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.

Maurice Heenan

Resolved

 – Category removed.

Please edit as Maurice Heenan is no longer living therefore doesn't belong in the "Biography of a Living Person" category.

Thank you

R Heenan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.154.110 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 11 September 2009(UTC)

Terry Norman

Found in Category:Unreferenced BLPs from November 2006. This is a biography that deals entirely with this person's relationship, or non-relationship, to one event: the Kent State shootings. The attention paid to sourcing on the talk page is on the level of "Terry Norman admitted it to me personally" and "talk to this person, he will tell you". Is there anything rescuable here? I'm tempted to just zap the thing and start again with a sourced stub. Should this, indeed, even be a biography at all, or just a redirect? Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not certain he merits a biographic article. WP:BLP1E could well apply. The Cleveland Free Times article doesn't have substantial biographic coverage The Tampa Bay Online page linked on the article page is now available from the internet acrhive[1]. It is marginal as a biographic source. I didn't find in Google Books the 1975 edition of the book listed in the article references, but I did find a 1995 edition of book online, with three relevant pages, but they also don't constitute biographic coverage.[2].

  Reading this article, it doesn't read like a biography - it reads like a discussion of his role in a single event. Everything other than the event is covered only in the last paragraph, which doesn't appear particularly balanced. Given the lack of substantial biographic coverage, I recommend following the guidance in WP:BLP1E.

  Norman is already discussed some near the end of Kent State shootings#Long-term effects. I see no significant discussion of the coverage of Norman on the Talk page of that article - and I note that I am far less impressed by the TBO article than Badagnani was. (I just can't call the author's imagination ("I imagined the Normans had ...") a reliable source. Portions of it look more reliable, but it also has a rambly style more like those of personal notes about what the reporter was doing while researching than the results of said research.) The author of the TBO piece praises the book source in question, and the book devotes about 1% of its content to Norman. This suggests that balanced coverage in Kent State shootings would be about 1% of that article - that isn't going to be a lot of space. GRBerry 16:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Would we lose anything by simply redirecting, then, do you think? Uncle G (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think we would lose anything. I think more sources can be found to substantiate Norman's involvement with the events of May 4, but that doesn't mean the subject passes BLP1E. In fact, I think the article at Kent State shootings could gain by merging this article into it. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd say a smerge would be appropriate. I think the paragraph about Norman currently in Kent State shootings#Long-term effects is in the wrong place, so I'd delete it and put a 2-3 sentence paragraph based primarily on the book source I linked above up into Kent State shootings#Monday, May 4. I think that saying more than that would be putting undue weight on Norman. GRBerry 21:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Marc Nelson

The article on Marc Nelson is once again the target of vandalism. MStoke (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Protected for a while to see if the vandal gives up. Kevin (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

hosting fair use supporting quotes on external web site?

The comedian Greg Fitzsimmons made some noteworthy remarks on the Howard Stern Show about a practice he engages in that lots of people support and a lot of people object to. His views stopped the comedy and turned the show into a quite serious discussion. I added that to the page, but an editor just deletes all my additions without discussion, saying I'm a sock puppet. So I set up an external web site to host five fair use audio clips totalling to less than two minutes of the 4-hour show. The clips provide reference for everything in quotation marks I added to the page. Another editor removed this out of copyright concerns, but I'm unclear as to why because I studied the fair use issue and my hosting short supporting excerpts doesn't violate copyright. And I'm not having wikipedia host the fair use material. Also, I saw wikimedia commons doesn't host fair use material, so that's why I went to a place that would. The second editor said something about "spam" but I don't get that because the external site is not being promoted in any way. It's just a convenient repository. ChildrenDeserveBetter (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I found a few issues with the links in question: 1) Wikipedia:External_links#In_biographies_of_living_people urges extra caution with content being from WP:RS regarding biographical material, and Wikipedia:External_links#In_biographies_of_living_people states that external links on such biographies must be of high quality and be judged by a higher standard than for other articles. An IP hosted website on a personal user account does not meet that test. 2) Wikipedia:External_links#Rich_media suggests you should try to avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software, or an add-on to a browser, such as a sound file. It is always preferred to link to a page rendered in normal HTML, on a WP:RS that contains embedded links to the rich media. 3) Wikipedia:YT#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites also suggests strong caution when dealing with copyrighted rich media links. Going forward I would suggest you raise these issues on the article's talk page and allow others to give their opinions on it as well and then when a consensus is reached about the inclusion or exclusion of the material the article can be edited as appropriate. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the need for extra caution and have been using a source that has been accepted on the page in question for quite some time. Suddenly, however, this same source has been declared bad by the editor who just continues to delete everything I write without discussing it. In this case, I think the need becomes more pressing to reference the fair use material, as it sources the quotes exactly. The hosting web site isn't a personal account, but a University of California computer. I have obtained a legal opinion from the university, and they said they've seen this kind of situation before with Wikipedia, and that, in this case, there is no problem with the material being hosted because it's fair use. People don't have to rely on my say so: the University of California is a respected institution that diligently polices its computers' compliance with copyright law. It maintains an office devoted to copyright compliance at [[3]]. It provides a contact called the DMCA Designated Agent who looks into any complaints. If material is being hosted on a web site at the University of California, it does not infringe copyright. ChildrenDeserveBetter (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Barnes

This article has been taken over by a criticism section, cited primarily to partisan newspaper sources. As a rugby referee myself I don't consider myself neutral enough to revise it, but there is a major lack of balance. Stifle (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not involved, know nothing about rugby, and have looked at this and agree with Stifle's concerns. I have removed the controversy section altogether. I feel the whole thing is blown way out of proportion and that it's failing WP:NOT#NEWS. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My edits got reverted. I think that an admin needs to look at this. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

According to this article, Wikipedia is being used by a number of angry All Blacks fans to issue threats to Mr. Barnes. Indeed, I received this message at my talk page from an anonymous IP editor after removing the controversy section. Perhaps the page should be semi-protected? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That particular IPs edits are unrelated this article. See the other contribs. Its been IP hopping and contributing mostly nonsensical comments around environmental articles and talk pages. Feel lucky, you got a semi-coherent one. -Atmoz (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, thanks for the note. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind someone else more familiar with BLP issues than myself to have a look through at the previous content. I've added a sentence to cover it since Alex's removal, but think could use another pair of eyes, as the removal is being contested on the talk page. Thanks ^Khukri 17:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles Karel Bouley

Edits to this article routinely result in arguments, most recently between the subject of the article, a personal friend of the subject, and another editor.

Two years ago, I chastised the subject over PoV edits made via anonymous IP.[4] I have similarly chastised the subject's friend JoyDiamond for PoV edits, educating her on WP:COI and providing links to Wikipedia policies.[5]

The third editor, Kelly A. Siebecke (aka SkagitRiverQueen) seems often to engage in edit wars with the aforementioned JoyDiamond, and the two of them routinely lob accusations of harassment and bias against one another, to a degree where editing this article has become disruptive.

A few days ago, the subject again returned to edit content. Again, accusations are being tossed about, with arguments spilling over to the article's talk page[6], Joy's talk page[7], Kelly's talk page[8], and my talk page[9] (including bickering on my page between Joy and Kelly).

