/when the original press story is followed up in the MoS or other newspapers, we'll know whether it fails the WP:UNDUE test. - Pointillist (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You drag me back from my holiday with this unending assumption of bad faith on my part, combined with pettifogging, quibbling and straining over gnats and inverted commas. Excuse me? Not merely is it barmily suggested that I would for unfathomable reasons pretend to be someone I'm not (if I were pretending to be someone, surely I'd pick a more popular person?). An immensely specific and clearly sourced piece of definite information is airily dismissed as 'not specific enough' and accurate information diligently obtained using the proper channels is described as 'bricks without straw'. What would satisfy these people? An affidavit? Probably not, is my guess. I've said it before, and I'll now say it again, so exasperating is this pettifogging becoming. If a left-wing newspaper columnist, using exactly the same wording, did so to say that a spokesperson for a member of the Conservative front bench had confirmed that this politician had attended BNP meetings in his 30s, the fact would go into his Wikipedia entry without question or quibble. If Pointillist says the story is not specific, then what is not specific exactly? The spokesperson of a government minister says on the record that her employer attended IMG meetings. Where's the non-specificity? In what way is the straw absent from the the bricks? The whole debate (with a couple of notable exceptions) is infused with a refusal to assume good faith on my part. Please stop this. Meanwhile, is there (please, please, oh please) anyone else out there prepared to give the matter impartial consideration? By the way, the historian Andrew Roberts says in today's (July 30th) Daily Mail that Mr Ainsworth "flirted with Marxism before becoming a city councillor in Coventry".http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1203111/It-better-boys-Defence-Secretary-Bob-Ainsworth-stayed-holiday.html ?ITO=1490 Does that satisfy my detractors' demands for a follow-up? Shouldn't think so, but thought I'd mention it. Peter Hitchens, yes,really, signed in as Clockback (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not think this should be included on ground of undue weight and POV pressing. If it receives further attention then it should be included. Quantpole (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article in the mail which states that he was a 'candidate member' of the international marxist group. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1203382/We-failed-Armed-Forces-Iraq-Afghanistan-Defence-Secretary-Bob-Ainsworth-admits.html To those that say that this would represent undue weight, how can you until it's actually included in the article? I think that it is significant enough to include a sentence in the 'early life' section. After all, infomation about Alistair Darling's connection with the IMG is included in his article. So is the personal political history of most politicians. Tiberius Curtainsmith (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read it three times and still cannot see anything about it. And even if it does, why should that receive any more precedence than the many other bits of information about him in the article? Quantpole (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The info at issue here has today been published in the MoS without the punctuation that caused an objection. See Peter Hitchens' latest column. The only objection that remains is one of 'balance' which I dismiss for the same reasons Tiberius Curtainsmith gives above - the personal political history of most politicians is included in their WP entry. To have a 'balanced' political history is the reposibility of the subject, not the reporter. Don't shoot the messenger. I agree this info could be included in 'early life'. Mimi ^(yack) 16:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This info that he is supposed to have gone to a marxist meeting a quarter of a century ago (but didn't inhale) adds nothing to the article of any worth. It look like an attempt to push a marxist label onto him, he is not a marxist is he? Are there any reports of this from the 80's? What does it add to the article? He went to a marxist meeting in 1980? and what happened there, what is notable about that? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

Off2riorob - why do you put 'info' in italics? 'Info' is short for information and this is information we are discussing here, is it not? Information about Bob Ainsworth. And 'didn't inhale'? What's that supposed to mean? I have no idea whether Bob Ainsworth is a Marxist or not, do you? It's not for us to label him but to report the facts. Let's do it. This is a relevant, confirmed fact in a politicians political history - we're not discussing his favourite colour. Mimi ^(yack) 19:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer your queries, I put info in italics to draw attention to it's worthlessness and therefore lack of real info (imo), didn't inhale is a ref to Clinton saying he tried hash but didn't inhale..as in comparison to this situation where Ainsworth went to a marxist meeting but didn't become a marxist. I hope you don't mind if we disagree, I see it as undue weight to an irrelevant non event. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

Then, Off2riorob, you could have simply said so, nicely. But I thank you for your reply. IMHO the information about Bill Clinton and the information in discussion about Bob Ainsworth do not compare: we are not discussing drug use when a student but attending more than one specific political meeting as an adult. And I see no reason why that fact should not be included in the main article. Mimi ^(yack) 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I posted the article there was initially a list of facts at the bottom which mentioned Mr Ainsworth's candidate status. These have since been removed, for reasons unknown to me. This editorial in the mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1199283/Political-cowards-true-heroes.html?ITO=1490 also mentions that he was once a candidate member of the IMG. To Off2riorob, perhaps inclusion in the article of "Mr Ainsworth was a candidate member of the International Marxist group but never became a full member?" I'm not sure how membership of the IMG worked but I think being a candidate member is notable enough to include in the article. You haven't responded to the fact that we include information about the past for all public political figures. I would argue that being a voluntary candidate member of the IMG at 30 is more notable than the Pope being conscripted into the Hitler Youth when he was 14. The information about the Pope is included, as it should be. In the article on Alistair Darling his sympathies for the IMG are stated and sourced. To Quantpole, it should receive precedent in that Mr Ainsworth is a politician and his personal political history is important background. Tiberius Curtainsmith (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets see that discussed in more impartial pieces than the 'debate' section of the Daily Mail, which includes quotes such as "Mr Ainsworth is a political lightweight who has never taken a real risk in his life, and his appointment to such a crucial ministry is an unmitigated scandal". To my mind that qualifies as an attack piece, and not something we should be quoting from. If this receives sufficient interest from a broader range of sources then it may well become notable. At the moment however it has received pretty much no coverage apart from a couple of attempts in the mail to disparage the subject, which cannot be viewed as reliable or notable. Quantpole (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, it's not an opinion from the Daily Mail that's being proposed here, but an on-the-record supported fact in a politicians political history. And the source is the Mail on Sunday which is editorially seperate. I really don't see the difficulty and agree with Tiberius Curtainsmith above. Mimi ^(yack) 11:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You see no reason why this fact shouldn't be included in the article. I see no reason why it should be included. This 'fact' is being stated in the Mail in a clear attempt to disparage the subject by associating him with IRA sympathisers. We do not know any of the context of his attendance at the meetings. We do not know his personal opinions on the IRA. It is a clear attempt at 'guilt by association' (just see the tone of the Mail piece above). If this receives some broader coverage, or there are signs of it causing a bigger furore than just a couple of opinion pieces then we should look at it again. Quantpole (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Herre's another source http://www.politics.co.uk/mps/party-politics/labour/ainsworth-bob-$451964.htm. There is no talk of saying that Bob Ainsworth has any sympathies for the IRA. It is pretty clear which parts of the pieces are fact and which are opinion. There is an obvious difference between Bob Ainsworth was a candidate member of the IMG and that he is an incompetent bungler. The first is obviously a verifiable fact, and has been verified by the other article in discussion. The proposed debate is whether we should include the sentence 'At 30, Bob Ainsworth was a candidate member of the IMG, but never became a full member' The other side of the debate does not think this is notable. Will they then delete similar information from the article on Alistair Darling? Perhaps a useful contribution would be if we are able to understand how membership of the IMG worked, that would make it easier to decide if it were notable or not.Tiberius Curtainsmith (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The politics.co.uk source has convinced me, and that's what should be used in the article, given that it presents the information without the rhetoric. Quantpole (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Summing Up

I am now preparing, as promised, to add to the entry on Bob Ainsworth MP. In doing so, I will try to sum up the argument so far in its essentials. But first, to avoid all misunderstanding, these are the words ( and attached references) which I intend to add on Sunday 9th August unless a good reason is supplied for me to refrain, or unless someone else does it. I propose to place them in the ‘Early Life’ segment, after the sentence ending ‘Branch President’. I would, as I have repeatedly said, much prefer it if another editor could place it there. Arguments for doing so follow the suggested entry.

“In the early 1980s Mr Ainsworth attended ‘a couple’ of meetings of the International Marxist Group, but has declined to elaborate on this. ”

1. What is the dispute not about? It is emphatically not about whether Wikipedia can say that Mr Ainsworth was a ‘candidate member’ of the International Marxist Group (IMG). The traceable source of this claim is a Wikipedia editor who emphatically declares that he will remain pseudonymous, and who has declined to reply to separate questions from editor Philip Cross and from me, asking him to verify the information he placed on Wikipedia some years ago. 2. What is it about? It is about whether the brief statement above can be included in the entry. First, is it factually correct? Yes. Mr Ainsworth’s own spokesperson at the Ministry of Defence has said on the record that Mr Ainsworth attended ‘a couple of meetings’of the IMG. The references ( two from my ‘Mail on Sunday’ column, one from my blog, one from a ‘Daily Mail’ article by the historian Andrew Roberts which says Mr Ainsworth ‘flirted’ with the IMG) have been chosen because they do not refer to the so far unverified and possibly circular claim that Mr Ainsworth was a ‘candidate member’. The ‘Daily Mail’ (editorially separate from the ‘Mail on Sunday’) and the ‘Morning Star’ (even more editorially separate from the ‘Mail on Sunday’) have published stories making this statement . Let us assume that they have their own sources, apart from Wikipedia, for saying so. But they do not cite them. Until they do, this doesn’t seem to me to count for verification. 3.Is the inclusion of the information in Mr Ainsworth’s entry undue? Those who say that it is argue that it is a) trivial, b) a long time ago and c) not indicative of anything about Mr Ainsworth’s current politics. I ask them to apply the following simple test, which will recur in this argument. Would they say the same if we were discussing information (confirmed on the record and published in two newspapers of the Left) that a member of a Tory Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet had attended National Front meetings in the same period? If so, then they can continue to insist that the matter is undue. If not, not. We are urged by Wikpedia rules to adopt a ‘Neutral Point of View’. I personally think this impossible, as we are all inevitably influenced in our selection and appreciation of facts by our own opinions, sometimes consciously, sometimes not. But we can choose to make a deliberate effort to set this influence aside as far as we may. I think on this occasion those who have opposed the inclusion of the information are the ones who need to make this effort of generosity and open-mindedness. I also think some editors may, unconsciously, have allowed themselves to be influenced by the fact that the information appeared in newspapers they do not like under bylines they do not like, in a fashion they do not like. The mirror image of this would have happened had it concerned a senior Tory who had associated with the NF. It would not have made the information any less valid or worthy of inclusion. They need to show how the nature of the source is relevant. The proposed addition contains no expression of opinion on the significance of Mr Ainsworth’s contact with the IMG. Those who check the references will find the words of Mr Ainsworth’s spokesperson, belittling the significance of the contact, cited in full. They will also find the list of the questions submitted to Mr Ainsworth about the matter, to which he chose not to reply. Readers may choose (as several editors do) to believe it does not matter if Mr Ainsworth attended these meetings. However, Duncan’s comment (on the discussion page on 22nd July, 23.56) that “What I do know is that the reply of Ainsworth's people is accurate. You have to recall that at that time IMG meetings were normally for members only. The only basis on which one could sit in on a couple of meetings was to become a candidate” is helpful to those who wonder if it matters. It is not, repeat not, verification that Mr Ainsworth was a ‘candidate member’, but it seems to me (especially as it comes from an opponent of inclusion) to support the view that IMG meetings were not, like those of conventional political parties, open to all comers, and that attendance at them is considerably more significant than past attendance at Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat meetings. I should add that Mr Ainsworth was a mature adult at the time. The IMG was not a current within the Labour Party, as one contributor inaccurately assumes. It was a ‘Democratic Centralist’ disciplined organisation with its own rules, programme, leadership and structure, which from time to time encouraged its members to work within the Labour Party, and from time to time maintained a wholly separate existence. Readers may equally choose to believe that it matters a little, or a lot. That is what factual information allows us to do. Not displaying it at all, when it exists, involves a political judgment that editors of Wikipedia are entitled to decide on behalf of others what established facts might or might not be important to them. Mr Ainsworth is by profession a full-time politician. He is a Member of Parliament, whose vote can alter the fate of Bills, make and unmake the law of the land, send soldiers into battle, influence the spending (or non-spending) of billions of pounds. He has been an important mid-level member of the Blair and Brown governments for some years. He is currently a Cabinet member who can influence policy at a far higher level than most of us can dream of. He is a Privy Counsellor. He is Secretary of State for Defence, a responsible and contentious office. If he were a dentist, a road engineer or a space scientist, perhaps his political actions and associations in his late twenties or early thirties would be of no interest or significance. As it is, I think it would be very hard to maintain that they are of no interest at all. Nor can I see how the reference could be any briefer or plainer than I have made it above.

