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.

Kirtanananda (poor sources were tagged in August 2009)

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

This diff - is a summary of the dispure of the tv documentary, self published book by one of the authors of the article Henry Doctorsky[1] is disputed along with (selfpublished) IUniverse ;-) book After the Absolute: Real Life Adventures with a Backwoods Buddha which is proposed to be used along with self-published periodicals. Issues brought up here in August09[2], but no conclusion reached on this 'swami'. Come on folks just let us get to the bottom of it, Kirtanananda is a known, notorious criminal, well victimised for the crimes and for being gay (not self-confessed at the time), a helping hand from those who know the BLP policy is really welcomed. Thank you for your comments. Wikid^as© 03:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For some odd reason, the editor is convinced that a documentary by a fairly prolific documentarian and distributed by a PBS is unacceptable as a source. I don't think anyone actually disputes that Henry's book is not an appropriate source. Similarly the so-called self-published periodicals were an official publication of the community of which K Swami was the leader. That seems a fair enough source for statements about the community representing the viewpoint of its leaders. Sure it would be great to have better quality sources, but that does not justify gutting an article. It might well be that the documentary is only a collection of interviews and might even be pushing a POV. In that case, the artful editor will be careful to attribute controversial assertions in a way that makes it clear it is the opinion of the speaker being presented and not necessarily the entire unblemished truth. The documentary is at the very least a verifiable record that quite a lot of people who were formerly close associates now have a very different opinion of the swami. older ≠ wiser 04:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Bkonrad, why do you insist on using a documentary if [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] clearly exist and are more than sufficient? Just wondering? Wikid^as© 04:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so opposed to using a documentary? No policy prohibits or even deprecates using published video sources as references. Just wondering. older ≠ wiser 11:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Besides what is listed on the RSN and the reasons why it fails. It is a documentary over 3 hours long!! Besides the point that you can not expect others to watch it all, as you yourself confirmed we can not be selective about what parts of it we use. [8] According to the author he did not get to the bottom what actually happened, in the filmmaker's own words, it remains "murky". In the Wikipedia terms murky means 'poor source'. I know you will not agree, so it makes very little sense in arguing with you. That is why the notices were put up in both BLPN and RSN to get a neutral view. Wikid^as© 13:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Being too long is not a disqualification for being a source. That's just ridiculous. You had put the source up on BLPN and RSN and got absolutely zero response, so that hardly provides any support for your interpretation. Because the documentarian does not draw a conclusion about "murky" events does not mean that the documentary itself is murky or unreliable. That is your spin. older ≠ wiser 14:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Too long is not a disqualification, to be selective from a volume of primary sources joined together is. It is also hard to reference to the video source (not impossible), you just can not ask for an exact referencing that complies with WP:CITE. Just be honest and find one contentious issue anywhere in a good article or feature article of BLP of criminals, where the source is a documentary without a single critic's review? It is either a poor documentary or investigation was not done properly. 3 Hrs documentary broadcasted on a TV and not a single page with a reliable review? Good grief. I am dully impressed by your desire to ignore other sources. In any case, it is the duty of editor who adds it to the article to ensure that this source is good, so far no good response at RSN board. And no, it was not me who put this source on that board. However even if it is a good source in general -- it is hard to imagine it will qualify as a quality source for BLP contentious matters. Lets wait and see if anyone thinks that documentary that got no reviews since 1996 from a single critic is a suitable source. I rest my case. Wikid^as© 15:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever you might be "dully impressed" by, I have not expressed any resistance whatsoever to other sources. They would be welcome. My only issue here is why you seem so obsessed with deprecating the documentary and the community publication Brijabasi Spirit. older ≠ wiser 15:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

True, you did not start the current thread on WP:RSN, though it was in response to your edits, and which nonetheless has not seen support for your interpretation. I was thinking of your previous attempt, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 41#Video as RS for BLP, which likewise did not generate any support for your position. older ≠ wiser 16:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I will reiterate my opinion here that the documentary film by Jacob Young (1996) released through WNPB-TV (West Virginia Public Broadcasting) and the WVEBA (West Virginia Educational Broadcasting Authority) can be used as a legitimate source in the Kirtanananda Swami article because the documentary contains various cited references, and it directly quotes court testimony, numerous interviews, TV appearances as well as newspaper clippings relating to the alleged illegal activity that took place over the years at the former ISKCON guru's New Vrindaban Hare Krishna community in West Virginia. It also contains numerous direct quotes from Kirtanananda Swami himself, and many of these quotes can be read here: Talk:Kirtanananda_Swami. My opinions on this matter can be read on that talk page, and also here on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Now hopefully others can see how this information was wrongly removed from the article. I have compiled a large selection of direct quotes from the documentary film on Talk:Kirtanananda_Swami. I mean, since when are direct quotes from a person as seen in interviews on a documentary film not permitted in Wikipedia articles about people living or dead? Are words, exact quotes, that are filmed coming out of someone's mouth not permitted on Wikipedia? In my opinion, that would seem pretty silly, if not downright ridiculous. I think the evidence that I brought up on the talk page sufficiently demonstrates why the sources are good and why the material should be included in the article. There is court testimony which corroborates these things too (U.S. Court of Appeals, and here). As I've stated previously, I think the removal of this material may constitute a form of censorship, perhaps perpetuated by (a) former and/or current Hare Krishna devotee. The extent which this individual has gone to remove this material and keep it from being used further adds to my view that perhaps someone is trying to censor these things in some way, shape or form, and is perhaps trying to hide behind a warped view and a twisted interpretation of Wikipedia policies in order to manipulate things by throwing out all sorts of pseudo-wiki-legal-speak in a possible attempt to discredit legitimate published sources. In my opinion, it seems to be a possible attempt at undermining legitimate published material, and I do not believe this type of thing is good for Wikipedia. So, if others would please review the material discussed on the talk page of the article, as well as older versions of the article itself, and weigh in with opinions on this matter (especially regarding the use of the material from the documentary and whether or not it should be included as a reliable source), that would be much appreciated. Geneisner (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I will reiterate facts instead of my opinion, the documentary did not recieve any awards, nominations for awards, no reviews by critics and excluding it is not a censorship , but following the guideline of the WP:BLP. I have no objection on expanding on it on Jacob Young page obviously. But first you have to get me a reference to a review to take it seriously. Wikid^as© 13:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that a documentary needs to have won or been nominated for awards or been reviewed by a critic to be considered reliable. It does need to have come from a reliable source; the director seems to have made documentaries that aired widely, and won an Emmy, which seems to qualify him. --GRuban (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Herbert Schildt (new issues as of 10 April 2010)