I am at my wit's end in dealing with this, and am seeking some solution to this problem. -FeralDruid (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This most recent spate of bickering and edit wars has escalated the point where I've requested temporary full protection of the page. The aforementioned editors Kelly and Joy continue reverting one another's edits, and continue lobbing threats and accusations of bias against one another. -FeralDruid (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A three-day lock has been applied to this page, but I would still like some intervention to deal with future edits to this article. I have grown so tired of the endless bickering, that I'm dropping it from my watch list. -FeralDruid (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO, FeralDruid has not been looking objectively at what has actually been happening here. My hope is that whomever takes this on for dispute resolution will look at all sides of the issue. Most especially the fact that (after being caught and told to cease editing the page of which he is the subject) Karel has continued to make his own edits and/or has dictated edits through one of his fans and chat room moderators, JoyDiamond. In so doing, Karel has tried to sanitize the article from anything he sees as uncomplimentary - no matter if it is referenced fact. This is the crux of the matter for me. Additionally, I'm not exactly sure why FeralDruid has taken it upon himself to act as moderator or administrator of this article to begin with. Other being on the anti-vandalism crew, is FeralDruid in some sort of administrative position in Wikipedia that I am unaware of? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

IMHO FeralDruid has been consistently fair and objective even when chastising me. He has been an invaluable source of Wiki education and assistance. I sincerely regret he will not be watching and continuing his much welcomed aid. It is a great loss but I cannot blame him in any way. My apologies for his distress. I know that whomever facilitates this dispute resolution will be equally as objective and fair. Wiki Standards need to be maintained and I look forward to participating in this resolution. The block should probably extended indefinitely until resolution process is completed. Thank you. JoyDiamond (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson , Politician

There is much attempting to add info about who has called him a racist. The template I added from BLP page only mentions sourcing. Is thee a better tmplate about the being editorially "conservative"? Does who calls a politician a racist really belong in a BLP regardless of sourcing? thanks.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

{{controversial}}, perhaps? I assume you are referring to the U.S. politician, recently noted for controversial comments towards U.S. President Obama. Though it is true blatant claims of racism, especially those of living persons, do not belong in articles due to the policy on libel, correctly sourced, NPOV phrased statements, such as

In September 2009, Wilson interrupted a speech by U.S. President Barack Obama to a joint session of Congress by shouting "You lie!"^[2] The incident received international attention^[3]and resulted in a formal rebuke by the House of Representatives.^[4]

are appropriate. This is all just all at a glance, of course. I am not especially familiar with this topic, as I do not particularly keep up with international affairs. --Intelligentsium 01:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, but including every person who has made accusations of racism against Wilson comment's should not be included, no?--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but what about a former president? --kizzle (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Put it on his page. Please appeal to a policy if you want to agrue for a BLP violation.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, the article does not cite "every person who has made accusations of racism against Wilson". The article (in between wild swings of editing by a few editors) seems balanced (when it is left to settle for a bit). And begging your pardon, adding a BLP violation template to the article seemed more like making a WP:POINT than an appropriate action. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there is a BLP violation and it needs to be rectified.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a content issue, not a BLP issue. BLP doesn't prohibit factual reporting about the comments of others, even if we think they are really, really mean. Gamaliel (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but it does require us to be conservative and not repeat slanderous statements.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, what's the specific language of BLP that you believe is being violated? --kizzle (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The use of te specious MSNbc article that misquotes Carter is a contentious source so it must go. Without that source, any link to what Carter said and Wilson is OR, but that is another thing. Bascially, we have a source, a generally relaible one, which in this case has misquotedCarter, making it a contentious source, and thisu it is a violation of BLP to include it--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What's your evidence that the MSNBC article misquotes Carter? --kizzle (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[10]. Wtch for your self. He never mentions Wilson.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The video is truncated. According to many RSs several of which are cited in the Wilson BLP, Carter, both when speaking at the Emory University Carter Center and later with Brian Williams, was responding to specific questions Wilson's outburst. It appears that in the video he was describing the outburst as part of what he sees as a broader issue. Countless mainstream media RSs from across the entire ideological, political and geographical spectrum all specifically state that Carter was referring to Wilson. Given that many RSs have stated the questions were specifically about Wilson, it would be a major stretch for us as WP editors to reinterpret Carter's statements, e.g., as "Carter himself didn't specifically use Wilson's name in his response to the questions". ... Kenosis (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Declan Ganley

Different editors keep on changing this person's nationality back and forth between Irish and British. I'm not sure which is correct but if someone could take a look it would be useful. Smartse (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the nationality description to "British-born Irish" per the sources and self-identification of Gunley. However, this article has the look of one of those perennial nationality debates. Gabbe (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems the most sensible way to explain it IMO. It keeps on being changed back to British however by IP editors, so I've requested semi-protection of the article for a while. Smartse (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nigel McGuinness

This persons real name (Steven Haworth) has not been allowed in the article. The original issue started in 2006. webmistress of his website complained that he didn't want his real name in the article and filed a OTSR report to have the name removed, the results mess had dozens of edits on the page and talkpage removed and the article protected. The explanation was that his real name was not public knowledge and that Wikipedia was being uses to break his name as a newstory (the problem is that is name was public record, he used it when he trademarked his ringname with the USPTO). McGuinness has recently signed a contract with the biggest wrestling company in the world (World Wrestling Entertainment) and in making the announcement several reliable news sites printed his real name (like [11]). With his real name now being used by reliable independent site and him being employed by a large, publically traded company, can his real name now be used in the article? Contacting the original admin who did this is not an option since they have not edited since June 2008. TJ Spyke 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If his real name is being stated in reliable news sources, then in my opinion it is fair game for the article, and in fact ought to be placed in the article's lead per MOS:BIO. It's not even negative or controversial information. --RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's my view too. – ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

James Florence

Article does not meet requirements for notability. Recently has been updated with multiple details that are neither newsworthy nor able to be verified. Should be deleted?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Histbuff10 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 22 September 2009

WP:CSDed as a WP:Copyvio Martin451 (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Sieradski

• Daniel Sieradski (AfD discussion)
• Mobius1ski (talk · contribs) — self-identified article subject

There's a conflict-of-interest/BLP problem brewing here. The dramatis personae are Mobius1ski and a whole load of single-purpose accounts (which Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Getitrightfolks has not found to be sockpuppets). In the mix so far are off-wiki requests by Siederadski to the world at large to "chime in" about the deletion of the article and claims that Adamhyman (talk · contribs) is bringing an external conflict with the subject to Wikipedia. Needless to say, the talk page discussion is not the best. Some of the SPAs in the the AFD discussion are, surprisingly, arguing the issue of sourcing, however. Attention from non-single-purpose, experienced, editors would be a good thing, though, nonetheless, if only to ensure that that focus is retained. Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Having had a look, there is a real problem going on.

• We have Daniel Sieradski aka Mobius1ski (talk · contribs) apparently canvassing off-wiki to help him keep his article (a) undeleted and (b) free of negative information
• Getitrightfolks (talk · contribs) and Wrongtired18 (talk · contribs) at first blush appear to be genuinely attempting to keep the page in line with policy (not always in the most civil of ways). Yet they are both SPAs, and clearly in opposition to Siederaski.
• Adamhyman (talk · contribs) has only made one contribution - a vote to delete in the AfD. Mobius1sk/Siederaski says this is part of an off-wiki dispute.

The article itself does not have the best of sourcing (both in sources and faulty links), and the subject appears marginally notable. I agree that experienced editors need to come to the page and sort it out. An admin also really needs to have a word with Mobius1ski about COI.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

John Bortolotti

I initially tagged this for references and promotional content; the original author reverted the templates and was blocked for conflict of interest. A (brand new) contributor took over almost immediately and made changes, but I think a lot of the recently added sources are not acceptable (Youtube, blogs, Myspace, primary sources), and whole passages are still peacock-like and unencyclopedic. The templates are gone again, and rather than edit war, I'd appreciate new parties taking a look. Thanks in advance. JNW (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into this in the next 24 hours, if no one else does. I'm on my way out right now. ƒ(Δ)² 14:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The article has been nearly blanked for some reason. Left a note on the talk page. Will check back later. ƒ(Δ)² 06:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bortolotti. Kevin (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard Stallman

In the bio article about Richard Stallman there is content put by some editor that does not respect NPOV and WP:BLP policies. In the section about the relationship between Stallman and the GNU project there is a paragraph that attacks Stallman's character. Stating that he is a difficult person to work with the authors of this edit add a link to a developer named Drepper who posted a very nasty and unprofessional E-mail over 8 years ago!! Drepper just vented his personal differences with Stallman that says a lot more about Drepper's character than anything else. The fact that someone like Stallman may have had professional differences with a handful of people at work during his career does not justify putting this kind of content that clearly violates NPOV policies. I deleted the corresponding non-compliant paragraph but user:Skomorokh is repeatedly restoring it. Could an administrator take measures to correct this situation please? --Grandscribe (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Requesting input from experienced uninvolved editors. This sort of editing is absolutely out of bounds.  Skomorokh  08:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's utterly out of bounds. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Gwen.Thank you for your attention. I read your message. Then you see that the section paragraph about Stallman "being difficult to work with" has a problem. So please help to make it comply with NPOV policies.--Grandscribe (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just trimmed that paragraph down further, following Gwen Gale's good edit. I dropped the Drepper ref because IMO it's not relevant enough; I dropped the ref to the Raymond article because it's not about Stallman himself, only about free-software vs open-source-software.