The question of reliability of sources has been raised. Here is what Wikipedia itself says about this : “Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made.” Opponents of inclusion on these grounds need to state clearly and precisely what makes the sources quoted, and their authors, unreliable. It is no good just saying you don’t like them.

The discussions, on the Ainsworth entry and in BLP/N, have attracted several different points of view. That is why I am placing this suggested text in both those places. They have been discussed elsewhere on the web, though not by me, with one Wikipedia editor suggesting that my interest in this is obsessive. I think a concern to ensure that accurate facts are displayed on one of the most important research resources in the world is quite reasonable, myself. If we are not allowed to take such things seriously without being called names, what kind of society do we live in? Neither side can claim overwhelming support, and some editors with borderline views may revise their position if they read my second reference to the subject. I submit that in any enterprise devoted to knowledge, the presumption must surely be in favour of the inclusion of any fact, rather than in favour of its exclusion. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You want to put “In the early 1980s Mr Ainsworth attended ‘a couple’ of meetings of the International Marxist Group, but has declined to elaborate on this." But your own blog ([4] - requires Internet Explorer) quotes Ainsworth's spokesperson as saying "Bob Ainsworth has never been a member of the International Marxist Group. In the early 80s he attended a couple of their meetings, at the request of a colleague, which reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say." Sounds pretty elaborated to me - and as something that's WP:UNDUE to include. Rd232 ^talk 09:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's something. I am delighted that RD232 appears to have abandoned the attempt to argue that there is no referenced verification for the information showing that Mr Ainsworth attended these meetings, in the face of the references provided above. I have answered the claim that inclusion is allegedly undue above, at some length. If RD232 has any response to that, in facts or logic, let him make it. Mr Ainsworth's spokesperson did indeed say what RD232 quotes her as saying, and I faithfully reproduced it, in full, as was only proper. As it happens, it is quite baffling to me ( and may be to others) how anyone could go to one, let alone two, meetings of a revolutionary Marxist organisation if he did not agree with anything they had to say. Why would he? These gatherings didn't come under the definition of fun. It is also startling that he did not agree with "anything" they had to say since the policies of the IMG were in many (though not all) cases close to (if not identical to) those of the Labour Party in 1983. Is there a spot of over-protesting going on here? The quotation used by RD232 is of course supplied by me in the Mail on Sunday. Further, the questions which I submitted to his office in response to this are the point at which he declined to elaborate. Even so, to show my willingness to compromise in the pursuit of truth, I would be willing to shorten the entry to say "in the early 1980s Mr Ainsworth attended 'a couple' of meetings of the International Marxist Group'. Those interested could then follow the references and form their own view of the significance of the information, and the significance of Mr Ainsworth's unwillingness to answer questions about it. I really am seeking consensus here. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget though that the truth may not always be verfiable. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. – ukexpat (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What a lot of hot air about a worthless little non event, seems a bit excessive to me, it looks like a case of mountain out of a mole hill. I say it is an irrelevant fact and adds absolutaly nothing to ainsworth's biography. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

He went to not only one, but two marxist meetings, he must be a marxist. sorry...they were revolutionary Marxist organisation meetings.that means he must be a revolutionary Marxist! Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the typical type of point pushing that makes it very hard to keep a political biography neutral. Editors in the political section seem unable to edit in a neutral way Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved to be utterly Eirenic, I respond as follows: to Ukexpat that the statement is both true and verifiable, that there is no longer any question about its verifiability and suggest he looks once more at the references provided. If he thinks it is not verifiable, then could he please explain why (referring to my posting above if possible, as it is nice when people respond to opposing arguments)? To off2riorob, nobody is saying that Wikipedia should make any statement along the lines of 'he must be a Marxist'. Some people will take Off2riorob's view, that the information is not interesting. Others will take the view that it is interesting. Some (me included) will take the view that it is very interesting indeed. That is what facts are for, to allow people to draw their own conclusions from them. It is simply not possible to say that it adds 'absolutely nothing' to Mr Ainsworth's biography. It plainly adds something. The question is what, and how important it is. The barest, briefest mention is proposed, not some vast history. Now, it is perfectly plain that your idea of its importance could be influenced by your political opinion. But Wikipedia does not cater for people of only one political opinion, and in the hypothetical Tory shadow cabinet case given above I have asked opponents of the inclusion if they can honesly say they'd take the same attitude in such a case. Well? Would they? I have also provided a strong rebuttal, above, to those who say the inclusion is undue. If off2riorob, or anyone else, disagrees with what I say, then can they explain why they do so, using facts and logic as I have done. Simply asserting, with sarcasm and a belittling tone, that I am wrong does not help. How can I possibly argue rationally with that? How can I possibly be persuaded by that? Could the users of such techniques be persuaded in this way? To off2riorob's final point, surely neutrality in political biographies (if attainable at all) does not consist of leaving out parts of politicians' biographies that are controversial. It consists of presenting the whole person in such a way that a reader may form an independent judgement based upon verifiable, true and complete information. I stress the word 'complete'. Supporters or sympathisers of politicians or political parties should certainly not be allowed to patrol their entries to keep inconvenient facts from slipping in. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re WP:UNDUE - do you honestly think the issue would make it into a newspaper obituary of Ainsworth? Rd232 ^talk 18:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Clockback, as we are all here to improve the article, I was wondering if you have got a free to use photo of him? Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In answer to RD232, all my thoughts are honest, and I really do wish you would get round to assuming good faith on my part, as it would make the necessary agreement so much easier to reach. Don't you realise the attitude implied in such formulations? No - then how would it sound to you if I rephrased my reply as "Do you seriously believe that any obituary would leave it out?". As to the question, I have no doubt at all that some, probably all obituaries of Mr Ainsworth would contain references to his political past, including this element of it. It would depend, of course, on the newspaper, how extensive and how prominent the mention would be. But as it's the most interesting thing anyone has ever found out about him, I would be amazed if it were missing. I have no idea why anyone who has read this discussion should imagine that I possess a picture of Mr Ainsworth. Perhaps Off2riorob is making a joke. If so, ha ha. Jolly funny. If not, so sorry. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The "honestly" adjective was merely intended to nudge you to think substantively about the question, nothing else. It's a common expression. Sorry if you inferred something else, but that's kind of what WP:AGF is for. I keep telling you I'm assuming good faith on your part about adding these points; I just disagree. Rd232 ^talk 08:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a joke. You claim to work for the daily mail, don't you? They have a lot of pictures of people, don.t they? You are an editor here at Wikipedia editing for the benefit of the encyclopedia, so what is so funny about me asking you a simple question?

Your mission here to insert this twaddle is getting a bit WP:POINTY. And there is no obituary that would say...he went to two marxist revelutionary meetings in the 70's.. they would say he came from humble a background and rose up to hold one of the highest positions in the goverment and he was a good man.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

May I once again ask for reasoned and non-abusive responses to my 'summing up' above? It is time we reached a sensible consensus. If we cannot do so, and this matter ends up in some higher dispute procedure (as seems increasingly likely) I can hardly see such behaviour helping the cause of those who resort to it. To Off2riorob, I am sorry to have misunderstood your post. I genuinely thought you must be joking. I must also ask people to stop using such expressions as "you claim to work for...". This is a basic and straightforward breach of the general Wikipedia plea to assume good faith, without which no progress can be made. Unlike many Wikipedia editors, I choose to identify myself, as I don't believe in anonymity on the web. I really don't see why my openness should be treated with suspicion, while anonymity is treated as in some way superior. I can't imagine why. Why do my opponents think it is all right repeatedly to cast doubt on my declared identity? (I work, as it happens, for the Mail on Sunday, which is editorially separate from the Daily Mail. But that does not give me any special freedom to use picture libraries). On the general question of obituaries, these are often compiled from private information which for various reasons has not been published during the subject's lifetime. Even assuming that this would not be the case with Mr Ainsworth, a comprehensive and properly researched obituary would certainly note that he "flirted with Marxism" as Andrew Roberts put it. The exact treatment which they would give to the known information and to Mr Ainsworth's explanation of it would presumably vary, according to the newspaper. I would personally prefer the Wikipedia entry to me more explanatory than the wording I am proposing. But I am, as I keep saying, trying to reach a consensus with opponents who argue stoutly that that the political history of a major politician is not important. It's a bit much to be chided for my own willingness to compromise. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I rebut completely the allegation that my attempt to insert this fact through consensus is "Pointy". If Off2riorob would care to tell me which of the listed offences I have allegedly committed, then I can at least defend myself in detail. But I would point out again that in several weeks of discussion I have yet to touch the entry, that I have followed dispute procedures, and I have continued to try to reach consensus through reasoned debate. I have given notice of my intention to insert the proposed wording on 9th August because I can see no other way of persuading my opponents to seek consensus instead of flatly telling me I am wrong, and ignoring my facts and logic. I do not want an edit war. I am quite happy to go to the next stage of arbitration instead, if any experienced person would care to tell me what that is. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