"Wikipedia contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many countries repeating defamatory claims is actionable, and there is additional protection for people who are not public figures."

- Wikipedia "Biographies of Living Persons"

The article was created in 2006 about a relatively obscure computer author solely as a repository of information damaging his reputation. In a previous BLP I got it cleaned up, but shortly thereafter a critical Reception section was restored with an unsupported and NNPOV claim regarding all of Schildt's output.

This claim was ultimately based through a chain of cites and a copycat attack on another Schildt book on a single poorly-written document which has been online for 15 years, "C: the Complete Nonsense", by one Peter Seebach, a person with no academic preparation in computer science whatsoever according to his own admission. This article is not a "high quality secondary source" since it starts with a statement showing strong bias and NNPOV: "C: The Complete Reference is a popular programming book, marred only by the fact that it is largely tripe."

CTCN claimed to find "dozens" or "hundreds" of errors in what has turned out to be the third edition of one and only one book by Schildt, "C: the Complete Reference", 3rd ed., a book that went out of print on 2000; because of the popularity of the third edition, a fourth edition was published in 2000.

The page references and content of CTCN, from its publication circa 1995 to this month (April 2010) were all about the third edition. Although "dozens" or "hundreds" were claimed to exist, only 20 were listed although they were identified as "currently known". Of these 20, only 6 were genuine errors.

The author and maintainer of the page, despite numerous complaints over the years, never updated the page between the publication of the fourth edition in 2000 and this month of April 2010.

As a result, Peter Seebach's personal opinions, infected by a malicious bias which amounts to a motivation for libel under the law, were cited in the article between its creation in 2006 and this month, damaging Schildt's sales and personal peace of mind in a way that was maliciously intended by Peter Seebach.

This week (ending 11 April 2010) Seebach has written a new attack on the fourth edition and he has changed the Schildt article to reference the new attack in order to cover his tracks, after a considerable amount of criticism on comp.lang.c this year, coming from independent and educated sources.

Under Biographies of Living Persons, wikipedia is being used to enable a personal campaign of malicious libel.

The article was created for the purposes of libel, since being a computer author alone does not make one a "public figure" in the sense defined by the SCOTUS in its decision HUSTLER MAGAZINE v. FALWELL, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). This important decision allows offensive and malicious speech that is hyperbolically and satirically false when directed against important public figures and it states that "the First Amendment does not recognize a false idea". If Seebach and the copycat were "lampooning" a public figure they would receive protection under the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, in this case, it's my belief as a layperson that the First and Ninth Amendments, where the latter reserves a common-law right to privacy including protection from public shame, combine against Seebach. Because "the First Amendment does not recognize a false idea" the First Amendment does not recognize, outside of child pornography and little else, a "bad" book. Therefore, Seebach cannot argue that a NNPOV set of highly questionable "truths" about the practice of uneducated programming artisans constitutes a defense against libel involving wikipedia and his use of it.

Therefore the entire article needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.202.68.35 (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Dpyb and autobiography found by aosasti

• Article about Canadian poet Dionne Brand seems to be in violation of conflict of interest since it seems it is being entirely edited by the author herself or users with few other contributions to Wikipedia.

• Dionne Brand

Jim Hawkins; Twitter

Resolved

 – The source is acceptable, but we should find better sources. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Some editors would like to include the day and month of this broadcaster's birth. The information is sourced to responses to and from his twitter account on and around his birthday. See the logic here. The Twitter account is not officially verified but is linked to from his BBC homepage suggesting it is legitimate.

Background: when in the past, the month and day was deduced based on a comment that his birthday was the first day of Lent of a particular year, the subject complained via OTRS and the information was removed.[9]

Hawkins (via an IP) has apparently objected again to the inclusion of his date of birth in the article.[10]"It's none of your business" "Just delete the bloody thing and mind your own business". Unfortunately, he has also encouraged his twitter followers to vandalize the article, so it has been semi-protected.