As someone who has seen all-too-many controversies about Stallman over more years than I care to think about and is not one of his biggest fans, I think that mentioning the Emacs fork and quoting Salon.com on "uncompromising stubbornness" is exactly the right amount of coverage of the difficult-to-work-with claims. CWC 11:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good job. Thanks for doing the corrections and improving the page's compliance and overall quality.--Grandscribe (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert Stacy McCain

Robert Stacy McCain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Re-insertion of content I removed on BLP/NPOV grounds. Could someone please check my edits and talk-page comments for mistakes, then join in the discussion(s) on the talk page. // CWC 09:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

André Bauer

Some issues at André Bauer over inclusion of this para on claims that Bauer is gay. Input please. Rd232 ^talk 10:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. ƒ(Δ)² 14:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

john Drewe biography

The John Drewe bio page is filled with errors and should be removed. There's a good book about his fraud that's not referenced. "Provenance" by Laney Salisbury and Aly Sujo

Brain Boitano

Somebody put an unsourced statement that he came out as being gay, I think it's iffy at best

Already removed. decltype (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and in the future, do not hesitate to remove unsourced contentious information about living persons yourself. Regards, decltype (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard C. Hoagland

The person is being described in the lead as a "website operator", while other terms, such as "author", have been deleted.  Cs32en  18:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Purveyor of alien conspiracy theories seems to be what he's known for, although he apparently wrote some books, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Heydon Prowse

Subject of long-term edit warring, possible vandalism. JNW (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank Lorenzo

This one may also be for the COIN board, but I'm asking for more eyes on it here first. The Frank Lorenzo article is regularly visited by SPAs who may or may not have a COI, but all seem to be solely interested in removing negative information about the subject. The latest of these is Airguy (talk · contribs). Airguy may also be related to Duggin (talk · contribs), 69.86.43.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), DavidDaws (talk · contribs), and Casatkes (talk · contribs), all of whom have made similar changes in the last month, and only edit this article.

Some of their changes are made in the name of BLP and could possible be genuine, but these accounts don't seem interested in discussion or consensus. I'm not familiar with the subject of the article, so I thought I'd bring it here in hopes of finding more eyes for the article. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Marc Garlasco

Resolved

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

Could someone clarify the usage of sources such as NGO Monitor and editorials on the article's talk page? There has been an ongoing dispute.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to second the call for more eyes on this article. There seems to be a push on to Godwin the subject using all manner of blogs, op-eds, even another Wikipedia article as sources. The talk page is awash with bad faith assumptions and several editors have been rather abusive/dismissive to anyone who edits from an IP address. Some help from the BLP regulars would be most appreciated. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Ledwith

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

Subject of long-term edit warring, vandalism, some of the changes made in the past were libellious in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenagent (talk • contribs) 01:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Slavoj Žižek

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

Anonymous editor 84.109.74.77 (talk · contribs) is a SPA who's entire edit history consists of adding a video link to a fringe theory that Žižek stole his work from some unknown Israeli. Aside from being a WP:BLP violation, the link is to a non-English source that doesn't meet WP:RS. I have reverted this insertion a few times, and the anon has crossed 3RR. However, even though a revert would be a technical exception to 3RR, I'd rather someone else jumped in to fix this. LotLE×talk 06:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Katia Tiutiunnik

Repeated reinsertion of names and dates of birth of children at Katia Tiutiunnik, in breach of WP:BLPNAME, by GoldbergEva (talk · contribs). I have reverted to the non-infringing version and fully-protected the article for 24 hours pending review here. Bencherlite^Talk 10:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Barrett

The living person referred to in this article disputes the truthfulness of this biography thus making the Wikipedia article on him potentially libellous. [12]

Kashcubed (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've started looking at this, but there's an awful to check. Some more eyes would be useful. Kevin (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's only potentially libelous if the defamatory information is not taken from other sources, and it's only a violation of our policies if not taken from reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mackenzie Phillips

Based upon reports today that she says she was first raped and then consensually sexually involved with her father, this article could use lots of experienced editors' attention. Whole huge sections of news articles were being dropped into the article uncritically, which I excised erring probably on the side of removal of potential problems over writing a reasonable summary. The likelihood of more major copyright/plagiarism/NPOV/BLP issues abound. DreamGuy (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't accept People magazines abuse of the word "consentual." If someone repeatedly rapes you, you later giving up and pretending you like it is Stockholm syndrome(cognitive dissonance) not "consentual," regardless of how badly People bobbles the language. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd only put the word consensual within a verifiable quote from Phillips herself. What the word would mean within such a quote could be further cited to both herself and independent takes in RSs. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The pro-pedo's are out in force on this one. More eyes, please. Hipocrite (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Joel Comm

The article Joel Comm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has issues with WP:PROMOTION and seems to be patrolled by COI editiors. I've placed the {like resume} tag several times and it has been removed several times by a variety of anon users. Only User:Deanshanson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has a name, but appears to be a single-purpose editor, maintaining and patrolling only those pages related to Comm. He has been warned with {uw-coi} in past. Today I made some serious cuts to the article, which I hope will make it more neutral (but do nothing yet to address poor referencing, etc.). Can other editors critique the article/my changes and please watchlist it for a time. The editors in question seem to patrol the page every week or so. Thanks. --Whoosit (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Dieudonné M'bala M'bala

Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a translation from French Wikipedia, contains a number of unsupported linkages of the subject, accused of being an anti-semite and proven to have been involved in far-right politics in France, with a number of other people who publicly deny they support his politics/views. Unfortunately poor translation and references to French language editorials state as fact these accusations. In particular the title of this editorial link makes claims which the Tariq Ramadan explicitly denies here link and which the original editorial later correctly states there is no proof of. As the recent history of the article seems rife with ideological combat, I am removing the potential libelous statement Diff but it is up to others to see that it is not re-inserted, and that other questionable references are investigated.T L Miles (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a translation from German Wikipedia. --RCS (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina

Fresh off another bout of monthlong full protection, editors are heading back to the Carly Fiorina article with their axes to grind (like so). Most of the blatantly non-neutral or unsourced edits always tend to be reverted pretty quickly, but edits like this are just as troubling, because they get overlooked and because they move the article into an wp:undue state by stripping out sourced, critical context. Saying somebody was asked to resign is one thing that is, no doubt, factual; saying they were asked to resign, why they believe they were asked to resign, and what the company believed they had accomplished up to that point is anything but "content-free blather." The article really needs objective eyes watching it. Please do. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the source say what the edit alleges? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The two quotes that were removed? They were -- word for word -- from the statement the company and Fiorina jointly issued following her resignation, yes. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed a version that I hope provides due context at: Talk:Carly Fiorina#Consensus for resignation mention in lede. Please consider helping us build a consensus there if you have a moment. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Kingsley Fletcher

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

Recently changes were made to the article about Kingsley Fletcher that were false. An article with erroneous information was cited regarding his being Knighted in the Knights of Malta. I am writing on his behalf and from his office and would like to have his entire entry removed. Originally, a page was constructed for King Adamtey I [aka. Dr. Kingsley Fletcher]. That page has been somehow removed and this page with several errors has been constructed. If we are unable to remove the entire page, than we need to correct the information about his being Knighted.

Currently, the FALSE information on the page is as follow:

He was "knighted" in Malta in 2009, though a mass planned to commemorate the event was canceled when the Sovereign Military Order of Malta informed the church rector that the organization that had "knighted" Fletcher—the "Ecumenical Order of the Knights of Malta" -- was a "false" order, distinct from the "Knights of Malta".[4]

An article citing what really happened is at this link:

He was in fact Knighted and there are pictures on this event on the Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta - The Ecumenical Order Website at the following link:

http://www.knightshospitallers.org/invest_malta.htm

We are in the process of contacting the attorney for King Adamtey I [aka. Dr. Kingsley Fletcher] so that the issues on Wikipedia may be resolved fully.

Wikipedia needs to work with the proper contacts to provide accurate information in order to be considered a reliable source.