An ultimatum is not a way to reach WP:CONSENSUS. The next step in dispute resolution would be an WP:RFC. Rd232 ^talk 08:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"opponents who argue stoutly that that the political history of a major politician is not important." - mischaracterising your opponents is always helpful... your opponents are arguing that based on the available evidence this is not an important part of this person's bio - not important enough to include in his encyclopedia entry. I mean for all we know he was dragged to 2 meetings by a friend and sat in a corner reading the newspaper. There is just no evidence of significance - only evidence of insignificance (see full quote from spokesperson above). (BTW, it's irrelevant how major or minor a politician he is.) Rd232 ^talk 08:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My opponents just won't debate the substantive facts and logic ( and no wonder, since they are against them) , now relying purely on their own subjective insistence that it doesn't matter that a Defence Secretary once attended the meetings of a Marxist revolutionary organisation. Mr Ainsworth is a major politician. This argument concerns the inclusion - or non-inclusion - of information about his political history. My opponents say this should not be included. I cannot see what 'mischaracterising' is involved here. On the contrary, I think it an entirely accurate description of my opponents' attitude. Speculation on Mr Ainsworth's behaviour at these meetings, and his attitude towards them is limited by our lack of knowledge of what took place. I could speculate in the opposite direction, but such factless musing would be as valueless as Rd232's speculation is in this debate. The principal source for such information declines to discuss it. The quote from the spokesperson cannot be considered in isolation from the supplementary questions which the spokesperson refused to answer. Nor is it irrelevant that Mr Ainsworth is a Cabinet Minister. He wouldn't even be in Wikipedia if he were a Parish Councillor. The whole reason for the entry is his importance in national life. The greater the importance, the greater the need for full knowledge. And I notice that none of my opponents is prepared to deal with the Tory Frontbencher-National Front hypothetical parallel which I repeatedly raise. Would they treat that hypothetical frontbencher's spokesperson with the the generous respect they give to Mr Ainsworth's, if that spokesperson explained his attendance in such a fashion and if the Tory himself refused to answer valid supplementary questions? Would they say it was too long ago, too unimportant, that he might have been "dragged" there (twice, forsooth. How did the alleged dragger make him do that?) or read a newspaper while present, unaware of the passion raging all round him? If so, let us hear them say it, and let us be sure to hold them to it if and when such a thing happens. If not, then let them accept that their reluctance here is motivated by political partisanship, not a desire for editorial purity. They have lost this argument, on facts, verification, importance and everything else, they refuse to assume good faith on my part, rudely cast doubt on my veracity while accusing me of all kinds of Wikipedian crimes, but remain unwilling to offer any compromise. In that case, let's go to Dispute Resolution, as soon as possible. How is it done, anyone? I'll postpone my addition until it's complete. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now referred this for comment and postponed my planned addition of the information until there has been further time for dispute resolution. Alas, new contributors and editors have yet to notice. What ( as another contributor to this section asks ) does one have to do to get the alleged Wikipedia community to pay attention? An edit war? I really do not wish to get involved in such a thing. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

New contributors are unlikely to be attracted to the current restriction placed on the RFC of reading all prior discussion. Without an agreed summary, this is now an eyewateringly mammoth task.—Ash (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Chip Pickering

Resolved

 – Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Dr. Watson was a single purpose account that existed solely to insert inflammatory BLP violations into Chip Pickering. The user uploaded file:Chickpickering.jpg (and a duplicate named file:nonvet.jpg) with the claim that these were from Pickering's congressional website. Note the name of the image is Chickpickering rather than Chippickering. In both the image descriptions, there were clear BLP violations. The file nonvet.jpg (now deleted as a duplicate) was added to the article with the caption of The above photo previously appeared on Mr. Pickering's official Congressional website. It was removed from Congressman Pickering's website in 2003 after critics charged the photo was intentionally deceptive. This is because Mr. Pickering is not a military pilot and has never served in any capacity in any U.S. military force. (Other images inserted into the article by the same user included this picture of flying monkeys.)

The nonvet.jpg image with the BLP violating caption appears to have been added and removed several times since then. It was tagged with a {{fact}} tag in May 2008. A few days ago, User:Collard removed the image with the edit summary "rm picture with randomly libellous caption". User:Allstarecho restored both image and caption. I reverted, since the caption is a clear BLP violation and the origin of the image is questionable. Following another cycle of reverts, we end up with the chickpickering.jpg image being in the article with a caption of "This photo previously appeared on Pickering's official Congressional website".

Here is my concern: we have an insultingly named image, uploaded by a POV-pushing and BLP violating SPA, inserted into an article where it seems to serve no illustrative purpose. As Allstarecho states, free public domain photos don't have to have a point, but I have my doubts about both the origin of the image and its purpose in the article. Any opinions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the image be deleted as a copyvio. It is up to the uploader to provide sufficient evidence of the alleged license. This has not been provided since no trusted editor has verified it was available at the alleged website under the license provided and it's not possible to verify that now. Furthermore, the person making the claim doesn't even appear to understand copyright issues since he/she says 'it was on a .gov website' ignoring the fact that this is hardly sufficient evidence in itself since it doesn't guarantee the images are the work of the US federal government Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I found the image here [5]. This would likely be sufficient to allay copyright concerns if it can be clearly established all images there are in the public domain. I can't see a clear copyright statement anywhere. Perhaps other people will be more familiar with these issues, I would presume the more general issue of whether an image at house.gov can be presume to be in the public domain without clear information to the contrary Nil Einne (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I agree the image doesn't belong and have commented as such at the talk page. If the other editor persists, it may be wise to upload some other image, perhaps that will be enough to convince him/her to stop. As I mentioned there I'm not going to do it, since I'm not convinced of the copyright status of any of the images and I've frankly wasted enough time on this already. Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There is already an image of Pickering in the article, so lack of images is not the problem. Thanks for your efforts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The image in question appears to have been deleted. I'll mark this as resolved. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael_O'Malley

• Michael_O'Malley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A prominent person my my industry came to me about the lack of wiki page on myself, and offered to put it together. I agreed, edited it, and posted it. If this is not acceptable can you please let me know the right way to go about it. //

"Michael O'Malley"

Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman has been accused on various internet websites (no print sources so far), of having advocated for a housing bubble in 2002, hence causing the current financial crisis. Relevant portion of the article below:

In August 2002, Krugman argued that because of Alan Greenspan and the Bush administration's economic policies, the economy would not recover quickly, and wrote that, "To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of PIMCO put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." Also in August 2002, he further noted that, "If we do have a housing bubble, and it bursts, we'll be looking a lot too Japanese for comfort" (referring to the Japanese 'lost decade' of slow growth in the 1990s). When accused in 2009 of having advocated for a housing bubble, Krugman stated that his earlier statement was economic analysis and not policy advocacy.

The author of these articles for the Mises Institute ([6], [7]) argues that they should summarized and included in that paragraph. The articles essentially argue that although he said he didn't, Krugman really did advocate for a housing crisis in 2002, contributing to the current financial crisis. I oppose their inclusion, as I think inclusion would violate WP:UNDUE, WP:RS and WP:BLP. What do the people here think about this? Thanks --LK (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on-going at Talk:Paul Krugman#Use of Mises website articles in BLPs. Thanks, LK (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi,

I am the author LK mentions.

Regarding "hence causing the current financial crisis", my articles do not claim that. In fact the first article explicitly states that it is not claiming that.

As I wrote in the talk page, my second article[8] includes a detailed exegesis of Krugman's quote. It is highly relevant to a matter that has been intensely discussed regarding Paul Krugman. The quotes are a two-sided issue: "did he call for a bubble or not?" The quotes alone are not an argument in themselves. The article now presents the issue (the quotes) and one side's argument regarding the issue (Krugman's own explanation). In all fairness it ought to include the other side's argument as well. My article is currently the most complete statement of that side. By not including it, the Paul Krugman article is currently very unbalanced on the issue. I ardently hope this matter of balance is given due regard.

--Lilburne2 (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

While a BLP issue, I wonder if WP:RS/N might be a better place for this. I'm not convinced the Mises Institute articles are reliable sources. In any case, I have a question for Lilburne. Since according to you this matter has been intensely discussed regarding Paul Krugman. Can you show us some clearly reliable secondary sources demonstrating this? In other words, sources that are not blogs, and not from the Mises website. Since this has been extensively discussed, this should be trivial Nil Einne (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I have posted at WP:RS/N#Use of Mises.org articles in BLPs for an opinion about the use of Mises.org articles in BLPs, so that we can establish a guideline on this issue. Thanks, LK (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Those "articles" look and sound like blog posts. They do not merit inclusion on what is already an over-discussed non-issue, and the attempt of their author to promote may not actually be spam but is certainly graceless and tacky. (Non-issue because only a non-economist could think that what Krugman wrote could possibly be a policy prescription). Rd232 ^talk 10:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Niel Einne,

Thank you for your response. Unless Wikipedia has gone completely establishment, I don't know why the blogosphere would be omitted when considering whether an issue has been "intensely discussed". When Stephen Colbert's roast of Bush was blacked out in the mainstream media but lit up the blogosphere, would you have said that was not intensely discussed? With that in mind, besides hundreds of blog posts, the matter has been discussed by, among many others, such prominent public intellectuals and journalists as Arnold Kling (a prominent economist), Megan McArdle, Matthew Yglesias, Brian Doherty and Paul Krugman himself. If it wasn't being discussed widely, why would Krugman feel the need to respond on the New York Times web site?

Rd232,

Thank you for your response, brusque, summary, and dismissive as it was. My articles are not blog posts; although in them I write with humor and aggression, I carefully analyze the text of Krugman's words and come to rational conclusions, backed up with fully expressed arguments, including integrating a highly relevant passage from the General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money by John Maynard Keynes. Since you are insulting me by calling my actions graceless and tacky, I invite you to explain how I am being so, instead of merely asserting it. (To others: I am new here; are brusque insults a matter of course on Wikipedia Talk Pages?) And it is a matter of fact that several PhD-holding economists do think what Krugman wrote was a policy prescription. --Lilburne2 (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Since the source is an Op-ed piece (written under a pseudonym) on a website and this is a BLP that there are multiple reasons why it should not be used. See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Statements_of_opinion:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.

There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source).

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The Four Deuces,

My articles are not self-published. And Mises Institute articles are not billed as op-ed articles. They include, among other things, whole chapters of economics treatises. So the form cannot be construed as "op-ed". Neither can the content be construed so, since my textual analysis was not a mere expression of opinion; it was an exegesis, which argued from the words of a text toward a rational conclusion, just as any exegesis of Adam Smith's writings which tried to discover through textual analysis what he meant when he wrote something would.