Hawkins has never officially stated his day/month of birth in reliable sources (he has twice referred to the year, however). In any case, Twitter is hardly the best source, in my view. I think BLP policy is clear that if "if the subject complains, err on the side of caution and simply list the year", but other editors disagree. I would be glad of the opinions of other editors about this matter. --Slp1 (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He has revealed the date, more than once, on his publicly-available Twitter account. This is a reliable source, and that has been explained to you already, on the article talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I realize that this is your opinion, and indeed have included a link to your explanations in the first paragraph. The point here is to get the views of others interested and experienced with BLP matters, including appropriate sourcing/OR for these kinds of articles.--Slp1 (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not merely my opinion - it's fact, supported by Wikipedia policy. Your bald claim that "Hawkins has never officially stated his day/month of birth in reliable sources" is false. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? Where has Hawkins (or any other source) officially given his full birthdate? Where has he or anybody else said "My birthdate is xxxx". Anyway, all of this ignores the fact that BLP policy (which cannot trumped by any other policy/guideline) clearly and directly states that we should omit the date/month in cases where the subject objects. Hawkins has. --Slp1 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not quite true, the policy states the we should omit this info where the subject objects to it being published, it does not say that we should omit the info where the subject objects to it being published on Wikipedia. The twitter account clearly meets WP:SPS, and thus the actual day and month of birth, as posted by the subject of the article himself, is verifiable. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DOB. "if the subject complains, err on the side of caution and simply list the year" This is the exact quote from our BLP policy; it specifically does say we should omit in a situation like this, where the subject has complained about the inclusion on WP. --Slp1 (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The way that the quoted policy reads, is that if the subject objects to the info being published at all, but it is published anyway, then Wikipedia should defer to the subjects wishes. This is not the case. The subject of the article wants to control what is and isn't written about them on Wikipedia. This is the real issue here. Does Wikipedial allow a BLP to dictate to Wikipedia what can and can't be written on Wikipedia about them, or does Wikipedia stick by its guns and say, that info is in the public domain, it is verfifable and sourced, so therefore we should (and will) include it. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:DOB also states "Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known persons where the dates:

• have been published in one or more reliable sources linked to the persons such that it may reasonably be inferred that the persons do not object to their release"

Which is the case here. Mjroots (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You are right that generally the subject does not get to control WP content. This is an exception, however, and I think you are misreading the policy. There are no qualifiers to the instructions about deferring to a subject's wishes about the inclusion the full date of birth, which is written in the context of privacy issues. I also think that you are putting a lot of faith in a series of tweets, none of which actually say "my birthdate is XXXX." --Slp1 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No; the exact quote is "Caution should be exercised with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains, err on the side of caution and simply list the year". Nether notability (already established) nor privacy (the subject has willingly put the data into the public arena) is an issue here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The important point is that you are failing to address is "If the subject complains". He has.--Slp1 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's in the context of "less notable people" who "regard their dates of birth as private". Neither applies here, as shown. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an important "or" in there; "When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains". Both criteria are not required; in any case a quick look at the AFDs will show, that for many editors, his notability is in doubt[11][12]. --Slp1 (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Either or both clauses are still in the context of "less notable people" who "regard their dates of birth as private". Notability in this case has been extablished, as the AFDs show. Privacy is not an issue, as Hawkin's own publication of the date shows. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, really. Hawkins has used his own, publicly-available Twitter account to say, on 1 March, "today is my birthday". You removed the citations showing this form the article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

dif please, with this exact phrasing.--Slp1 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This Twitter post made on 1 March 2010, contains the phrase "Thank you for all the lovely happy-birthday tweets". This Twitter post also on 1 March 2010 states "Hooray for birthdays!", thus establishing that 1 March is JHs birthday. It is already verified and not disputed that he was born in 1962. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

None of those say "today is my birthday" or "my birthday is March 1st", do they? That's what I asked for, in response to Andy's claim above. You are (probably correctly) deducing that March 1st is the day, but maybe he was thanking people the day after his birthday and celebrating then too. Unlikely perhaps, but without a definite statement from Hawkins or another source, this simply isn't good enough. But once again this is almost moot, as BLP requires us to err on the side of caution by not including day/month info where the subject objects. --Slp1 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would he thank twitterers for the happy birthday tweets if it wasn't his birthday? If they'd got the date wrong wouldn't the likely response be "Thanks, but my birthday is on...". This Twitter post made on 2 March 2010 also references his birthday the previous day with the comment "didn't celebrate birthday with junk food orgy!" I think the evidence is clear enough in this case. Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are misinterpreting the objection. The subject of the BLP does not object the his birthday being published. If he did so, then I would support keeping it off Wikipedia. The subject of the BLP only objects to the info being on Wikipedia, he is quite happy for it to be plastered across the internet elsewhere, and has published the info himself. The bigger question (above) is the one that really needs to be addressed. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is absolutely no evidence that Hawkins has "plastered his birthdate across the internet". A few ambiguous tweets don't cut it. And yes, even so, our BLP policy does allow subjects input about what is in their WP bio with regard to the month/date info, the first google hit for most people. If you don't agree with the policy, that's fine, but you need to try to change it. And that can't be done here. This is my last post here, and I hope others will weigh in. In the meantime, I will re add the year of birth since that seems well-sourced and appropriate per BLP policy. --Slp1 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

there is no ambiguity to the tweets,. Please stop making misleading claims. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please cite the policy requiring the exact wording you now insist on. Or stop inventing rules. Hawkins has publicly said on 1st March, that that day was his birthday. What part of "you removed the citations showing this from the article" did you miss? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No answer? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Big Question

The real issue here is not the inclusion or omission of JH's date of birth; it is the issue of control. It is whether or not Wikipedia allows living people who are Wiki-notable to dictate what is and is not said about them, or whether Wikipedia stands up to these people and says "as long as our policies are adhered to, we will publish what is deemed to be suitable per consensus of Wikipedia editors", as I originally asked above.