Please contact me at mplating@gmail.com

Sincerely,

Marcus Plating Office of His Royal Majesty, King Adamtey I [aka. Dr. Kingsley Fletcher] Senior Aide —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mplating (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This entry reported to: Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threats by User:Mplating . A {subst:ANI-notice} placed on the user page of the editor in question. --Whoosit (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The information that Mr Plating wants removed is reliably sourced, and he is trying to substitute a reference that does not meet WP:RS. End of story. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is currently up for deletion, and the AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Kingsley Fletcher is well worth a look. Martin451 (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Resolved

An editor is of the opinion that questioning the notability of a biography by using the {{bio-notability}} tag is itself a BLP concern.[13] This does not seem logical to me but I am bringing it here in case I've overlooked something. What's the current view? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagging an article for notability (or any other legitimate tag) is not a BLP issue because lack of notability is not a negative statement about the subject. Millions of wonderful people are not notable. If the consensus on the talk page is that the tag is unwarranted, then of course it can be removed by other editors. An editor can always propose the article for deletion on grounds of non-notability if they feel strongly about it. --RL0919 (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I am the editor expressing said concern that flagging Anthony Watts (blogger) as "not notable" is insulting to Watts, especially given that I think most agree that he is, well if not "WP notable" then he's certainly "famous". It is belittling to state on his biography, "This article may not meet the notability guideline for biographies." Moreover, it is a very common tactic in the climate change debate for advocates to refuse to name Anthony Watts or otherwise communicate the idea, "You're not important, okay? You're not even worthy of being named, okay?" Finally, it's also well known that Watts is sensitive to the said belittling so I am not happy at all for the Wikipedians to be adding this tag. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand the purpose of the tag. It is not name-calling, and it is not against BLP. Nor is it ever intended as an insult to anyone that they are not notable enough to be on wikipedia. There are guidelines on what constitutes notability, and some people honestly have their doubts that this person meets those guidelines. As you yourself admit, he may not be WP notable. His hurt feelings don't come into the matter. Do you have a personal connect with Watts (as you seem to know his personality well)?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Tagging an article with a notability tag is not about insulting someone, and it is not belittling, it is about the state of the article, not the person themselves. If Watts is notable, backed up with reliable sources, then find these sources, and get consensus to remove the tag. If there are not enough current sources asserting notability then placing that this tag will show that someone is worried that there are not enough reliable sources for the article. The fact that someone may not like this tag being placed on an article about them is no reason to remove it. Martin451 (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems playing the BLP card is being used inappropriately in this area as some kind of top trump, such as with the "See also" brouhaha. Notability tagging when notability clearly hasn't been established, is not a BLP issue by any stretch. Verbal chat 05:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The point is not whether I understand the purpose of the tag or not. The point is that the article is published publicly, indexed first by Google, and read by millions. To say that I've misunderstood the purpose of the tag is tantamount to stating, "Well, if there are people out there in the great unwashed who can't understand Wikipedia's policies, all misunderstandings are their fault." We cannot assume that every reader does or should understand the purpose of the tag. What we should think about is, what will the average reader think when he reads, directly under the subject's name, the words, "This article may not meet the notability guideline for biographies." Why can't the editors in question just nominate the article for deletion if they genuinely believe it should be or is going to be deleted? The point is not "brouhaha" either. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Your contention that adding a notability tag to an article is a BLP is absurd. Do not remove it again unless you can establish the articles notability. -Atmoz (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As always with climate change article issues, the noticeboard has been overwhelmed by involved editors, and only two of us have actually been transparent about our involvement (myself & Boris). Thanks VsevolodKrolikov and RL0919 for your comments, are there any other editors out there who consider themselves to be neutral on the climate change issue and neutral on the Anthony Watts issue who would be kind enough to risk entering into the fray & offer their comments? :) Many thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm entirely neutral on the Watt's notability issue. I'm also neutral on the climate change issue, which means I evaluate published expert opinion and follow the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community ;-). Anyways, the claim that adding a Wikipedia meta-tag to an article is a BLP issue is absurd. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is what Jimmy Wales has written: "... it is my position that MOST AfD pages for living persons ... should be courtesy blanked (at a minimum) as a standard process, and deleted in all cases where there was inappropriate commentary. This is not the current policy, but currenty policy does allow for deletions of material which is potentially hurtful to people." from here.

Clearly, a part of all this is about minimising the impact of hurt by Wikipedia to living people. It is a known fact (I can provide refs) that Watts is indeed hurt by statements that he is a non-notable and actions that say the same. It follows, if you also care about what Jimbo thinks, that a similar policy should exist for the notability tag. It follows that this is a BLP issue. Finally, as Cla68 already stated, and as we all know full well, there's absolutely no way we'll ever get this page actually deleted (by the way, deleting the page would be my preference too). So does this mean that Atmoz's "Mr. Watts is a non-notable" flag gets to stay there in perpetuo? Very clever, but no. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that the tag stays there forever. No one said it did. What on earth made you think that a tag indicating a specific and important need for improvement should be ignored and not acted upon, just left there? You've been active on wikipedia for a few months now - have you not understood how these kinds of tags work? How many opinions will you need before you accept consensus?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never edited this or (as far as I can remember) any other climate change related article. I would say that I am an uninvolved and impartial editor. I am also quite familiar with WP:BLP, its purposes, and its implications. Our BLP policy is designed to protect the living subjects of WP's articles from libel, rumors, gossip, and the like, not to protect them from anything they may find distasteful. In point of fact, there are many facts and quotes included in articles about politicians that contain information that the subjects themselves would rather not even acknowledge, but have been found to be in compliance with BLP, because these facts and quotes are verifiable in reliable sources. The notion that a tag stating that an article may not meet WP standards could ever, in any way, violate our BLP policy is preposterous. The tag clearly states that the article (not the article's subject) may not meet WP standards, and there is no reason to assume that "the average" reader would take it to mean otherwise. There is also no reason to believe that this could possibly do harm to the article's subject. Whatever the subject's personal feelings about the tag may be, that too is irrelevant to the validity of the tag and irrelevant to our BLP policy. Again, BLP does not protect people from anything they don't like, only from libel, which this clearly is not. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me also chime in as an uninvolved editor. The advice you (Alex) are getting from everyone above is good and sound and reflects policy. Putting a BLP-notable tag on an article is not a BLP issue in the least. If you are concerned about it, there are two things (at least) you can do to alleviate the situation which are within policy. First, find reliable sources asserting the subject's notability, and use them. That would be (where doable) the best solution, as the article is improved at the same time. The other is to nominate the article for deletion. Subjects must be notable to have an article written on them (at least in principle). The AfD discussion will get more eyes on the article and may help with finding sources to assert notability; if not, well then the article is deleted and the point is moot. Please take the advice you are getting--people are trying to be helpful, even if some are more blunt than others. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Quatsch and Yak!. Nominating the article for deletion myself is indeed what I plan to do next, but I hope that others will consider the argument I have made, namely, that it's not nice, and not helpful, to unilaterally label a person as a "non-notable". I can't imagine any scenario where this would be better than simply nominating the article for deletion, and then quietly blanking it, per Jimbo's thoughts above. I believe I've understood the spirit of the policy, even if its wording doesn't presently explicitly support my interpretation. Thanks again. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My reading of these thoughts is that the page should be blanked when there is an AfD involving possible libellous or damaging material (which should be removed anyway under BLP rules). I would suggest that discussing the Watts article's notability does not fall into this criteria. In addition leaving the material up would allow editors to form a better opinion of the article, and improve it to the point where it would be kept.Martin451 (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Boris Stomakhin

Boris Stomakhin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The article was just massively edited (by a user who recently became active after his 1-year ban has ended, a ban imposed for massive disruption of that very article: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin) in a way that I believe violates BLP; starting with the lead - change of "editor of dissident periodicals" into "editor of hate speech periodicals", many other unreferenced weaseling/defamatory changes ([14], [15]) and removal of referenced content ([16], [17]). Comments appreciated. // _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read the court sentence for Boris Stomakhin http://www.zaborisa.narod.ru/061120prigovor.html. What is the problem? User Piotrus is not Russian proficient and makes bandwagon accusations in revenge for my edits in Polonization article.Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Because user Piotrus having Arbcom against him, seems to be not able to verify that the links are dead, I urge anyone uninvolved to recheck the links given in his two diffs, namely:

http://www.cpj.org/attacks06/pages06/imprison_06.html#russia http://www.article19.org/pdfs/publications/russia-journalist-stomakhin-conviction.pdf. Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the claims of defamatory statements alleged by user Piotrus, could anyone proficient in Russian translate for him the following texts:

http://www.km.ru/magazin/view_print.asp?id={6FA225AC-C553-46BE-8519-B06671B6657D}&data= http://lenta.ru/articles/2006/11/20/court/ Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And Russian-state controlled propaganda media are reliable because...? And even if they were, read WP:BLP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide the evidence that these specific mass-media and these specific journalist are writing propaganda and are state-controlled? I have read BLP many times, what ails you there? Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that a suggecient evidence of disruption is provided. It was an edit (possibly by an opinionated person), but I don't see any edit war so far. Please start from normal editing. I understand that you have previous unpleasant experience, but you have to start afresh. - Altenmann >t 18:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP has nothing to do with edit warring. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And in order to establish that this is BLP violation you need to have Russian language proficiency. So when you would stop running circles and would make a point? Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP clearly places the burden of proof on editors wishing to add controversial material particularly if it is potentially libelous. If there is dispute over what the source says, and it's a foreign language source then the material should be excluded until an uninvolved editor can confirm that the source says what is being claimed. If there is dispute over whether the source is reliable, that too has to be resolved first Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Capitalism: A Love Story re Michael Moore

See this category: Talk:Capitalism:_A_Love_Story#Documentary_vs._Propaganda. This edit uses an obscenity to describe Michael Moore's works. Per Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion, I elided the obscenity (rather than deleting the entire comment, which I believe would be acceptable under the policy).