Regarding my pen name, Lilburne is my name in regards to my writing career. I have written four articles under that name, and I will continue to write under that name. The only "identity" that is relevant to my writing is my other writing, and perhaps my profession, which I disclose in my author bio. I don't see why any more information would be needed, when other authors who use the name that also happens to be on their driver's license aren't required to disclose personal information. Does Wikipedia have a policy against pen names? Would Cato's Letters or Mark Twain not have been cited by Wikipedia? --Lilburne2 (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Mises Institute violates WP:RS, particularly with regard for use in a BLP. Scribner (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Your article presents an opinion that Krugman called for a housing bubble. I have no way of knowing if this opinion is true, but let us assume it is. Someone else may have taken the same sources and arrived at a different conclusion and published them at another think tank. How could WP determine which analysis was correct?

Ideally the opinions you expressed should be presented in an academic peer-reviewed journal. Then others could either affirm or rebut the analysis and we could report both as the opinions of the writers. If you want this exegesis included you must first publish it in such a journal.

We also must be especially cautious when discussing a living person. The standards set here are much higher than what is acceptable in the U.S.

BTW I know the article is not self-published, but its source is a website so the same rule applies. (Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person...) Also, Cato and Mark Twain would not be reliable sources either even if they were not pen names.

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

TFD,

Regarding "How could WP determine which analysis was correct?" With a contentious issue, it is WP's job to report the main arguments of both sides of the issue; it is not to determine which side's analysis is correct.

Do you seriously think the question of what Krugman meant when he wrote something is appropriately discussed in a peer-reviewed academic journal? That claim is so outlandish, that it really seems like you're bending over backward to find reasons to silence something you don't want heard. I would really like to assume good faith regarding you, LK, and Scribner, but the wall of obtuseness I keep running into here makes it really difficult to do that. --Lilburne2 (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your first paragraph, your entry to the article was presented as a fact, not as one side of an issue. However there is only one side because the analysis has not entered mainstream academic literature. That is one of the many reasons it should not be included. Incidentally this type of discussion comes up all the time. If you look at the Evolution and Global Warming articles there are numerous attempts to insert studies that are not peer-reviewed.

If you think that the discussion in a peer-reviewed academic journal of what Krugman meant when he wrote something is inappropriate and outlandish, then that argues against inclusion in the Krugman article. No one is trying to silence you. The issue is whether or not your article meets the criteria of Wikipedia policy.

The Four Deuces (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

@ Scribner,

Again, I must ask, are unbacked, bald assertions a matter of course in Wikipedia Talk Pages? --Lilburne2 (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What you're being told yet refuse to hear is that Op-Eds and political leaning think tanks aren't considered a reliable source in biographies of living persons. Scribner (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi Scribner,

I have quite evidently "heard" the "Op-Ed" argument; had I not, then how do you explain my responding to it directly in my above explanation that the piece is not an Op-Ed piece? As for refusing to hear something about "political leaning think tanks", your mention of that particular objection is the first one made in this discussion, so how could I have heard something that wasn't said?

Moreover, the policy which The Four Deuces cited says nothing about "political leaning think tanks" regarding biographies of living persons, which is in keeping with the fact that the Center for American Progress is cited in an article on George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_George_W._Bush#cite_note-7). --Lilburne2 (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Perfect example. If there was only that one cite and you felt the information was false or biased then it should be removed from the article. Scribner (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

I don't think the information provided by the Center for American Progress is false or biased. So I don't think it should be excluded simply because the CAP is a heavily-left-leaning think tank. If you exclude every source that commits the crime of actually believing in something, you play right into the hands of the faux-impartial establishment, and make Wikipedia no better than establishment media. I cannot tell you how disappointed I am in what all this implies regarding what Wikipedia has come to. Wasn't the whole idea supposed to be that more information is better than less, and that the proper remedy against "harmful" ideas is not the stifling of their expression but rather a free-flowing exchange? Please, do the right thing, and don't let your economic and political opinions cloud your judgment on this matter.

--Lilburne2 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that CAP is deemed a reliable source for the Bush article, then Mises Institute is obviously a reliable source for the Krugman article. By the way, Rd232 stated that "Non-issue because only a non-economist could think that what Krugman wrote could possibly be a policy prescription". He shows himself to be an ignoramus because of Krugman's following statements ""A new bubble now would help us out a lot even if we paid for it later. This is a really good time for a bubble. There was a headline in a satirical newspaper in the US last summer that said: 'The nation demands a new bubble to invest in' and that’s pretty much right." (2009) and "Economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer." (2002) Perhaps Rs232 should read Lilburne's articles and then he wouldn't make himself look so silly. EconExpert (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

EconExpert compares low interest rate policy (in a recession) with intentionally creating a bubble. And he accuses me of looking silly because he has a video (which won't load for me) of Krugman apparently calling for a bubble (which as any ful economist no by definition leaves you ultimately off worse unless you've got some fairly heterodox increasing returns going on). Rd232 ^talk 05:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(kinda off-topic) RD232, what you say is true assuming full employment. However, a small bubble that pops at the right time, can be welfare improving if it increases Aggregate Demand during a deep recession, and if government policy has not been sufficiently stimulative. LK (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

CAP is not deemed a reliable source for the Bush article. Remove the material if you think it's false or biased. It does have another cite you'll want to check out before tagging or removing. Scribner (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(off-topic) Rd232, please consult: http://mises.org/story/3530. Krugman makes it very clear that "the only way the Fed could get traction would be if it could inflate a housing bubble." So either 1) He did not support inducing a housing bubble, and wanted the Fed to not fight the recession. or 2) He did support inducing a housing bubble. Anyone even somewhat familiar with Krugman's attitude toward Fed activism should know that proposition #1, that Krugman supported a do-nothing policy, is preposterous. Also, it seems to be that most of your comments erroneously assume a homogenous capital structure, and thus do not take into account the need for the structure of production to adapt. You state "EconExpert compares low interest rate policy (in a recession) with intentionally creating a bubble" which is false - the conclusion that Krugman wanted to create a housing bubble is buttressed by many other quotes and deductive logic, as aforementioned. EconExpert (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding CAP, I think Lilburne2 and me agree that CAP should be a okay source, as long as the text is clarified with, "According to the Center for American Progress". If this is not current standard, that's too bad. I think Wikipedia is worse off for it. EconExpert (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

EconExpert, that is beside the point. There are many poorly sourced or unsourced statements in these articles which anyone can challenge. The CAP cite would not hold up. However the statement it supports is uncontroversial, which is no doubt why it has not been challenged. Note also that there are two sources given. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The blogosphere is indeed mostly omitted when deciding if something has been widely discussed. So far, I see little evidence this issue has been widely discussed since it seems like if this issue was widely discussed, some media organisation would have picked it up. The media are quite good at picking up things that are widely discussed even if it's only after it hits the blogs. It's obviously received some discussion, but that's quite different from being discussed widely Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul

The second paragraph on Congressman Ron Paul's page contains vandalism. It does not appear in the edit this page tab, so I assume the site has been hacked.

It's not there now, and the reason is probably that it was removed by someone else inbetween you seeing the page and seeing the wikitext. Rd232 ^talk 04:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • It has been removed, but I went back and forth between the page and the wikitext several times within a ten minute or so period and found it displayed, but uneditable. So, I assume there was something more to it than awkward timing...

Jeremih

For a few weeks now, despite semi-protection, IP users and new users have continuously added a birth date to the article Jeremih with no sources or sources that don't back up the claim. Due to varying dates (July 6, 1987, July 16, 1987, July 17, 1987, July 17, 1988, etc.), I've kept the birth date off the article until it can be verified. I would appreciate some extra eyes over the article until a source comes up. — Σxplicit 07:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Lazarus

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

I am concerned about the sourcing of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.187.136 (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment refacted to remove BLP vio and format. Martin451 (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

David Rohl

The subject of this article is "absolutely livid about the bias of this page.". Although he has his own account, he was edit warring on the article last night and I reported him for 3RR (not at that point realising who he was as he was using an IP address) and he was blocked. He's posted on the talk page both from his IP address before he was blocked and from his own account since. I want the article to follow our NPOV and BLP policies as much as anyone, and to use good academic references (including probably better ones than the ones I found last night). Meanwhile we have a very angry editor now using his accout while his IP address is blocked, asking for his article to be deleted, etc. I don't know what to do myself right now because of the attacks he's been making (a shame because I would have been happy to help him), so I'm hoping someone can help him with his BLP concerns. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

On his talk page, (User talk:David Rohl) he is claiming he had immunity from 3RR so should not have been blocked (the edit war was about his books/ideas). Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that claim on his talk page. Am I looking at the correct page? Please link, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC) nm, sorry KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hank Skinner

This one needs some serious attention - it's full of unsupported statements and reads as though it were written by somebody intimately involved in the case. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've taken my machete to this mess, whacked out all the soapboxing, all the arguments about the evidence, accusations against third parties and such, and created what I hope is a short, plain, summary of the case. There's stronger evidence for notability now (national press using the case as an example of the failure of the justice system in Texas). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Natalise

The article on Natalise seems to be "policed" by a very particular set of users concerned with her birth year, despite strong evidence and arguments provided in the article's discussion page pointing to a different year. It probably doesn't help that the subject of the article has had very little new information about her in recent years, but that which is on the discussion page seems more valid to me than anything else I've been able to find about her. If there exists a better way to either reach a compromise or weigh the validity of sources, it would be very much appreciated to see. 98.210.151.12 (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Park (author)

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Shaky entry--Neither the author nor the publications register on Google, Amazon, or AddAll, and the references are flimsy, if not spurious. If it's determined that this fails notability, and may be a hoax, then there are a lot of peripheral edits in which the subject has been added to numerous articles as a 'notable' that will need to be addressed as well. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been speedily deleted as a hoax. – ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Arrest of Henry Louis Gates

I realize that the question of appropriate mug shot use is still being debated at Talk:BLP, but in this case a reasonable compromise was reached on the article talk page Talk:Arrest_of_Henry_Louis_Gates#Mug_shot to move the mug shot out of the infobox and replace it with a neutral pair of photos of the two participants. One editor keeps reverting this change [9], [10], [11] claiming there is no consensus, even though he is the only one objecting to the change at this point.--agr (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note. As the one seeking to add a potentially damaging image, about which there is controversy - and indeed, using a mug shot when the charges were dropped is arguably an attack article move right there - he must gain full support before even attempting that change. He does not have it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow this argument. Mug shots generally follow arrests, add little or no derogatory information (unless the subject is in disarray, a la Nick Nolte), and serve to underscore the unnecessary humiliation involved when an inappropriate arrest is made.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue here was whether the mugshot should be the lead photo in the article's info box. Five out of six editors in the discussion agreed it should not. Under the change which kept being reverted, the mugshot was not removed from the article, but was moved to a place later in the body.--agr (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

I agree with that -- the post I replied to seems to be discussing whether the mug shots should be used at all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My error, I phrased that poorly. I did indeed mean adding the image to the lead. I apologize for any confusion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

After helping others to protect the article from those who went about adding all sorts of defamatory content (mostly of a racial nature), you can imagine how bowled over I was at being accused of adding it myself - especially since the "defamatory content" I was being accused of adding was the info that was pre-existing in the article!