No we don't want to go down that road of allowing subjects to control their content by tweeting in uncomfirmed accouts and we need to avoid the idea that just because we don't have a birth date that that is some kind of problem, it is not, just leave it out. Twitter is not by its very nature a reliable source and asserting that it is imo is a lowering of verifiability standards. Celebriwiki Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In this case, there is no doubt as to the ownership of the twitter account, which therefore meets WP:SPS. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He's a big supporter of twitter, the fact that he has to announce his birthdate on twitter in an attempt to correct them on wikipedia is a joke, any links to twitter is a degrading of what wikpedia claims to be, accepting that this twit is acceptable asserts they are all reliable, perhaps it is me that is in the wrong place. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No assertation is made that all twitter posts are reliable. We are specifically addressing this particular case on this particular article and none other than that. I take it that by "twit" you mean the post and not the poster. Mjroots (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps you are. Can you provide a citation for your assertion that he was making an "attempt to correct them on wikipedia"? Meanwhile, Twitter accounts which are provably owned and controlled by a person are perfectly acceptable as sources for things said by that person. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No they are not at all they are worthless and should never be linked to, if I find a twitter lnk I remove it immediately. This particular case is a joke, do you think that his birthday is some kind of fantastic educational content and we have to add this tweet as a reliable claim because we just have to know what is the exact birth date of this minor radio person, wikipedia is lost. Off2riorob (talk)

Policy says such links are acceptable. Feel free to lobby to change it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed only, twitter accounts can be verified like our OTRS system..Almost no twitter acounts are verified. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hawkin's Twitter account is linked to from his own page on the BBC website. No greater confirmation can exist, or be required. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if his twirter account is tatooed on his arm, linking to his tweet that he claims to be his birthday as a reliable place to find out or report his birth-date from is imo valueless and detrimental to the quality of the wikipedia. Supporting this as a reliable citation asserts that all tweets will have a discussion like this, johnny has tweeted on his twitter that he was born in Texas not California and it is clearly him, big discussion and change to johnny was born in California, laughable, johnny who is 24 was born in California (cited to johnny on twitter).Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. It's not WP policy; like said: feel free to lobby to change it. And your latter point is false logic. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, as was discussed in the last round of arguing only a few days ago, Twitter's beta 'verified account' program is not the only acceptable method of determining the ownership of an account. Insisting that the only verifiable accounts are those that have that spottily implemented feature, which is used only in cases where there have already been problems with impersonation (and sometimes not even then), is pointless and counterproductive. If an account's ownership can be reliably sourced it doesn't matter if it's twitter-verified or not. Your opinion that Twitter is 'worthless' as a source is not supported by policy, and your apparent insistence that because people can post lies on Twitter the entire service is unreliable is fallacious. Yes, people can lie. They can do it anywhere. That's why we have carefully written rules on when and how to use a self-published source. As long as those are followed, there's no danger of falling down any slippery slopes. The question here is not whether the account is verifiably his - it obviously is - but whether the information can or should be used when the marginally-notable subject apparently objects to it. -- Vary | (Talk) 05:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The subject of the article is more than marginally notable. He has presented a show on a national radio station in the UK, and won a major national music award. I'd say that "moderately notable" would be a better description. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, he is not at all well known in the United Kingdon, his viewing figures suggest that without this internal discussion, there is only bots and a couple of family and friends viewing his wiki article. Off2riorob (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Our internal stats can determine friend-and-family relations? Whoo! Which way's Signpost - we really should be shouting about this innovative AI development. Also, please could you point to the apparently-new policy, that viewings stats should determine article content? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

There being no further responses I propose that we reinstate the full DoB to the article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This is where all this is leading, desired addition to Lady ga ga tonight.. I am just wondering, do you support this addition? Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 28, 2010, Lady GaGa chatted in a cbox on one of her fan sites, GaGaDaily. She announced that she had already written the first single off of her new album http://gagadaily.com/2010/03/lady-gaga-in-the-gagadaily-chat-box/. She said will be "the greatest of her career" it's "an anthem to our generation." She also revealed that she will announce it's title on that fansite. She later confirmed it was relly her on her Twitter page http://twitter.com/ladygaga/status/11220130969 .

Utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It is relevent, it is exactly what you are supporting and encouraging, it is the wikipedia that you support, self certification and promotion by subjects through their twitter account using the wikipedia to publish it. So, no I don't support it at all.Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposal, with the proviso that if a better source can be found, then that source should be used instead. It has been adequately established above and elsewhere that the twitter account is JH's, and therefore can be used per WP:SPS. Mjroots2 (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No. There is no consensus for the inclusion of the full date of birth either here or at the talkpage of the article. The same two editors Mjroots and Pigsonthewing have been arguing vociferously for inclusion here and elsewhere and have received zero support, while 4 editors have opposed it for various reasons (Off2riorob, me, and Jonathunder and Mattgirling). More importantly, since no local consensus can overturn BLP policy, I'll also point out once again that the proposed edit would violate our BLP policy (which has been recently clarified), which unambiguously states that "Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth...err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Hawkins has complained [13][14]. It's not going to happen. --Slp1 (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

SLP1, you still misrepresent the policy. The subject does not object to his DoB being published. He has even published it himself. He only objects to it being on Wikipedia and that is because he objects to the very existence of the article. He is still trying to control his article, which is the one thing that is not going to happen. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not misrepresented policy. I may understand and interpret it differently than you do, but that's a very different matter. Please be careful with your claims.