Addition eyes on the IP's contributions would be helpful. Thank you, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Is this really a BLP issue? It's about the works, not Moore himself. The discussion will be archived in the very near future. Does not seem worth bucking how Wikipedia is not censored and the notion of leaving other editors' comments alone. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. The term "terd" is not an obscenity, it is not a BLP violation as it refers to Moore's works not Moore, it is bad form to edit the comments of others, and Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. L0b0t (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The comment is crass, but it is an opinion about Moore's works, not a claim of fact about the person. And it is on a talk page, where editors are free to express their POV in the context of discussing the article, which is clearly the case here. --RL0919 (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, per the policy, as the comment, in its own words, disparages any of Michel Moore's work. WP policy explicitly mandates removal of non-compliantWP:BLP anywhere. Moreover, WP policy specifically allows for refactoring of comments on talk pages - doing is not sacrosanct, as seems to be asserted here. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This situation is completely pedestrian. Anonymous editors say stupid things on many talk pages. It is better off ignoring. Like I said, it will be archived soon enough. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The general concept of BLP is not to do harm to real life people. Consider the situation. Moore's work is by design taking on controversial subjects in controversial ways. It's no secret that his work will have groups of people who agree with his work, and groups that feel strongly the other way. If someone went on an explative laced tirade on a first time author I might have some sympathy for your position. But do you really think it's any harm to Moore that someone used the word "terd" on a talk page?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking for sympathy, only adherence to policy. The issue, as I see it, is not whether harm is done to the living person, nor if the language in use is Obscene or just Profane (IMO, a difference without a distinction), or if it is common for anonymous IP address users to leave imperfect comments on talk pages. The issue (which I think is worthy of resolution, for the future) is are living persons' works covered under the same editing restrictions as the biography of those living persons? I say yes, as the policy explicitly notes that non-compliant language is not allowed and should be redacted anywhere (in any namespace). If it were not an edit to an article regarding the work of a living person, and the edit did not broadly state that all of this living persons' work was comparable to scatalogical term elided, I would not care. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Well, IMO, no, no it does not apply as works are not living people. The policy is here to prevent libel, nothing more, nothing less and as such it only applies to living human beings, not their fixed works (it doesn't even apply to dead humans). L0b0t (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Works are obviously not subject to the general restrictions of BLP. While some extreme comments may cross the line, comments which simply declare the lack of artistic merit are opinions, however crudely phrased they may be, and do not qualify as "biographical information" under BLP. Talk pages may include comments that would not be acceptable in the articles themselves if the comments are "related or useful to making article content choices"; the less-than-civil comment in question is probably "related" to content choices, since it asserts, rather badly, that Moore's work should not be treated as having artistic merit. There's too much wikilawyering already directed at removing widely-circulated critical commentary about public figures (check out the absurd discussion at Talk:Sarah Palin attempting to declare an award-winning, highly regarded national magazine an unreliable source because editors here disagree with the magazine's editorial judgments) and endorsing this "works" principle would simply promote further deterioration of both content and the Wikipedia environment. Is Howard_the_Duck_(film) to become speedy deletable as an attack page? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Need an opinion here: Talk:Gideon Levy

There's a dispute over whether an opinion piece in a reliable source (for news, not necessarily editorials) can be quoted in the article about Gideon Levy. If someone could join the discussion, it would help. Thanks. ƒ(Δ)² 10:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, but probably shouldn't be quoted in the introduction or given undue weight. In fact it would be probably better to just mention the criticism rather than quote the whole thing. I checked over the article and thought it was fairly good. I guess people in Israel think cancelling their newspaper subscriptions is a big event. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me. I've left a message on the talk page referring to your reply. Since 3 editors have agreed over this issue, I'll treat it as consensus now. Cheers, ƒ(Δ)² 15:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

At issue is not the cancellation of the newspapers info, it is the inclusion of the words "anti-Israeli" (note the i) without a secondary source. Yes there are op-eds that have called him a "pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli propagandist", but are such opinion pieces suitable for sourcing in a BLP or is it needed that a secondary source say these things for it to be included? nableezy - 15:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A further issue here is that one op-ed, which describes Levy (wrongly, in my view) as "far-left", is then cited as a source for criticism of him as far-left. It seems that some editors consider this description to be discreditable, and therefore use it as a criticism rather than a description. RolandR 16:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That can be easily remedied though, if the rest is OK. ƒ(Δ)² 16:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not entirely germane to this thread but Levy is indeed considered far-left in Israel. RolandR, Israeli left is defined more on the level of compromise a person willing to make in the Arab-Israeli conflict, rather than the traditional 'left-wing' which stands for liberalism and socialism. If you have any sources suggesting he's a right-winger, I'd be happy to see them but, as of this moment, there sources say otherwise. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said otherwise, Roland's point on that source, and mine, was that the source was not criticizing Levy for having "far-left" views, it just said that he does. You used that article to source the statement that Levy's views have been criticized as far left. The source cited did not support the sentence. nableezy - 20:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What part of "criticized for what commentators and critics described as" is unclear? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The part where you source an off-hand mention of Levy being "far-left" to source his being criticized for it. And it is not "unclear", it is just improper sourcing as the source does not support the statement. nableezy - 18:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Minita Chico-Nazario

I removed the subjects home address from the article diff per BPL#privacy of personal information, but I wonder if it shouldn't also be removed from the article history. Is that commonly done? xschm (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger

This article, particularly the war crimes accusations sections, are a mess and borderline libel. Gah. Help. Ray^Talk 18:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The war crimes accusations seem perfectly well sourced. Could you be more specific?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Try statements like "fled Paris that evening" - unsourced, and highly judgmental. The laundry list of lawsuits filed against him which went nowhere. Etc, etc. At the very least, a conservatively written BLP that respects the subject's dignity would not repeat breathless accusations without discussing the resolution. In general, I think lawsuits against prominent persons shouldn't be reported at all until and unless they actually go to court and become a major part of the person's life. Being harassed by lawyer-activists is part and parcel of being a prominent person in a western democracy. Ray^Talk 19:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Rob Keith

This article has been about three entirely different people in its history, with people blithely replacing the one with the next. A decision needs to be made. Is this about (a) the footballer, (b) the band member, or (c) some unverifiable person from Salem, Oregon? Uncle G (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(d) deletion? Kevin (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The level at which the footballer plays/played is usually regarded as below the notability bar. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Abdul Qadeer Khan

I have just read a long review in the Times by Simon Henderson about Khan [18], supporting the line that he was a victim of a smear campaign and blamed for actions authorised by the Pakistan government, with a plausible case (expediency of the USA getting on with Pakistan). I am concerned that the allegations in our article are only very weakly supported for a BLP. e.g. "However, Khan is best known in the rest of the world for his nuclear proliferation activities - stealing critical nuclear technology designs and using them to build Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, as well as selling this technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea. Some of his critics have described him as the "Terror Trader" and the "Klaus Fuchs of Pakistan".