As the person "warned", I'd like to point out that AGR filing this complaint pointed to a BLP discussion wherein the appropriateness of mugshot photos should be allowed in main BLP articles (this instance is in a sub-article specifically addressing the arrest). The user agr assumes that all mugshots were tendentious - a view that has little in the way of support within policy. Indeed, agr spent a great deal of time edit-warring the image substitution in, prompting a gentle nudge(1) by myself to slow down and build a clear consensus after this second revert in as many minutes.

Frankly, I do not think mugshots are inherently demeaning or NPOV, but that's an issue to be sussed out here, not by self-righteous behavior gussied up as good editing with a "consensus" built in the dead of night. Either way, all I was asking for was for agr to build a consensus - which he rather clearly didn't bother to seek as he was reverting over and over again. I even suggested he do a quick spot vote in the form of a poll which, after I signed out, he had not acted upon, and in fact called "unnecessary." A quick look at the article discussion page clearly indicates that substantial and reasoned discussion is ongoing in the article abut this so-called consensus.

Lastly, this also appears to be the third time that Killer Chihuahua has accused me of overwhelming wrongdoing. I would think that, after twice before jumping the gun and assuming the very worst of me. he might be mature enough to realize that he really needs to think before acting. I also think that - in light of these failed assessments of my behavior - it would be advisable that he abstain from seeking to judge me. He's shown he's not very good at it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

At the time I brought this matter to the attention of this notice board, Arcayne had just reverted the move of the mugshot from the info box to the body of the article for the third time ([12], [13], [14]). I came here rather than continuing a revert war. All the other editors on the talk page discussion at that point had agreed to the change. The discussion there has since continued on whether the mugshot should be used at all. So far no one has argued it belongs in the info box. Instead of addressing his info box reverts, Arcayne has attacked me repeatedly as is evidenced above. --agr (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I imagined you would characterize your having misrepresented the situation sufficiently enough to warrant a wee bit of disdain. Arnold. What I said repeatedly - which you can see in the edit summaries of each of those links you supplied - that you should find a consensus before insisting on jamming your personal beliefs down the throats of the rest of the community. And then, rather than continue to discuss the matter or poll the members (which you dismissed as "unnecessary"), you continued to edit war into your very own third revert. They aren;t personal attacks ; I am addressing your unfortunate behavior. If you don't like your behavior being addressed, adjust the behavior. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that there is no way the mugshot/booking photo should be in the infobox. The article is specifically about the arrest but the man is innocent of any crime so he deserves a lot of protection. As it is now it looks not too bad. There is no way that mugshot should be in the infobox, in fact if he is innocent of any charges then the mugshot shouldn't be in the article at all as the guy should not even have been arrested at all. He seems to be a decent man and has had his own page as an intelectual for 4 years, we should give this living person all the protection we can. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)) Also the title of the article is wrong.. At least it should be.. the wrongful arrest of H L Gates. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

See, I don't mind you having that opinion, Off2riorob, so long as you seek a consensus for that opinion in the article discussion. As for myself, we cannot protect the man from himself - and we should not twist the BLP to do such. If someone is stupid enough to mouth off to the police and get arrested, we aren;t going to hide that fact. Mug shots are a matter of public record, are well cited and are neutral to use in sub articles. As this is not the main article for Gates - in fact the bleeding article is called "Arrest of Henry Louis Gates" - I cannot imagine a more appropriate place for the image. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, you argued that we should not place a picture of Ian McDiarmid on the main page alongside the Palpatine FA because people might mistakenly think that Ian MacDiarmid was, in fact, the leader of the Galactic Empire. I personally found your arguments to be absurdly hysterical, but how is this situation any different? Placing a mugshot may give the impression that the individual is, in fact, a criminal - however the charges have been dropped. –xeno^talk 00:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Zeno, I totally agree with you. The charges have been dropped and we should drop the wrongful booking shot. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Just a comment. People are arrested all the time and then charges are dropped or they are proven innocence or whatever. That doesn't mean it was a wrongful arrest. I believe that you have to prove it was a wrongful arrest in a civil court, ect., otherwise it's just an arrest, nothing more nothing less. Anyways, carry on. --Tom (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I saw the article at first glance and my first impression was, why two images of a distinguished proffesor in handcuff, who are we trying to kid around, two images of him handcuff! Yes, lets make it clear where the black man belong, dont you dare open you mouth to a police or to an administrador or even a steward in Wikipedia, the control is 1984....I know Im incoherent, but two images are too much, Wikipedia is a place of knowledge not TMZ.com, hey did they post more picture about Michael and his drugs??? --J.Mundo (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, JMundo; you're being incoherent (lol). First of all, I certainly hope that wasn;t some sort of accusation of racism, 'coz that dog won't hunt, not when I'd spent the better part of the week keeping racist trash out of the article.

Zeno - and everyone else for that matter - please listen carefully: I don't give a sodding rat's ass if the image is in the article or not. observations of policy and guidelines aside (which most seem content to conveniently be forgetting), I want folk to observe the idea of BRD and build a consensus based on policy, not some politically correct, white apologist guilt of "it feels mean". I've tried to express this before, and the best argument I am getting is that I'm sort of racist ceep for wanting the image - and major changes in general - to be discussed. Are you at all surprised that I am a wee bit miffed at the situation? Discussion doesn't mean edit-war your preferred version in get reverted, edit it back in, leave a comment about how you are putting it back in. Rinse, repeat about three times. Do we really want an encyclopedia built on some the efforts of some hack with more endurance? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

White or black, having a mugshot of a person in an article about an arrest where THE CHARGES WERE DROPPED seems very problematic to be from a BLP perspective. We should err on the side of caution in such circumstances, and the fact that the article is now protected after a <removal/reinsertion/removal/reinsertion> sequence is quite disturbing. UnitAnode 15:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who requested page protection. I had been discussing how at least half of the discussion was being cluttered by folk who seemed to have forgotten all about BRD and were edit-warring over some ill-advised edits. The protection is intended to settle folk down and force them to actually talk themselves to a consensus - something they clearly weren't doing before. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne has repeatedly accused me and others, in a most uncivil way, of edit-warring and somehow violating BRD. To begin with BRD is not always applicable in a BLP situation. WP:BLP says "Article improvement to a neutral high quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved." Second, I have made exactly one edit to the article in question -- ever -- as the logs will show. How this can be construed as edit-warring is beyond me. If I were the only one affected, i'd keep my peace. The removal of the mugshot from the info box that I sought and that Arcayne reverted three times seems to be sticking. But I see that other editors are being driven from this discussion by the repeated mischaracterization and incivility being shown and that is not acceptable. I must insist the incivility stop.--agr (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• FYI for the other admins here; Arcayne has announced his intention to disregard my warning, claiming the warning was "bogus" and implying that it was personal.[15] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment as to the FYI - I am absolutely dismissing KC's biased little grudge match, as it was based on yet another instance of KC not doing his homework before accusing me of being the Big Bad Wolf - something he's done not once but twice before. His accusation is based on a fallacy - I didn't add derogatory material to that - or any - article. This continued assumption of bad faith on his part is indeed tedious, and I have informed him that any subsequent instances will have repercussions for him. I don't care if he ius useful - so am I, and I am tired of having him assume the worst and using the admin buttons to threaten me or to besmirch my editing stance. Of course, I am not now, nor have I ever, added any negative material to any BLP, and I am not about to begin now. I have asked KC to abstain from decisions where he might wish to evaluate my editors or intentions, as he is so profoundly and provably inaccurate at doing so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed, I have warned you several times. You heeded the warnings, if I recall correctly, or at least I did not see you continue the problematic behavior, or I would have blocked you. Same here; you cannot invent a hostility I do not feel, and somehow pretend that makes your behavior inviolate or the warning moot. I have warned many people, and some of them multiple times. I have no personal axe to grind at all; merely doing my job. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Clarification: your warnings were all proven inaccurate and based either upon sloppy research on your part or a simple presentiment of inaccurately assuming the worst. I did not "continue the problematic behavior" because there had never been any problematic behavior to begin with. Ergo, that which never started is not something whioch cold be resumed. You can keep stating that you do not have animosity, but each time someone suggest si am doing something wrong, you always seem quick with the warnings. And not once have you apologized for jumping the gun when you were proven wrong - not just by myself, but by others. There are a great many admins in the wiki-en; maybe let them deal with me. You have proven unable (or unwilling) to accurately gauge the actual facts of the matter. I am asking you to abstain, as there will be repercussions if you cannot control yourself. Now, you might comment, as I know you like that last word and all, but until you step over the line, these are mine: you are not neutral in regards to me; please stay away and trust that some other admin is smart enough to evaluate situations where I am involved. Thanks in advance. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Utter nonsense. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, it is, but all of it unfortunately true. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  this is the wrong venue for this. I have taken it to Arcayne's talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  Good, though I think most folk had figured that out, what with the moving on of this thread regarding the substance of the issue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am suggesting we pass or final comments here as to whether to keep the mugshot in the article or remove it. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Sure. Sorry about the KC nonsense. Anyway, we use mugshots in many articles, including at least one FA. Mugshots are not inherently "demeaning or derogatory" - they are a method that the police identify a person placed under arrest. They are a matter of public record, are usually free-use, and help to illustrate text discussing the arrest. No one is contending that the arrest did not occur, nor that the person depicted in the free use image is anyone but Gates

In the sub article, "Arrest of Henry Louis Gates" - note that it is not the main article for the BLP, but a sub-page specifically discussing the arrest and aftermath - there is also an image of Gates in cuffs on his porch, an image which I am somewhat sure will not survive an AfD, as its fair use rationale is pretty wonky. Free image versus fair use image - no-brainer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the KC nonsense - I trust that you will apologise to her properly on her talk page, Arcayne. I would also suggest that you strike those portions of your comments here.