Note that the BLP policy, in the context of privacy of living persons on WP says, "where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth" ie inclusion on WP. There is no expectation that he must "object to it being published" anywhere/everywhere as you suggest. [I'd also, as you know, disagree that he has ever in any real/direct way published the day/month, but that's beside the point here]

I realize that you are concerned about Hawkins controlling the article. If I saw signs of that I would support actions to prevent it. But that is not what has happened here: the subject has objected to the inclusion of his full date of birth on WP (twice, 6 months apart, with peace in between). BLP policy accepts that the inclusion of this material may be considered a breach of his privacy. Hawkins is within his rights to complain to WP about it, and as he has we are obliged by policy to respect his wishes. --Slp1 (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This thread seems to have considerable tendentious argumentation by Andy Mabett and Mjroots2. The date should be removed unless there's a definite reason to include it, i.e. it's inextricably connected with some well-documented incident of encyclopedic notability. A made-up example might be if Hawkins ran for president of the USA and there was a Supreme Court case about whether he was old enough to take office, because his 35th birthday fell on inauguration day. That would make his birthday notable. The operative words from WP:DOB are "widely published by reliable sources", which doesn't mean a few twitter posts. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As has been shown by WP:SPS, the source is useable, although I do recognise that a better source should be used if one can be found. For the moment, the Twitter post is the best available source. This is a difference of opinion over interpretation of policy, that's all. You'll notice that there has been no disruptive editing of the article while the discussion has been going on - no repeated insertion / deletion of the DoB. It looks like we'll have to find a much better source, then the issue can be addressed again. As has been made clear, JH does not object to his DoB being published. His objection lies with having an article on Wikipedia at all. He claims there are inacurracies in the article, but won't say what they are or provide proof of what they are. I don't want the article to be wrong in any details, but we can only work with what the sources say. The best we can hope to do here is ensure that WP:BLP and WP:V are adhered to. Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

George Lopez

The following BLP-violation content was added to comedian George Lopez' biography:

"In February 2010, he referred to Sarah Palin as a "special needs" "[bitch]".

cited only to this short video clip. I changed it to this, to add context:

"During a stand-up comedy routine in February, 2010, Lopez referred to Sarah Palin as "la cabrona", and said, "Sarah Palin said that it is wrong for President Obama's advisor Rahm Emmanuel to use the word "retarded", but it's alright for Rush Limbaugh. When someone becomes irrational like that, complaining, not making any sense, it means only one thing: they're special needs."

...but frankly, I still don't see justification for even having this joke and punchline in a BLP, and have recommeded removing it completely until someone explains what it adds to the article. I would appreciate the input of others either here or on the article talk page. My own observations include:

• The "source" is a videoclip of a stand-up comedy routine; a primary source with no context, evaluation or reporting, hosted on the FOX Nation blog. BLP requires high-quality sources.
• The proposed content doesn't inform the reader. It's a joke about a politician (the #1 subject of stand-up comedy jokes), seemingly inserted into a biography just to disparage either Palin, Lopez or both.
• It isn't relevant to the subject; isn't something significantly covered in any reliable sources about the subject, and also appears to be inserted clumsily into the inappropriate "Film and television projects" section. (See undue weight.)
• Political personalities are the subject of stand-up comedy and talk-show jokes all the time. So why put this one joke and punchline into a biography? The only reasoning the original editor offers for inserting the content is, "And how often do you hear a major comedian on a non-premium broadcast channel refer to a major political figure as a bitch? If he wants to do that fine, but Lopez can't complain if a large number of his potential audience find it over the line." — which is no reason at all. There doesn't appear to be any news article anywhere reporting on why this particular joke and punchline are of any importance or relevance. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

From your report I agree with your position, a one line weakly cited comment about a living person that did not recieve wider reporting and it being given undue weight as regards negative portrayal of a living person. Remove as BLP undue weight given to a not widely reported derogatory comment about a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has re-inserted the comedy routine snippet, without justifying the edit. What would be the appropriate steps to take to insure the integrity of the BLP? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have left him a note and a link to this thread and an invitation to discuss the content here. He also added this link, it looks a bit bloggy to me, is this wikipedia reliable? http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/02/13/george-lopez-calls-sarah-palin-a-btch This one line derogatory joke is of no encyclopedic value at all, it is just an worthless insult. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The quote is backed by two sources--by Fox News reporting (not an article, but a video clip with a corresponding reported headline), and an article on "Big Hollywood". The derogatory joke is encyclopedic because it is highly unusual for a major comedian on a major non-premium network to refer to a major political figure using a term as strong as a "bitch." The reader is informed about Lopez' disregard for following comedic standards when it comes to referring to one of his political enemies.--Drrll (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to add the notable point that he makes rude jokes about politicians then find a citation that says that, leave the not notable specific insults disguised as comedy out of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Fox Nation blog cite merely indicates that a comedian told a joke about a politician (gasp!) with no further reporting, and the Breitbart blog isn't an acceptable source for anything but opinion, and not even that where BLPs are concerned. Your own personal opinions about what is "highly unusual"; "derogatory"; what terms are "strong"; and what constitutes "comedic standards" and "political enemies" may be of interest to some folks, but this is a biography about Lopez. If there is significant information about Lopez' disregard for comedic standards or political enemies worthy of insertion into a biography, certainly you can find and cite the high-quality sources required by WP:BLP. And instead of quoting a couple of uncomplimentary phrases from a comedy monologue, try informing the reader in neutral, encyclopedic terms of whatever it is you feel needs to be conveyed, with proper sourcing, of course. (See also this.) Xenophrenic (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Xenophrenic and Off2riorob - it's a BLP vio. The material is poorly sourced, and violates WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:WELLKNOWN. --Ronz (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Biography of Ronn Torossian