For which there is one marginal source giving an opinion that Khan was a proliferator. "Best known in the rest of the world" is an incredibly strong claim which requires a reliable source stating "best known..." but we seem to support it just with a few POV articles. I daresay he is not about to sue Wikipedia (although he seems to have been released and acquitted) but even so I think it needs some serious reworking. --BozMo talk 11:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, Pakistan's Nuclear Future: Worries Beyond War ISBN 1584873337 (from the Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College) details Khan's weapons export program and its existence from about a decade after their nuclear import program was established in the mid-1970s. From Khan's visit to Iran in January 1987 leading to an official Pakistani/Iranian meeting in Dubai that produced a cooperation agreement to 2002 with weapon designs shipped to Libya and Khan's visit to the DPRK. L0b0t (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard Littlejohn

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

This isn't the first time this page has been brought up. Last time it resulted in this series of edits by User:Tony Sidaway, and this series of edits by User:PhilKnight (some of which were reverted shortly after, such as this, reinstating a section that was removed per WP:UNDUE), among others.
The time since then has included lots of edits which remove information, and other edits which have reinstated said information, such as this series of edits: [19] [20] [21]. I thought I would come here for wider input on a recent change, and the state of the entry as a whole (and ideally, to have a few more watchlists keeping eye on changes to the article). Earlier today, 86.176.1.158 performed this change, which appears to unilaterally revert to an earlier version of the page but actually appears semi-selective (I can find no entry in the history with the exact same number of bytes). I then reverted this change, suggesting that consensus should be sought, which was then re-reverted, suggesting the onus was on me, at which point this talk page discussion started. Could I have some wider input from people more knowledgeable on BLP policy than me? A consensus gained between just me and 86.176.1.158 would not be much of a consensus, after all. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Noone? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Brown

What does it mean to add a religion to an infobox as in the G Brown BLP? What level of association does that imply? I thought that I had read somewhere here that in a BLP that unless the subject of an article said himself that he was religious that we didn't mention it. This citation is supporting the claim [22] there is also a degree of discussion that I have started on the talkpage Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a better place to ask this question? Off2riorob (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Salvatore Harmon

On September 24 2009 two changes were made to this article, one was obvious vandalism, the other was an unsourced remarked that was potentially liable. I removed both using the undo function.

On Sept 26th the user [U-Mos] reverted my deletion with the simple remark "this is true" without siting a reference. Again I removed it after which I wrote on the [U-Mos] discussion page requesting that they continue this on the article discussion page as a debated instead of constantly reverting any changes made to the article in order to make it comply with Wikipedia policy.

At this point U-Mos again reverted the page and then nominated the article for deletion.````

Marietta, Georgia

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

Two IPs (perhaps the same person) keep vandalizing this page with unreferenced comment about Melanie Oudin. They continue to post" Oudin also has the long-time nickname of "The Little Chicken," a nod to the Big Chicken landmark of her hometown'

There is no refence that this is true and in fact may be a slur against this young lady. The IPs are 66.191.125.116 98.251.120.123

They are also vandalizing the entry for "Big Chicken" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.232.57 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 September 2009

Kirk Talley

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

I have been the editor on the abovementioned article and I have a new IP user User talk:68.36.136.73 who wants to add material to the article which could be considered tabloidish. I agree that the material he is adding is viable, however, if one goes to the references I have given it is clear the sourced material will do the same as putting it into the article. It is a very sensitive area for Talley and he has asked me if I would use good judgement in allowing stuff to be added because it hurts his family. I have expalined WP:BLP in which it says we should use good judgement as well as not allowing it to turn into a tabloid article. The fact that Talley was the subject of an extortion attempt is the point, the fact that he met the guy in a chat forum is not the main focus. Can someone please chime in and let me know if this is an acceptable arguement for me to make to this IP user. Not to mention he took a personal pop shot at me on my talk page by telling me that the schools I advised for were not as I portrayed them The remarks had no reason for being included in his arguement. Thank you Canyouhearmenow 02:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The material that the IP is trying to add is potentially libellous, needs to be cited with WP:Reliable sources if it to be included. If not cited, it should be removed on sight, and the user warned (as you have done). Martin451 (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have just noticed that one of the 3 refs backs up the IPs addition (the other two links seem dead). Just because a fact hurts his family is not a reason for non inclusion. You also seem to know Talley personally, do you have a WP:COI Martin451 (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the IP claims are covered in the source. The IP is characterizing the chat room as "for homosexual men", when of the 2 sources that worked, one offers no description for the chat room, while the other describes it as "innocuous". Kevin (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not know Talley personally, he sent me an email as being one of the editors on the page. He might have contacted others from the page as well for all I know. I just do not see where it is beneficial to add "what type" of chat room when that could in fact be libellous. I would appreciate it if others would kind of help me with this IP User and try to get them to see this fact. This I feel could potentially turn into an edit war. Thanks Canyouhearmenow 14:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Then the text should be changed to illustrate, at least, that the extortionist threatened to expose (perhaps 'portray' is more neutral?) Talley as homosexual, because this is not in dispute. We must not only link to further sources, we must aim to be complete. The contention that it could 'harm' Talley's family is ridiculous, as he has acknowledged this much in public many times. Should we wipe Monica Lewinsky off Bill Clinton's wiki because Chelsea can read it? 68.36.136.73 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No I do not believe the Lewinsky thing should be removed from the Clinton article, but thata was on a much larger scale than the Talley issue. Talley has gone into the private sector and does not derive his main income from gosple music any longer. I think it to be tabloidish at this point to continue to point out the fact of it being any named chatroom he may have been found in. We may be able to come to a meeting of the mind here if we change the wording to reflect the events without doing harm to the subject. I am open to that. Canyouhearmenow 20:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it does not mention the type of chatroom, but it does mention what Talley was talking about. (I now get 2 of the sources working). However it does not seem to have a huge news coverage. I like the current wording "alternative lifestyle". Martin451 (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Southwell Minster School

Could people keep an eye on Southwell Minster School? I just discovered some egregious BLP violations in this article that have been there since September 1, and were being added to over several days, including today. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

School articles seem to be a particular BLP nightmare. They are often created by SPAs in good faith, who never check up on the page, and the page appears on very few watch lists. The children at the schools then edit the page to their hearts content, adding libellous material about staff, class mates, or just adding themselves as notable. There are rarely any sources for the staff, and often vandalism is only caught on recent changes. Martin451 (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Kendall Jenner and Kylie Jenner

• Kendall Jenner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kylie Jenner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both children appear on Keeping Up with the Kardashians a USA reality TV programme, which I have never heard of before last night. I cannot find any reliable sources for either, just a few site specialising in TV. Are they notable enough to warrant their own articles? I redirected both to the above programme last night, and have been reverted by an IP. I am tempted to AfD both of them, but want to know how notable they are in the USA first. Martin451 (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

PRODed both articles, Non-notable minor children of a notable athlete (Bruce Jenner). Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Roman Polanski

Inevitable I suppose, but the talk page (and probably the article as well) need an eye keeping on them. For the record, he pleaded guilty to sex with a minor (as part of a plea bargain, he alleges): some users feel that the world must be told that he's a rapist… Physchim62 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I came here to mention this. There is currently dispute whether to mention precisely what sex acts her performed on his victim. While I haven't considered it in detail, I have concern whether this is necessary. Particularly as according to that very article 'Samantha Geimer filed to have the charges against Polanski dismissed from court, saying that decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor's focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family.' Nil Einne (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

From what I have read off-wiki, it seems to me that the lurid details of the alleged sex acts is of particular BLP concern to Ms. Geimer, BLP concerns to Mr. Polanski notwithstanding. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 10:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Uri Geller

The overall problem with the article is that it appears to be heavily edited by supporters of Uri Geller’s main adversary, James Randi - and due to this, it is heavily biased to one view point, and I believe that it violates BLP in various ways.

Just to bring some perspective, very important figures in Uri Geller's story, such as his wife, and his brother in law & manager, both who have been involved in nearly everything he has done, are mentioned twice. Other people who play an important part in the Uri Geller story, such as Andrija Puharich & Edgar D. Mitchell, are not mentioned at all - Randi, however, is mentioned a total of 52 times!

There are a number of area’s of the article which make allegations that cannot be substantiated, for example in “controversial performances” in the description of the compass clip, regardless of how hard I try to edit this to be NPOV, editors who watch this article like hawks, will not back down from their belief that it should state that he was caught putting a magnet on his thumb – despite the very clear fact that the video does not in fact show this, and that it has never been proven. Any source cited to back up the contrary POV, in order to show both sides of the debate, are very quickly removed.

Until recently, the article even stated that Uri Geller had a different birth name – and the source used for this, was a post on the James Randi blog in which he stated that a friend had told him. I faced a great deal of friction when trying to get this removed, despite adding reliable source.

Similar concerns have been raised in the past on the discussion page for this article, yet the problem still persists.

One of the most active editors of this article, who appears to have a real motivation to keep the article biased towards the negative, skeptical point of view, has recently made what I believe to be serious libelous allegations against Uri Geller on the discussion page.