When I get at least three apologies from her for prior bad acts, I will consider allowing bygones to be bygones, Guettarda. Not before then. That KC issued a bogus threat to block was part of an ongoing pattern of bad faith. I consider it nonsense, and as provocative as attempting to poison the well here by stating that I intended to add "derogatory" info again. That's the last I am going to speak of my issues with her here since, as KC pointed out, this is the wrong venue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the use of the mug shot in inappropriate, since it creates the perception that Gates is a criminal or otherwise deserving of arrest. Whether the arrest was appropriate or not is a matter of dispute. NPOV does not permit us to endorse one side over the other. Of course, our BLP policy requires that we avoid further damaging Gates' reputation, but the using the mugshot wouldn't be appropriate even if this weren't a BLP, since it fails NPOV. Guettarda (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am unclear how it fails NPOV, Guettarda. We aren't endorsing one view or another. We using an image this is both free, indisputably of the subject of the article, in a sub-article that speaks to the specifics of the arrest and aftermath; therefore it is not only appropriate, but more connected to the subject matter than any other image save for the nonfree image of the beer summit. Wikipedia is full of mugshot images, most notably in Rosa Parks, As we are using a free image to note and highlight an event, I am not sure how that is a violation of NPOV. You will also recall that Wikipedia is not censored. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, I wondered how long it would take before someone would pull out the "not censored" card, though WP:NOTCENSORED is not applicable to BLP issues, where WP is clearly (in some ways) "censored". UnitAnode 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is being discussed in too many different places. (Here, the talk page of the article, and WT:BLP and probably numerous user talk pages). I'd suggest settling on a common location. Incidentally, I still haven't been presented with an argument as to why the mugshot is more relevant (or relevant at all, really) than the FU image of him being led out of his house which does not present a one-sided view like the mugshot. –xeno^talk 20:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that had been explained before. The article is is about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates (the fellow in the booking photo). the arrest is discussed somewhat in depth within the article, which is substantiated by the image. The booking image is a free image, whereas the image of Gates in handcuffs on his porch is not a free image and, if anything, displays Gates in a far more negative light than the booking photo. As that image and the beer summit photo kludged image (which seems to be facing deletion at Commons as per WP:OI) are not free, their use and availability are both limited. As many would not be able to even imagine the eminent professor being arrested in the first place, the booking photo establishes visially the fact of the arrest and that it indeed went as far as being processed at the Cambridge Police Department. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

I believe you are missing the word "not" between "would" and "be able to even imagine" ? –xeno^talk 21:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was. Thanks for pointing it out to me, Xeno. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to me like there's a consensus to not put the mugshot in the infobox itself. While it makes sense to keep the mugshot in the article, the desire to make it less prominent is understandable. Frankly, I'd be more inclined to agree with Arcayne if he could manage a bit more civility and a bit less hyperbole. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This was brought up on the BLP policy talk page as well. Started with this section and continuing with the section that follows. Discussion there was more about the appropriateness of the image in general, not just about an infobox. Consensus seems to be not to use mug shots in BLPs unless the subject is currently incarcerated, which is proposed to be added into policy. Otherwise, such images are appropriate in articles about the arrest or about the crimes wherein the arrest is discussed. Combining the points of these two discussions, I believe that much like mug shots should not be used in BLPs of subjects not currently incarcerated for their alleged crime(s), the mug shots should not be used in the infoboxes of crime/arrest articles when the subject is not currently incarcerated for their alleged crime(s). Lara 19:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, that would appear to be your personal opinion; the community that has spoken on this issue still appears to be rather sharply divided on the issue. In short, you appear to be misrepresenting consensus here. Booking photos are free images - right out of the gate, that's a big plus, since most images are not. Next, the booking photo image is not int he main article for the article for Gates; it's in an article specifically discussing the arrest and fallout from it. Just as the Rosa Parks' article uses the arrest materials to indicate an injustice given form so do, I would argue, the images of a Harvard professor and documentarian under arrest for (allegedly) mouthing off to a cop. You say it's demeaning - that's your opinion. We have dozens of articles of folk who are not/were not incarcerated at the time their booking photo was used. Like the song goes, "everyone here is equally kind"; Wikipedia is not censored, and make no mistake - removing the booking photo would be censorship. No one in their right mind would contest that Gates was arrested. So long as the article describes all events equally, the image of the arrested Gates serves both sides of the argument: he was arrested, and that arrest was unjust. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Gates article, the mug shot is now out of the main info box, and shown in a section describing the arrest events. I think that is the appropriate treatment. (This is far from a typical arrest situation. What this arrest means; whether the arrest should have been made at all; these are topics of vigorous controversy out there. Showing the mug shot helps illustrate the controversy.) Pechmerle (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Schiff

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

IP(s) keep adding Jewish-American to lead sentence against MOSBIO. Any help appreciated, maybe protect? TIA --Tom (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

IP's have been warned and reported to WP:SPI. Will continue to monitor article. -shirulashem^(talk) 18:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have extended WAY too much assume good faith at this point :) Cheers, --Tom (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 3 days.--agr (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The IP said on my talk page that he had 1,000s of IPs and software and other cool stuff that would make him victorious in his efforts to keep warring. Oh well, hopefully all will be quiet on the western front for a few days :) YIPPPIE! :) --Tom (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – -shirulashem^(talk) 16:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we protect again? Our Russian friend has returned. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've semi protected for 6 months, based on the threat made at User talk:Threeafterthree. --agr (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Jan Slota

Hello All. I removed a few images that linked Slota to a Neo-Nazi organization. Although he does tend to put his foot in his mouth and is not the best loved of Slovak politicians, he should not be linked to Nazism unless there is direct proof of his involvement with such a group. thanks User:Petethebeat

Edge Games and Tim Langdell

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

An Internet hate campaign appears to be brewing against Tim Langdell and EDGE Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and it's spilling onto wikipedia. I don't think anything too bad or undeserved has been added, except for poorly sourced allegations of a stalking conviction which were quickly removed by myself and other editors, but I think there's a risk the article will turn into an attack page. I only started editing in an effort to tidy up some basic errors in trademark law and am walking away from the article now before I get caught up in what I think could be a nasty confrontation. Perhaps someone with more patience than me would be willing to put it on their watchlist to watch for potential BLP violations. GDallimore (Talk) 18:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I have this page on my watchlist so that attacks, vandalism, and BLP issues can be quickly removed (and it certainly gets its share). That said, other sets of eyes on the article are certainly welcome. In addition to the attacks, this company (and the CEO) are basically only notable for their enforcement of their trademark (as they don't actually produce any products any more), and the negative coverage they get from this enforcement. As such, the tone of the article may seem negative. But what do you do when someone is only notable for their negative coverage? I, for one, would welcome any input. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Carl Cameron

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

There is a dispute about "material" being added and cited to youtube and the Outfoxed documentary. I think its best to leave it out unless main stream media have reported/covered it. Unfortuneately, the other editor made it abundantly clear on the talk page of what he thinks about the subject of the bio Thanks, --Tom (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

said material has been there for months and is located in the "criticism" section. This is simply an attempt of rightwing cleansing of Wikipedia articles. Cameron is amply quoted and criticized in "Outfoxed", which was promoted by a major national organization (moveon.org) and reviewed in several national (WaPo, Variety, NYT) and international (The Guardian) papers. You can not make Cameron uncontroversial by simply deleting every reference to his critics.

Furthermore, the idea to suppress this film is especially ludicrous when you actually see Cameron there on tape openly sucking up to Bush and telling him that his wife is so actively involved in the Bush campaign. Outfoxed doesn't allege Cameron's conflict of interest - it shows it. Calling that partisan defies reality. Wefa (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not gone and looked at the article yet, but I will state that youtube is not generally a reliable source. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

this is not' about some youtube clip. The documentary film quoted is a professionally released film, is available on DVD (e.g. from Amazon), has been reviewed in several national papers, listed in the IMDB, and has its own extensive Wikipedia article, which I suggest you reading to delevop your own judgement. Furthermore, this film is not used in the article as a source of facts, but as an irtem of critcism; for which it is a primary source. Wefa (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

as for the article, User:Tom (talk) has now for the third time reverted my edits on that section and blanked it, so you will have to dig in the history to find it.Wefa (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the movie; you used a youtube clip of it as a source. I suggest you find a better source. You state NYT and Washington Post etc; use those. It is very problematic to use a youtube clip of a documentary as a source. The documentary would be fine; but you're linking to youtube. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 08:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The youtube clip is useful because presents exactly the part of Outfoxed that deals with cameron. It is an excerpt of the film. I do not see why this is a problem - this film itself is properly quoted by its wikilink, its web site also was in the external links list, but User:Tom removed that one as well. It's quite frustrating that I am supposed to answer for that although I oppose it. Wefa (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It is still a youtube clip, which has been historically frowned upon. I suggest you take this to the reliable sources noticeboard - be sure to state that the clip is loaded on BraveNewFilms' youtube account, NOT a copyvio from Some Random Person - and get a wider input there. Please note I have not removed the clip; I have not stated the clip is not allowable, nor have I objected to it, I have merely pointed out that Youtube is generally frowned upon here. That has been changing, but I'm not sure what consensus will be on this one. Meanwhile, if you have other sources which do not involve a youtube video, please utilize them. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Frowned upon, not prohibited. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I had specified that, and even gone so far as to clarify that "I have not stated the clip is not allowable, nor have I objected to it". I think this has been made clear enough. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that there are two key reasons why YouTube clips are frowned upon. One is that YouTube clips are prohibited if they are copyvios (as with any other links to copyvios). This doesn't appear to be the case here since from what I can tell the clip is from one of the producers. Two is that a lot of the reason of YouTube clips are random usermade stuff that isn't suitable for external links let alone sourcing. Again this doesn't apply. So the clip itself isn't a significant issue. However if it's decided the documentary is a reliable source, then the documentary should be the source in the article with the clip as a convenience link at best. However it's fairly rare we use video as a source for a variety of reasons. Using a documentary by a political action group as a source in a BLP seems highly problematic to me. Are there at least any reliable secondary sources who mention the documentaries criticism? Nil Einne (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nil Einne, thank you for that thoughful analysis. That pretty much sums up my position(except I dislike youtube more) and what I was asking Wefa for on the talk page as far as if other reliable sources/main stream media have covered said criticism, but I guess I wasn't as articulate. Probably because I like to guzzle beer and watch cage fighting. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are. Among them this one, which has been on the talk page and which I plan to add once this is resolved.

But this approach it is still ridiculous. That part of the article does not assert facts but reports criticism. It doesn't say "Cameron has a conflict of interest" but "Cameron has been criticized in Outfoxed for having conflict of interest". And the movie is really the best source for that claim.

as for Tom guzzling beer in a cage or so, it is my impression you do not argue straightforward. First you deleted that section because of [WP:SYN]. After I cleaned up the SYN issue, you then deleted it again for poor sourcing. Your only activities on the article have been deleting material. And you only delete material critical to Cameron, or opposed by FN people. There are other ways to improve articles. You deleted the mediamatters transcript link for being broken, but they fixed it upon request within the day. And so on. Heck, you even challenged something as benign as his birth year without presenting even a shred of evidence of it being wrong. I am somewhat at loss how else to deal with this. Wefa (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wefa, as pointed out by other(s), is it really "fair" or due weight to include criticism from an obviously partisan "attack" documentary. Does it rise to the level of noteworthyness where it should be included? Was it a big deal outside partisan sources? If so, provide a few citations. As far as the DOB, I explained that the article had gone back and forth listed a few different DOB, so I fact tagged it, not that huge a deal. Right now 1/2 the article and 2/3 of the citations are of a critical nature and I am just not sure if adding more would present a NPOV due weight article. Anyways, I should probably step out and let others deal with this. --Tom (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• This seems like a blatantly unbalanced article, as the main (and perhaps only) sources for the "criticisms" are admittedly partisan, like Media Matters and Outfoxed. However, as I've had my fill of stepping on landmines the last week or so, I'll leave it to others to handle. I simply wanted my opinion on the matter noted here, for the record. UnitAnode 19:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This..Frowned upon, not prohibited... is not something you should ever be using to aid your point of view Arcayne.I have seen you type it more than once. We should err towards caution, you are at the limit. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

• • Oh, I am sorry; that could have just as easily been stated as WP:IAR. And quite honestly, I don't recall ever citing IAR in defense of an argument before (yeah, not once in almost three years), or the words "frowned upon, not prohibited"; perhaps you could show me where I've said that before? And at what limit are you speaking of- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Park (author)

Resolved

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

This is up for deletion (see here) but it has become apparent that this is a hoax possibly directed at some living person. The supposed person indeed seems to be changing around. It's obviously going to be deleted but it would be expedient to have it deleted and salted promptly. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been speedily deleted as a hoax, but has not been salted. Maybe a request to WP:RFPP? – ukexpat (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that the author created at least 3 hoaxes, with different page names. Martin451 (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The editor has been indefinitely blocked User talk:AmyBuckBooks Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Kira Takenouchi

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

Katsumasahiro (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added controversial information to the article citing a website that has nothing but a flash app stating that the website is "Under Construction".[16] --Farix (Talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Miranda Kerr

Resolved

 – Poorly sourced edits reverted.