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

Please assist. People with a long standing grudge are editing the document and manipulating it despite the fact their attempts have been rebuffed previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please assist. People with a long standing grudge are editing the document and manipulating it despite the fact their attempts have been rebuffed previously. Mosmof and friends are ganging up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 09:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is locked after a bit of reverting, this is really not a big BLP issue, there are no clear violations, all the content is cited and pretty much ok, it is a content dispute and weight, this is going to need more talkpage discussion to find the middle ground. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Resolved

Considerable publicity has been given to emails which climate change sceptics allege show professional misconduct by a number of named scientists, most prominently Phil Jones. A longstanding summary in the lead section noted both the allegations and the views of academics, climate change researchers and independent reports which stated that most or all of the allegations were baseless.[15] Some editors took exception to following the description in sources of those making the allegations as climate change skeptics, and editors endeavoured to find improved wording and discuss it on the article talk page,[16] However, on editor seems to hold a radically different view of BLP which involves deleting all content in the lead reporting the views that accusations are to a greater or lesser extent baseless, leaving only the allegations made by the climate skeptics.[17] Very slow progress is being made at Way forward to reach a consensus, but the editor editwarred to remove the balancing views which I believe are essential, and as involved editors are inhibited by the 1RR restriction, balance has not been restored. I remain very concerned about this unresolved BLP and NPOV issue in the lead section of a prominent article, and would welcome outside views. . . dave souza, talk 15:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved outsider, I am curious as to why 1RR would inhibit the restoration of balance. If there are more editors on one side of the debate, and each has 1RR restriction, wouldn't their combined weight override a single nay-sayer? What am I missing? Crum375 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There was someone who went to 3 or 4 R for some reason and got blocked. But his/her final changes were undone about 20 minutes after the last edit so I'm not very sure. Perhaps some more changes were needed but everyone who could had already done 1R Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The questionable changes in the 4R were only partly undone at the time: findings by MPs were restored, but not balance in the first paragraph. Discussions at the "Way forward" section showed no great obstacle, and a version put forward there and reiterated in a No case to answer section led to sufficient agreement to reinstate reasonable balance once 1RR permitted. The editor who went to 4R accepted this version on return from the block. It's still under question (on the talk page) if we're giving too much detail in the lead of accusations which third parties have found to be baseless, it should be possible to resolve that in normal talk page discussions. . . dave souza, talk 07:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's resolved, but not that there were BLP violations, other than a few added by the AGW apologists, now gone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Rob Enderle

Resolved

 – Small rewrite

Criticism section suffers from POV, OR and WEIGHT issues. I know nothing about technology and microsoft/apple criticisms. Please someone take this and watch it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Jackie Sherrill

Jackie_Sherrill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A couple of weeks back now, I noticed a section of this article added by an anonymous editor that was completely unsourced and written in a "behind the scenes story as told by insiders" way which seemed extremely POV. I removed it, noting its deficiencies in my comment, and it stood for approximately a week before being added back by, I assume, the same anonymous user (similar by slightly different IP). This time it included a source that 1) was posted under the notice that the items on the page were merely rumors and the poster wouldn't vouch for them 2) didn't actually cover most of the information in the paragraph in question. I once again removed it, and noted on the talk page my problems with the particular section. Since then, I've received no feedback from the user on the talk page, but we're approaching a revert war (a revert each way every couple of days since). Since it's an anonymous user, I can't contact them directly to pursue a discussion, so I was hoping for some guidance. Erusdruidum (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It'd probably be a good idea to leave identical notes on both of the IP's talk pages. Explain what they've done wrong and where they can go to get more information on the issue. You've brought the issue up on the talk page, so I don't think there's anything wrong with you reverting the edits until something is done about it. If it gets into edit-war territory and the IPs won't discuss it in spite of your best efforts you may want to request temporary protection for the page but I don't think you're there yet. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page for a week. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and the protection. I did post the message to the 3 most recent IPs. We'll see if between that and the protection it's enough to ward it off. Thanks again Erusdruidum (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As soon as the protection wore off, it was re-added verbatim from another very similar IP with nothing on the talk page. How frustrating. Erusdruidum (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck Page

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

I think this article needs to be locked so only reputable editors can work on it. I could be wrong, but it looks to me like there are a lot of fans of Beck hovering on the page, blocking edits and making edits to paint him in the best light. There also appear to be lots of critics trying to post negative things about him. As a reader, I feel the article is not a well balanced one. LynnCityofsin (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That won't happen unless there is current and continuing vandalism, and the place to request it is WP:RPP. – ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

For background you might note Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:LynnCityofsin. Although the OP is requesting protection, it appears to be the result of a content dispute. It may be that another set of eyes or a new voice might help out there.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I only made one contribution to the page. But this problem is something I've complained about long before that. I will admit I am in the middle of it, so may not be objective. But I truly believe there is a serious problem with fans and critics cruising the page and having a disproportionate impact on its content. LynnCityofsin (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Shane Salerno