So, I feel that this article needs to be looked at very carefully. I have tried my best so far to clean this article up, enduring long & tiresome arguments on the discussion page, but I'm getting nowhere fast. Moondial (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the USA Today article taken from Associated Press has all the facts correct, it does state that Geller was caught putting a magnet on his thumb. If you believe the video does not show that, you need to supply a WP:RS to that effect; the video, itself (whether or not further edited at Geller's or someone else's request) is not an acceptable source.

I accepted the removal of the information about the [[YouTube] video, because the relevant reliable sources clearly did not establish whether Geller did have someting to do with the removal, although it has been reported that he has a history of suing his critics for libel, without much success. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK you are replying to just one detail - but this doesn't answer the underlying problem. This whole article is biased, and it's biased because You Arthur, and other editors who are involved in editing this page, clearly have a very one sided point of view, and are unable to edit this article neutrally. Many of your comments finish with put down remarks like this "he has a history of suing his critics for libel, without much success" which all lead me to believe that you have some kind of a problem with Uri Geller - or that you are a follower of James Randi, which is why you're trying so hard to put HIS viewpoint across. And some of your previous remarks on the discussion page have, I believe, been libelous, accusing Geller of criminal activities. Moondial (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Moondial, if you're going to make accusations, please provide some DIFFs to back them up as to what exactly you're talking about. Simply making remarks like that with no evidence reflects far more poorly on you than your target. Dayewalker (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to spend even more of my time to do this. I've already spent a great deal of time debating on the discussion page, and it falls on deaf ears. My "accusation" is that this article is baised, full of POV, that I feel that it is in violation of BLP, and that it is being edited by editors who have made their opinons quite clear, and who do not appear to be able to edit on this subject from a neutral point of view. You only need to read the article to see if what I am saying is true or not - I should't need to provide DIFFs for this, if anyone reads the article & can see where I am coming from, they are free to go through the edit history themselves.

If I wanted to continue debating, I would do so on the discussion board, I have posted it here to make others aware.Moondial (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The article looks fine to me. It shouldn't be credulous of his claims when they have been so thoroughly debunked by RS. Verbal chat 08:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So you feel that James Randi - someone who openly wrote that he was out to destroy Geller's career, and someone who personally plays quite a part in this article (52 mentions) should be classed as RS for this article? 11 of the references are his. I have to admit that it's slightly better now, as two of the main area's of concern have changed since I posted this notice (not sure if that's coincidence, as I was having a lot more resistance previously) but I still don't agree with the huge amount of James Randi mentions & reference in this article.

We're talking about someone who has stalked him for decades, this isn't just debunking this is real hatred, if you read the Jonathan Margolis book "Uri Geller Magician or Mystic" you find that it's actually quite sinister, starting off with pleasant letters, growing more & more venomous the more they were ignored, and ending with a 7,000 word letter which stated that he had been researching into his children, and his financial affairs! And then there's the open letter Randi sent to abracadabra in 1974, in which he made his intentions pretty clear!Moondial (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither he nor the publishers (Welcome Rain Publishers (!)) have a good track record, so the book isn't a reliable source except where it references reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't have a good track record?? Would you care to explain what you mean by that? He's an award winning journalist & author. See [23]. The original publisher is Orion Publishing Group [24], and the US edition was the published a year later by "Welcome Rain" in 1999 [25].Moondial (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(OD) I found the article quite disjointed and hard to read. I didn't even finish reading the whole thing, although I tried to improve the prose of the lede. The back-and-forth style of writing is typical of subjects such as that, but it is very unattractive. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Davenports

Hi there,

if you know how to/have the power to 'zap' articles, could you do soto those on 'Tohn Thistlewood Davenport,' 'Montague Davenport,' and 'Hayward M. Davenport?' I made the articles under a different username and wish to start again....can I zapthem myself if I log in under that username?

Thanks x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poias1 (talk • contribs)

The short answer: no. There is a process for deleting articles that only one person has contributed to, in cases where that contributor wishes them deleted, but it doesn't apply when others have also edited the articles, as is the case for the three you list, Hayward Davenport, John Thistlewood Davenport, and Montague Davenport. In short, once you have contributed content to Wikipedia, it is no longer yours to control the fate of: see WP:OWN. And in any case only Montague Davenport is relevant for this board as the other two are no longer living. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Incident "determined an accident" (in case where reports leave open possibility of suicide, per subject's belief)?

Note: My question has to do with neutrality of language, nevertheless I'm bringing my concern here since the language at issue is with regard to the blp of Glenn Beck.

In a nutshell, I would tend to side with allowing for the possibility that Beck's own belief that his mother committed suicide to be possible, and believe it incorrect for Wikipedia to subtly endorse Beck's unofficial biographer's stated belief (from a recent piece in Salon) that this death was necessarily an accident. A Coast Guard report mentioned in yesterdays edition of the area newspaper, in an article entirely about this issue, does not close off that possibility of suicide and is certainly a WP:RS; so it would be POV for WP to say "was determined" in the way some editors continue to insist, IMO. What do you all think?

Talk:Glenn Beck#suggested removal of sentence.

Contibution's diff ↜Just M E here , now 18:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note - Editing dispute now solved. ↜Just M E here , now 19:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert Garside

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

Pursuant to a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation (Ticket:2009092210036291, and I see now Ticket:2009092510040725), I'd like to request review from an uninvolved contributor here who might check for WP:NPOV and ensure that the sources are reliable enough for a WP:BLP. Also, if criticism is WP:UNDUE, there are a number of other potential sources listed at the article's talk, some viewable, that may help. For the sake of transparency, I think it better that somebody who has not engaged one of the contributors to the article in conversation elsewhere address this, since it is not necessarily a blatant BLP vio. This matter was previously listed at BLPN here and (indirectly) at ANI here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As this one has escalated to legal, I've gone on ahead and rewritten it from scratch, with fresh research. Under the circumstances, I hope that my announcement here will satisfy all transparency. :) I would certainly welcome additional review under the circumstances. The Controversies section is the largest, but that's what I found most of. I reviewed every source I could access at google news (in the "free" variety; my volunteerism to Wikipedia stops shy at paying for news articles. :)) It's my hope that everything is scrupulously sourced & balanced according to coverage. Assistance with anything that misses that mark from neutral contributors would certainly be welcome. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Keith Michael

There's an ongoing problem at the Keith Michael article. In addition to the autobio/COI evidenced by Kmr535 (talk · contribs) blanking sourced material (note that Keith's full name is Keith Michael Rizza and he admits he is Keith), there is now reason to believe that he is employing sock/meat puppets to acomplish the same net result, blanking of sourced material. See Cynthiabosco (talk · contribs), Rochtaiffer (talk · contribs) and Matthewhersey (talk · contribs). This is probably worthy of a checkuser but as an IP I cannot initiate one, so I bring it here. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one, as there is definitely some quacking going on. Note the last four editors, each making their first edit to the article, each adding their name to their edit summary in the same manner. Hinky. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've filed an SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kmr535. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

John C. Wright contains potential slanderous material

The article John C. Wright reports a recent controversy concern his views on the Catholic Church and Homosexuality. Some of the material is false, exaggerated, or poorly sourced, and is not point of view neutral.

Since it is the only report of his point on view on any topic, it appears to be an attempt to humiliate him for expressing an unpopular belief.