I don't have the tools to put the article back the way it was conveniently, so I hope some admin will do that. Someone keeps inserting a string of ethnicities, previously without reference, and I caught it early, but this time repeatedly with an attempt at a reference that messed up the page. The "ref", by the way, is to Zimbio, a "wikizine" where users write articles, and this one was written by a Sri Lankan male, by his own account, who may well be our editor, maybe, I don't know. Anyway, please restore the article and warn this editor. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca Quick

Evidence that CNBC anchor Rebecca “Becky” Quick was previously married

Undisputed in Quick’s Wikipedia entry is that she is “currently married to a Squawk producer.” The source is Gawker.com, dated Jan. 19, 2009, which mentions Quick “recently married” the producer. Gawker.com’s likely source for this information is Richard Johnson’s column of the same date in The New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01192009/gossip/pagesix/squawking_season_at_cnbc_150882.htm). Johnson writes that Quick married the producer a few months ago. AND that Quick was previously married to a computer programmer.

The Wikipedia entry also cites a 2006 profile on Quick in The New York Times. In that report, the Times writes that she was married at that time to a computer programmer.

Is the above good enough now to note in Quick’s Wikipedia entry that she was previously married? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Kim Thomson biography

Kim Thomson was not born in London in 1960. I have repeatedly removed this inaccurate information, but it is always replaced. One source had this information years ago and it has subsequently been repeated elsewhere. I would appreciate this inaccurate information about me removed permanently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellenthom (talk • contribs) 17:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about inaccurate, but it was certainly unsourced. I have removed the date/location as unsourced. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul Krugman (again)

An on-line blog, Carpe Diem, rated Paul Krugman the second most partisan American political columnist in 2003.[17] That ranking was then reported in an op-ed ("Face Value: Paul Krugman, one-handed economist") in The Economist.[18] Is the following statement fair to put into the Krugman article: According to The Economist, in 2003 Krugman was ranked as the second most partisan American political columnist, behind only Ann Coulter? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is under discussion at Talk:Paul Krugman#Op-Ed material used to cite defamatory/negative material of BLP. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not, and I'd be embarrassed to be behind the inclusion of a six year old Op-ed mention of an obscure website's methodology. This is the second worst example of political POV pushing I've seen on Wiki. The number one worst example cited a bumper sticker. Take note of those pushing for the inclusion this ridiculous and obvious smear. Scribner (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'ld like to note that this is only the last of a series of dubious edits made by User:Vision Thing to the Paul Krugman article. His edits have persistently changed the article to reflect badly on Krugman. If one considers the sum of his edits, nearly all of the edits introduce material designed to reflect negatively on Krugman, few if any are introduced to merely improve the article. I think this is problematic. LK (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how it be "defamatory" to cite the Economist calling him liberal when his own blog [19] is titled "Conscience of a Liberal" <g>. Nor do I see it, per se, as "reflecting badly on Krugman" to have such a RS cited. Collect (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Collect, the disputed text does not even use the term liberal. The question is whether a blog about a living person becomes a reliable source if it is mentioned in an op-ed. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Scribner here, the op-ed mentioning some strange website's methodology, which from what I can tell no one else has ever referred to should go. Describing him as a liberal is probably okay although the position in the article is a valid issue of debate Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Heinz Nawratil

There is a discussion at the Expulsion of Germans article whether Heinz Nawratil may be attributed as "extreme far-right" and "nationalistic" (i.e., since he is German, a Nazi), if there is only one source that says so. The source [20] is a translation of a paper written by a reliable scholar, who says Nawratil "is associated with the extreme far-right". A book search showed no further sources availabel at google books say so / turn out in the search. I believe the claim is too strong to be sourced like that, another editor says that the source is good and in the same source, another scholar is cited to have a similar view of Nawratil.

Comments appreciated at Talk:Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II#Nawratil. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The scholar who calls Nawratil "extreme nationalistic far-right" is Martin Broszat, who was one of the most respected German historians of the 60's, 70's and 80's. His statements are presented in an article by Ingo Haar, who is also a very much respected German historian (the only reason I'm mentioning these historians nationality is in case someone tries to make comments about a "Polish POV" or something).

Furthermore, it appears that the person in question, Heinz Nawratil writes for the Institute for Historical Review - "an antisemitic "pseudo-academic body" with links to neo-Nazi organizations, and (one that) assert that its primary focus is denying key facts of Nazism and the genocide of Jews and others.[1] [2][3][4][5] It has been described as the "world's leading Holocaust denial organization."" He apparently has written in support of "Dr. Schickle" who founded what "has become one of the leading centers of Historical Revisionist scholarship in West Germany"(Historical Revisionism meaning what it always does - denial of Nazi crimes and the Holocaust) - Nawratil's words. I think this is a pretty clear cut case.radek (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there is only one source, a translation of Haar referring to Broszat, who per the source makes the association. And that the book search revealed no additional source. And the connection that "appears" to be to the institute with the links to neo-Nazis is also very much indirect. Let's wait for a comment of one of the regulars here.Skäpperöd (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What you mean the connection is "indirect"??? He's writing for the an antisemitic "pseudo-academic body" with links to neo-Nazi organizations, and (one that) assert that its primary focus is denying key facts of Nazism and the genocide of Jews and others.!!!radek (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to how Broszat describes him and to the fact that Nawratil writes for THE major Holocaust-denial group here's a few more sources: [21] which calls him "nationalist" (in the context this means the same as "nationalist extreme right wing") Here [22] his writing is described as having "distinctly revisionist flavor (with, again, "revisionist", meaning Holocaust and Nazi crime denial)radek (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Journal of Historical Review Nawratil refers to the Holocaust as the Bundesrepublik's regnant taboo, the extermination myth [23]--Woogie10w (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

David Miscavige

These edits are very questionable in terms of application of WP:BLP: [24]. BLP demands an emphasis of a neutral POV and must be very verifiable. These edits in the lead section of the article are not conform with these rules, but it seems to me an indicator for "edit warring" as it was common recently and caused the Arbitration Committee to decide in May 2009 "(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding", which has been put on the article's talk page [25]. Please review. Proximodiz (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: Please see [26]. Cirt (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

??? The situation was not resolved but worsened. It would be help if a neutral and uninvolved administrator could look into the issue. There have been several questionable edits to this article in the last week. 170.206.224.50 (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Jordan Palmer (social activist)

this page continues to be slandered and cannot prove anything. I am afraid of liability. Look at the talk page also. I think the page should be locked to new users. This person is involved in Gay rights and probably angers a lot of people. There is also a football player in Cincinnati named Jordan Palmer, and this person cites no credible references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentucky1333 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on adding some sourced content. -shirulashem^(talk) 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've temporarily stricken out the unsourced negative BLP content in the mean time. -shirulashem^(talk) 17:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Betsy McCaughey

Betsy McCaughey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Several users have been describing, in the encyclopedic voice, certain statistics promulgated by David Gratzer, and other, apparently similar statistics published by Betsy McCaughey, as "false and misleading." While there is no doubt that criticisms along these lines have been leveled at these subjects, and that the statistics are hotly debated, I believe that it is inappropriate to use the encyclopedic voice to continuously reassert these claims, in some cases in multiple places in the same article. See the following pages for more on this:

• Betsy McCaughey
• Talk:Betsy McCaughey
• David Gratzer
• Talk:David Gratzer

// DickClarkMises (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, DCM is attempting to frame a clear falsehood as a "debate" - which is as much a "debate" as Intelligent design is a scientific debate - a few fringe ppl do not make for a debate; it has become impossible to improve, discuss, or work on the verbiage, as DCM reverts wholesale, claiming NPOV and BLP for removing well sourced and accurate content. While I concur that the content should be framed and phrased judiciously, it should not be presented as a "debate" or as though the information, now proven to be grossly inaccurate, is "in dispute". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic IP user adding large amounts of dubious and unsourced material to actor BLPs and related film articles

There's a user, who apparently edits only from IP addresses geolocating to Lima, Peru, adding a ton of unsourced, dubious information to actress and actress-related articles. The information typically involves roles the actress didn't get, but supposedly auditioned for, was "considered" for, etc, etc. Some of the information is obviously wrong (the first edit that caught my attention had Kim Basinger auditioning for a film two years after its release); some is conspicuously dubious (Meryl Streep and Alyssa Milano competing for the same role); some more subtly dubious (Legally Blonde originally envisioned as a "dark" comedy vehicle fo Uma Thurman); but much of it is superficially plausible as individual items, but visibly problematic when dozens of names have been added to the article. Today the editor has inserted an unsourced and implausible claim into the Daryl Hannah article ("narrowly missing on" in the lead in Coal Miner's Daughter [27]). Some randomly chosen exsmples of the IP's work include this unlikely list of roles rejected by Melanie Griffith [28]; Molly Ringwald up for Uma Thurman's role in Pulp Fiction [29]; and the deeply weird suggestion that David Lynch tried to cast Cher, Meryl Streep, and Goldie Hawn in Blue Velvet before having to settle for Isabella Rossellini [30]. Is there any way to track down these edits that's more efficient than trolling through film-related articles checking to see which IP addresses are associated with Lima? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful. Some of this "crap" will probably stick and go unnoticed/challenged/ect. until some article is written about how Wikipedia has been bamboozled yet again. It sucks to put it mildly. This is by far the worst type of vandalism since it flys low on the radar, unlike the run of the mill dick size nonsense. Remove/tag said material and do your best to follow this where it takes you would be my advice. I am sure there are more formal ways to deal with this and hopefully better advice than mine. Good luck. --Tom (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is really WP:ANI territory, not WP:BLPN. Please take it there, you should get better advice and help and maybe a technical solution. Rd232 ^talk 20:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I did that the first time I spotted the problem, with no response. [31]. Any suggestions on a more effective way to frame the issue, or should I just cut-and-paste what's here? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy-paste - the new title and text should be more effective. Try putting your question (Is there any way...) in a new para, for readability. "Help, please!" at the end wouldn't hurt either :) Rd232 ^talk 22:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Alessandra Stanley (again)

We now have a user attempting to reinsert controversial material at Alessandra Stanley, after discussion both here and at the talkpage decided against it. The user has not participated in any way in these discussions, and is insisting on the material being in the article, and that we should "discuss at talk" before removing it. This controverts both WP:BRD and WP:BLP. I don't have the stomach for another BLP argument right now, so if someone else wants to step in and help this user understand, I'd appreciate it. UnitAnode 20:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the "public editor's" piece in last Sunday's Times changed things drastically. I don't ever remember the Times publishing a piece like that about a journalist who hadn't committed fraud, and Hoyt's information about the way the Times handled Stanley's writing should be incorporated into the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Brian Quintana

This article regarding Brian Quintana has a clear conflict of interest in its content. Furthermore the person in question has repeated recreated this article about himself with new accounts over and over. The most recent of which has just been blocked for sockpuppetry, see Michaeledean (talk · contribs), Daphnaz (talk · contribs), and Brianq (talk · contribs).