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

This (Shane Salerno) is a page that seems to dodge the bulk of the protocol outlined in BOL. For starters, there aren't any references. Or, if their there, they aren't cited properly Also, the content is self-aggrandizing in tone, and suggests it was written either by a publicist or the subject of the article. Concerns had been madeon the talk page, I made some changes (axing some superflous material) and it was quickly reverted by an anon who wrongly justified the move as reverting plagiarism. The last thing WP needs is another edit war, so in an attempt to avoid this I am seeking some assistance here. Thanks in advance to those with more proficiency at this than me (not saying much). Jim Steele (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely

• Eric Ely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This may be the first self-reporting on this board ever. :-) I created this article, and wish for someone to look it over for any obvious weasel words, neutrality, or defamation problems. I have taken much care to cite and verify every single sentence or clause. I created this stub because the subject has gotten a huge amount of local and national press coverage - in New York, Montana, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania - and I think our users would look for an objective, well-cited source. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't like it much, it is not really a well rounded biography of a notable persons life is it? Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Comes close to WP:BLP1E I think? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on it more. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope it meets your approval now. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It is better after your work. It is cited and written in a decent way, for me the one event and what looks to me although in the reporting there were at the time some countrywide coverage, its imo a case of vastly local notability published to a wider audience through the wikipedia to the clear detriment of a semi notable living person, or a person notable only for a single controversial incident, for which there seems to have been no legal action against him at all or neither has he been sacked from his position? and for which the subject also denies any wrong doing at all, and for this tittle tattle tabloid controversy wikipedia gets a detailed article? Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• That article is terrible. Sorry. It's about a character peripherally involved in a news story, not even the central character in the story - on whom we don't seem to have an article. This is not Cardinal Ratzinger, it's some guy who was a supervisor of a school district. If the case is notable then write the case up and present it as such, don't pretend to write a biography about some poor schmuck who's known for one incident of poor judgement. This is one of the worst ideas for an article I can remember. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sent to Article for deletion for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Owner of attack site on a person attempting to influence BLP content on same

Resolved

 – no action required

This website apparently exists to defame videogame developer Derek Smart. The site lists "Bill Huffman" as its owner. An account by the User:Bill Huffman has been, over a long period of time, been trying to influence the content in that article. Note this exchange on the account's talk page. The person behind that account is apparently operating a second account on Wikipedia to keep his/her Derek Smart and other edits separate. I'd like to ask for an independent review of this situation to see if anyone else feels that something isn't right about what's going on here. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You're in luck, because Arbcom independently reviewed this as part of their Derek Smart case, and they found no grounds to take action with respect to Mr. Huffman. I don't see any problem either, particularly since he never edits the Derek Smart article. He only edits the talk page, which is what WP:COI says he should do. - MrOllie (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the ArbCom case. I, of course, accept their decision on the issue. The person in question's use of a second account is being addressed elsewhere. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a follow-up note. The ArbCom finding did not give permission for this person to edit Smart's BLP article. The finding only noted that the person behind the account was operating an attack site on Smart and made no specific recommendation about what to do about it. Perhaps one is in order. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but I can't find any evidence that Mr. Huffman has ever edited Derek Smart. --Orlady (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A Question about Biographies of Living Persons/Wikipedia Policy

Resolved

 – policy discussion

I've been going over a few biographies of various living people, and I've noticed a trend. They always tend to be very light on the criticism sections, if they have one at all, even if there is notable criticism on the person in question. Sometimes, the criticism will be there in sufficient detail, but buried in subsections in the most boring possible way, without any 'criticism' section of its own. If someone doesn't read the entire article, they might not even be aware of it at all, its effectively buried. Hu Jintao, for example, is about as brutal as they come, and sourcing that should be something any 8 year old could do with half an hour of searching...but if you read his article, he sounds like just some boring guy. I'm not criticizing that article in particular, but this sort of thing seems to be a trend among biographies of living persons, and I thought I'd ask about it. It presents a serious credability problem for wikipedia as far as any notable living person is concerned. Hewhorulestheworld (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The lack of dedicated "Criticism"/"Controversy" sections or subarticles is deliberate. All such material is included in the normal biographical sections they occur in, just as they do in a regular biography that you'd read in a bookstore or library. That way you have to read everything about what a person was doing, in all the relevant context, even if it is "boring". Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. When the United States 2008 presidential election was underway, and there were about 18 or so candidates in the early going, a special effort was undertaken to rid all candidates' articles of separate controversy/criticism sections — see here for more — and the same has become a trend for other political figures' articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Naming non-notable person in Russell Crowe

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

I have tried to make clear to an editor that per WP:BLPNAME, we do not name non-notable private persons in articles, yet this editor persists in inserting the name of a private citizen who is not notable into the article. He continues to return this information to the article, [18] [19] [20] [21] despite having been told and the rationale explained. Instead, he claims that I don't know the policy regarding naming such persons. Could someone please comment on this? Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

BLPNAME says "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." Thus I would exclude the name here, even though it's appeared in many news stories on this one incident. This is particularly the case because the incident was not initiated by the person in question (i.e. they were not seeking publicity), but rather by the article's subject. Rd232 ^talk 08:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Its locked , fully protected, personally in this case I would leave this name in , I think it is well enough known and was globally covered that inserting the name is fine, I recognised the name when I saw it, so there can be no harm as such. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I would leave it out. The person is not notable for any other reason, and adding the name adds absolutely nothing of value to the article. As per WP:BLPNAME, it should be left out. Dayewalker (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