The section has been removed and replaced several times. On the discussion page, the consensus of the wikipedia editors has been to remove it, and yet it reappeared as recently as 9/28/2009

I see no such consensus, and while it may be argued that it's being given undue weight, whitewashing it isn't the solution. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A User on this page that has been editing has claimed to be the subject of the article, could I get some admin help as I am unsure of the process regarding COI and autobiography issues and OTTRS notification, this would be greatly appreciated, this is the IP making the claim [26] the edits are a little confusing as he is signing with his name and not the IP signiture. This is the diff [27] in which he claims to be the subject of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read the history, and specifically the contested material. It is my view that blogs (even or especially those of the subject) are not reliable sources, and since this is the basis for the content then it should be removed and remain removed per WP:BLP. I would further comment that detailing the specifics of a controversy is beyond what is permissible from a primary source in any event. Any editor placing this content on this basis, i.e. not a reliable third party source, should be 4im warned and taken to AIV if repeated and if there is edit warring then the article protected in the right BLP version. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a very clear statement from an experienced administrator and I will be supporting his comments. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly my opinion also. Kevin (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's get this right - if someone were to say something in writing, and it was verifiable as being from themselves, that is not a reliable source regarding things that they believe? Regardless of any particular article, this sort of failure to understand basic citing is something that is quite wrong with wikipedia (ie, that there can be no better source for someone's own statements than that person themselves - that a primary source always is better than a secondary when no analysis required, only the observation). How one can expect a secondary source to be any more accurate in this matter is beyond me, or indeed should be beyond any academic. It is simply impossible. Please debate this elsewhere, since on this actual subject, I do feel we are still waiting for better sources at the moment, and the deletion of the original source for this raises a right to privacy issue. LinaMishima (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yitzchak Ginsburgh

Yitzchak Ginsburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I am having a discussion about the desirability of a certain comment, and we have agreed to ask for a second opinion here. Please see the relevant talkpage section. Debresser (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter Berresford Ellis

I'm a little concerned about the origin and context of the text recently added to this article. Certainly it needs wikification, but thought I'd get a viewpoint from those experienced in BLP issues. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski

I just dropped in there to audit the links. I believe there's been edit-warring, and there's evidence of strong disagreements on the talk page. All I can say is that the article suddenly shows a certain lurid fascination with the current events surrounding the man. The impression is shambolic, hurried, unbalanced. It is a bad look for WP; and the article was clearly not one to be proud of even before the scandal.

May I suggest that at least one independent admin keep a very close eye on this? You might consider taking it back to a previous version and locking it for a while. I'm unsure; I'm not interested in the topic. But caution should prevail. Tony (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I have done a bit of tidying there, an ip is ranting on the talkpage and there are some new users adding whatever they like, the page could use watching. Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is consistent IP and new user vandalism/inappropriate editing, why not ask for protection per WP:RFPP? – ukexpat (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute even now, with editors seeking to revert private information back into the article, which has been clearly disputed under BLP 4.2. This article needs eyes. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is John Smeaton a Baggage handler or Queen's Gallantry Medal recipient?

See here for a requested move discussion that may interest BLP minded individuals. MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Diablo Cody

A user has repeatedly re-added a section regarding Diablo's private life which asserts that her ex-husband (that's me) left his previous wife for Cody. While this information did appear in an article from a couple of years ago, this is absolutely untrue, potentially libellous and reputation-damaging, and I would very much prefer if this information would not be included in her Wikipedia biography. I am, as I pointed out in the justification for the section's removal, not a public figure, and would frankly prefer to be left off of Ms. Cody's biography page entirely as I do not wish to be associated with her. If this is impossible, I would at least like the untrue information to be removed. Jon Hunt.˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.5.110.146 (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine

Hi there. This article contains some contentious, although sourced statements about living people. If somebody with experience of how such statements are best presented neutrally could have a look through the article that would be great. Please be aware however, that the old version of the article is currently the subject of legal action, so if you do not wish to edit the article yourself, but just provide editorial feedback on the talkpage or to me privately by e-mail, that would be fine. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Warner Todd Huston

This page was a total joke until I blanked it a few minutes ago under the auspices of BLP. While I realize there may have been a conflict of interest in the creation of the page, it has been a slow-moving edit war between the subject and a determined detractor. The previous page was half composed of a criticism section, and the non-criticism part was inflammatory, and had the man under Category:Homophobia (because that doesn't present a problem). Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted as negative in tone and poorly sourced. Prior to your (almost) blanking, it was entirely sourced to blogs and other poor quality sources. I haven't determined if he is notable, if it proves that he is then a fresh start is better anyway. Kevin (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Adam mowafi

Reliable news sources to the effect that the subject has taken part in legally questionable activities. The article gives contact details that also appear in the mass media. The tone of the article seems dodgy, but not sure what should be done with it. Subject is probably notable. Pseudomonas_(talk) 10:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be deleted at AfD as a person notable for a single event. At the moment there is a PROD tag, if that is removed I'll take it to AfD. The tone of the article is negative, but it is reliably sourced so cannot be speedily deleted. Kevin (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Death of Bill Sparkman

See Talk:Death of Bill Sparkman#Deletion of extreme blogger speculations. In short, an article about a recently killed federal worker contained a paragraph repeating a blogger's speculations about the motivation for his killing (with no published sources other than the blogger himself). I removed it citing WP:BLP, but perhaps I should have given a better reason for my removal since the L part of BLP is inapplicable. Nevertheless I think WP:BLP-like concerns should also apply to the recently dead, and readers of this board may wish to weigh in. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is difficult on two fronts. When does BLP no longer come into play in terms of editing? In terms of the article itself immediately upon death. What is added today will be there next week and onwards, and no one looking for information will care when the content was added. In terms of the editor, BLP advocates "sensitivity", and in my opinion, such as it is, extending sensitivity somewhat beyond death is the more humane thing to do and I would personally support that position.

I wonder if the more applicable concern is whether your source is reliable. This a very tricky area since the source itself is considered reliable, but itself is citing a non verifiable source. Reliability and verifiability are closely tied while verifiability is the "trumping" policy with reliability the less critical guideline. Accuracy in editing shouldn't be confused with truth, and it seems we should be creating an accurate encyclopedia. If the information in the blog is significant it should be available somewhere else so the blog ref could be removed and the better ref used. If its not available somewhere else, then perhaps the information doesn't belong in an encyclopedia of this kind. So, I would definitely support the removal you made for multiple reasons.(olive (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

Since I've never wandered into here before I hope I'm allowed to respond. I'm not trying to be pushy or break protocol.

I don't think the source is reliable or verifiable, since it is a political blog post openly admitting to pure "impolite" speculation. I think the article should still address it because it informs the discussion on how the media and blogosphere reacted to the incident. The offensive post attracted scorn from notable blogs and does more to highlight the ethos of the writer and media in its treatment of this subject. The article also describes statements by other bloggers which were highly-subjective and speculative, but germane to discussing the political and media reaction.

I respect keeping sensitivity in BLP, even after a death. But Sparkman was not notable until his death which ignited a media firestorm. In this case, the media's reaction to the death is more notable as the person who died. Properly done, I suppose the article shouldn't even be a biography, hence the title Death of Bill Sparkman. ——Rich jj (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Nortom

• Please see Talk:Nortom#All_about_Nortom - a rambling comment containing highly contentious, thinly sourced statements about several living people including members of parlament, independent writers, professional historians and so on. It would be great if somebody with experience in phrasing such statements could have a look at it. Poeticbent talk 22:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• User Faustian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who's labeling the above living public figures with disparaging comments has a long record of edit warring against Poland's documentation of the massacres in Volhynia provided by some of them, which he attempts to undermine from his own distinctly Ukrainian perspective. Poeticbent talk 22:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Stedman Pearson

This article has come to my attention today after a report at the 3RR noticeboard and I have had a look and there is a controversy section, when I had a look at it it looked poorly sources and the BLP stub seemed to me to be there purely to negatively portray this subject. I removed the controversy section with a request to not put it back without discussion on the talkpage here and an ip with one edit has revered my BLP protection without any discussion here actually refering to my good faith edit as vandalism, could someone please have a look to see if it is an iissue, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted because you are a known troublemaker who has already been blocked for distruption more than half a dozen times this year and you removed adequately sourced information. The sources given on this article in question were from two leading UK music magazines and are suitable for inclusion. You have already been reported to the Admin Notice Board this week other editors for disruptive behaviour as seen here. 80.41.82.61 (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I find your comments excessive and rude, comment on the edits and not the editor, please be more civil in future. Off2riorob (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In defence of Rob, one of the allegations (the death threats) is all based on one report in the Daily Mirror (not the best RS), with the only confirmed information being that police were investigating allegations. There are no news reports following up on it, at least that I can find. It's not suitable for BLP. I have sourced the indecency charge better (NME and University of Michigan press are both RS).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Now someone's come up with a more reliable source for the death threats claim (The Guardian). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It still looks weakly cited and like an attack piece, I would still like an admin to ave a look, please. Off2riorob (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Jack Terricloth and Stigmata

Resolved

An apparently single-purpose editor, Vericol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has repeatedly added unsourced information/categories ([28][29]) to both of the above-mentioned articles, despite a request to provide a source. There is no evidence anywhere on the web that I can find that the information might be true, and I have therefore been reverting it per WP:BLP. Each time the information gets reverted, the user returns and undoes the reversion without explanation. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Shortly after posting this, the editor responded to a second warning, indicating that they will wait for this to be reported in a reliable source. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)