This article has been deleted at least 7 times, (twice by yours truly), it has also had at least 2 AFDs One for deletion Another no consensus.

Personally I would be in favor of deletion upon the grounds of WP:BIO and WP:BLP, however I am open to the possibility that might be biased now because I have dealt with this person in the past. So I would like to welcome many more eyes to this article, so that you can judge for yourself. At the very least I hope it will greatly improve the NPOV on this article. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent Deletion On Wiki Talk Page Josip Broz Tito

Dear reader just recently my thoughts on talkpage Tito have been deleted and it seems it’s going to stay that way. Since I am faced with the fact that my opinions are being suppressed and then eventually will be blocked, I’ve decided to put this out there so these events may be known to the wider wiki community.

The article in question is Josip Broz Tito (the former Dictator of Yugoslavia- East Europe). He was commander of the partisan forces during world war 2 and later a Stalinistic style dictator of the former Yugoslavia. The Wikipedic article is biased and does not mention crimes (Bleiburg massacre & foibe massacres)) against humanity that were committed under his leadership. I registered that this should be part of the article and as a result I have been deleted. One writer was very abusive and deleted my writings on talk back pages. His name is DIREKTOR. He was supported by Ruhrfisch ><>°° I would like to quote some of the Direktor’s statements regarding this article just to inform you of what we are dealing with here.

“Find yourself another one of your crappy "forums" to talk about your presumptions. Just forget about this, Luigi/Brunodam, you're not annoying anyone - you're just turning out amusing. I think I'll file a checkuser in an hour or so, you'd better believe it when I say I'll delete everything you wrote if you're a sock. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)”

These events are not some conspiracy. They have been part of the western media since the break up of the former Yugoslavia. They have been presented as TV documentaries, on talk back shows and in general writings in England, other parts of Europe and USA, Australia and other parts of the free world. They are backed by eye witness accounts by people who were actually caught up in these events.

The Croatian government is addressing these issues with investigations and financial reimbursement is being given to the victims. These are facts and should be present in the article and not deleted when someone points them out. These actions mirror the attitude of the regime that I am trying to expose.

The Josip Broz Tito article is a dangerous biased piece of writing. It would fit perfectly in any article of the old the Yugoslavia or the old Soviet Union propaganda machine (Cult of personality). Why is it there? The only answer it seems is that Wikipedia has some writers of extreme views (Stalin Style) who don’t tolerate being questioned.

Regards Sir Floyd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.104.34 (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jenkins (religious leader)

Michael Jenkins (religious leader) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There are two current issues:

• Hearsay - A significant number of sources quoted in the article are under discussion as gossip and BLP failures for this reason. When removed they have been reverted back into the text but as the sources are demonstrably hearsay should they be removed immediately to avoid any doubt?
• Pay for and restricted sites as sources - Several sources are problematic as they refer to sites that require payment or Athens accounts (i.e. no freely available registration) to access the articles. For this reason some of the dubious sources have been left unchallenged for a significant length of time. Should this BLP be reliant on such sources without including quotes from the source so that there is reasonable easy verification?

Note, a merge for the article has been suggested and a prior AFD was turned down on the basis of adequate sources. Having these sources removed as unreliable may be the basis of a future AFD and this may be an area of contention.—Ash (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll deal with the second part only. Online sources and/or free sources are not required; reliable sources are, which may or not may not free or be easily available on line. In this case the paper newspapers cited would be considered reliable sources; no web link is necessary, as the paper copy could be consulted for verifiability purposes. I will agree that the current courtesy links are unhelpful, as they go to the Athens account log in page. If links are going to be included they would better to link directly to newspaper archives which at least gives a free abstract. eg. [32]. If you want an easy way to check verifiability (without a health-giving walk to the library) you might want to try the folks at the resource exchange.--Slp1 (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this does imply that reasonable verifiability might be limited to an abstract, which in this case may not discuss the subject of the BLP. Particularly as none of my libraries here in South London stock copies of the Houston Chronicle.—Ash (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. As I said, paper resources are fine (otherwise we wouldn't be able to use books, for example). The link would be a courtesy link only, and not even required. You may not have easy access to this newspaper, but plenty of other people do, (see my suggestion above) and they could probably email copies to you if you doubt the word of the the editor who added the information. You could also certainly ask the editor who added the citation to quote the relevant passages from the original article on the talkpage. --Slp1 (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty logical consensus building approach and if sample text were quoted for discussion on the talk page, this may result in suitable quotes being added to the citations. In this case the issue is trying to give some context for biographical data. Particularly as when challenged, the text of some sources has been weaker or more tangential than one would have expected; in the long term it may require some re-phrasing of the article in order to meet WP:BLP.—Ash (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that this editor is the one who has proposed the merge, and appears to be actively arguing against reliable sources in this article. The user's first post to the talk page is regarding his own proposed move, and the actual merge proposal is his second edit to the article. Motivation for this sort of behavior is left as an exercise for the editor to explain. Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone else please help out and explain what Jclemens is accusing me of here, I seem to be missing the point. I think that proposing a merge and then collaborating in tidying up the article was not against any particular policy or particularly unusual. Does anyone think I have to explain my motivation?—Ash (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note, I have raised Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts‎#Jclemens accusations and threats for this last matter, as a more appropriate forum rather than discussing further here.—Ash (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nina Totenberg

An IP has repeatedly inserted blatant factual errors to make the subject of the article look bad. Page protection or an IP block is requested. Gamaliel (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not true. They aren't blatant factual errors just because you disagree with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.131.95 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Untrue. You repeatedly inserted that the errors that a WSJ editorial column 1) was a news article or in the news section and 2) accused the subject of the article of something that the article did not actually say. Gamaliel (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1)It WAS an article from the news division, as opposed to the editorial division, though I was incorrect (NOT purposefully) that it was in the news pages. 2)to what are you referring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.131.95 (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1) It was an editorial on the editorial page, period. To make anything else of it is OR designed to push your POV, as you have been doing. 2) You repeatedly in inserted the false statement saying the article said Totenberg did not disclose the reason for her firing. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1) You tried to insinuate that Hunt was complicit in what the editorial division said. Not true. 2) If you are referring to the statement that she had left an impression about firing, may I remind you that I was restoring YOUR edit, and previously, an edit made by someone else a while back. The interpretation from the Kurtz article that she left that impression is more than defensible; the interpretation from the Hunt article that she did so is clear. Why do you have to resort to bullying tactics of trying to shut up people because they disagree with you or challenge your ability to have the last word?--76.7.131.95 (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Untrue. I added a citation from a reliable source that stated that some journalists made the connection. 2) That disagreement has nothing to do with the separate factual error you repeatedly inserted, as I clearly noted above. Don't try to play the victim here. This isn't about a disagreement, I brought it to this noticeboard because of you are playing fast and loose with the facts. Gamaliel (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Weird MC

Need I say more? Keegan (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Bandar bin Sultan

A source (funded by the Iranian government) is reporting a Saudi opposition figure claiming Bandar bin Sultan‎ (a senior Saudi prince, formerly the Saudi ambassador to the US) has attempted an unsuccessful coup-de-tat. I don't know how reliable a source we should regard Press TV; at the very least I'd appreciate it if others watchlist this article. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that Press TV is widely considered a propoganda arm of the Iranian state. I don't think it should count as a valid source. Tiberius Curtainsmith (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that we becoming my suspicion too. It's been a day since the PressTV report, and the story hasn't been picked up by any reliable source. So I've removed it and insisted on WP:RS on the talk page. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Allison Lee Quets

Most, if not all, of the "evidence" in the Allison Quets entry is unsourced or conjecture. The biased newspaper sources are not verified, if linked at all. This article does not comply with Wikipedia's own policies and must be removed. If it is still standing after this complaint and my prior efforts that it be taken down, why is it still standing. It is an "orphan," it does not comply with living person's bio rules, and it is unsourced. It must come down. On top of all of that, the two children involved will grow up to see lies/conjecture/whatever. Please take this down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.137.130 (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you 76, for your report, and I recognize that you have been trying to express your concerns about this article for quite some time. I'm sorry that your efforts have been in vain to date. I agree that the article is very much sub-standard. I'm not yet sure whether it is really a candidate for deletion, since Quets and her story have been quite well covered in the media. I have already started work on cleaning up the article, and sourcing it appropropriatly. I encourage other interested editors to help in the process and to offer their comments on whether this is a candidate for deletion under WP:BLP1E.--Slp1 (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Please be sure to read all the case law and legal documents at Quets's site at that is the only source for such documents at this point. In addition, if this isn't deleted, I assume journalistic fairness will, indeed, win and Denise Needham, Kevin Needham, Michael Shorstein, and John Gurley will all have entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.137.130 (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I am a research scholar who studies adoption issues, and I have read every public document on the case. The N&O is highly biased against Quets, as I am highly biased toward her. (I suffered from PPD, so I know how easily manipulated someone can be when ill.) There truly is no way to verify this story with reliable, ethical sources. Although it can be verified that the Needhams broke federal law by not following ICPC regulations and ignoring the laws of their home state, NC, as is required in adoption law: the laws of both states, sending and receiving, must be followed. NC has a 7 day waiting period. Quets was well within that time frame. This case should be labelled, how to legally kidnap children using a corrupt trial judge who the adoption attorney used to work for, also verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.137.130 (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj

I've never heard of this singer, but her article is repeatedly being edited with some serious BLP violations. Could others keep an eye on it, please? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)