We routinely add such names, I have resisted the insertion of such names more than once and consensus was against me, the policy and the community just does not strongly support the excessive restriction of widely published names of not notable people that the addition of which is appears non controversial and not detrimental to the individual. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying here. WP:BLPNAME says "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." To me, that's the bottom line. This non-notable person's name adds nothing to an article on Russell Crowe's life. In fact, including it could be seen as giving undue detail to a single incident to Crowe's life. Dayewalker (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been quite clear, from my experience community consensus is for the inclusion of such names and the policy you are quoting is not strongly against it when there is no clear detriment to the person and (tomorrow) if you want me to I will present hundreds of such names (don't quote me on hundreds) but lots and lots that are included in articles right now. As regards your mention of undue weight, the content is already in the article with or without the name there is no change at all to the weight of the content.Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't, there's no need for that. We'll just agree to disagree here. Dayewalker (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

otherstuffexists, yes but when the otherstuff that exsts is in the majority then it does have a value and it is clear from the usage of such names that there is community support for the incluusion of such non controversial, well known names. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(OD) As I said above, I respectfully disagree. Even if there is consensus to add the name (which there doesn't appear to be on this page, or the article page), consensus doesn't trump policy. Dayewalker (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

My experience, at BLP/N anyway is the opposite from O2R. We generally exclude such names particularly when there hasn't be widespread continuing coverage and the controversy is largely one sided. P.S. I would say that I didn't recognise the name. P.P.S. I would welcome say 5 most similar examples from O2R Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think the most relevant part of WP:BLPNAME - "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." If the name is removed from the article, does the content still give the same information about Crowe? Yes, it does. Our understanding of Crowe is not diminished by the name being removed, and it is not increased by the addition of the name. In understanding the event and its impact on Crowe, the name adds nothing of substance. Rossrs (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The most recent was Paula Dubois, the not notable at all private person who editors insisted to name during what must have been a time of great grief for a mother whose son had only just died in controversial circumstances Kristian Digby . Off2riorob (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Craig Evans the man that threw an egg at John Prescott . Neither of these names add anything at all to the articles in question, but the names are there. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How many wrongs does it take to make a right? It's interesting that you mention Kristian Digby. You and I both commented at length at Talk:Kristian Digby against the use of his mother's name without purpose, and the editor who disagreed ended up saying that he was prepared to accept that her name not be used. I was prepared to accept that his mother's name be used if there was a good reason for doing so, but a good reason was never presented, in my opinion. And yet it's in the article. The talk page discussion did not support its inclusion so that's not an example of consensus determining the use of the name. It's more an example of consensus being disregarded, at least in terms of the talk page discussion. I don't recall if the matter was brought here. Rossrs (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The matter was not brought here and it was inserted and supported during the discussion, the reason given was that the name was given context by adding that she went to the inquest..usually the names are inserted without any consensus as such, mostly so few editors are bothered about an issue that it is simply inserted without question, in this case a few editors seem to be bothered but the community as a whole imo want to insert such names and they do insert them at will, and unless they are challenged by a few editors that are bothered the name sits in the article, this is all I am saying. I can link you to multiple similar situations were I have resisted such additions, Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I know you're right. Often the names are added at will, and often the inclusion stands because it faces little or no opposition. We can't catch every instance of this taking place, but if we believe that it is against the policy and guidelines that have resulted from considerable thought and discussion, we should support those policies and guidelines and oppose those instances that we see. If people want to keep adding non-notable names at will, they should consider having the guidelines rewritten or updated. Individual editors may be ignorant of the policies or they be apathetic or they may disagree with them, but that doesn't negate the policies. Being outnumbered doesn't make our viewpoint wrong, only less likely to be taken seriously. I know from the Kristian Digby discussion how fruitless it can be but I'd rather the Russell Crowe situation be discussed further, and maybe one day this will be the example that is held up to deter the addition of non-notable names. Rossrs (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy violation or not, I think the name itself detracts from the encyclopedic, neutral tone of a well-written article. In a consensus (as opposed to a BLP) issue, I'd vote against its inclusion.FellGleaming (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Four points. 1. Consensus can change. 2. Consensus is local (otherstuffexists). 3. In providing comparable examples, bear in mind "person initiated event or was to blame for publicity involved" as a factor. Thus the Prescott guy would be distinguished from the Crowe guy. 4. To clarify a point made above about "not adding value" and "undue weight": I would say the name has negative value as it is not in itself relevant to understanding the incident as it relates to Crowe, and on the contrary distracts from what is important. It is (in the Crowe bio context) noise, not information; chaff, not wheat. Rd232 ^talk 22:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

3 is a good point which I also tried to make albeit perhaps not so well explained ("and the controversy is largely one sided"). I agree that people do tend to add names, and to some extent that may seem to set consensus but when the issue comes up, there's usually consensus or close to it to remove the name (from my experience) after sufficient discussion particularly from those who understand BLP (by this I simply mean those who are aware of BLP and understand it well enough they're not going to make a clearcut BLP vio or think such a vio is okay). I have to agree with Rd232 that this is to some extent a case of otherstuffexists in that there's a lot of non ideal behaviour which is unfortunately difficult to change, but doesn't IMHO really indicate we should encourage or accept it when it comes up Nil Einne (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

IP calling an author a liar on his talk page

71.81.36.249 (talk · contribs) has called an author, David Oestreicher, whose work is used in our Walum Olum article and with whom the IP disagrees, a liar on the basis of his interpretation of what someone else has written somewhere.[22] I removed this as a BLP violation and he has put it back. And since the publication of an article extensively endorsing Oestreicher's work in the journal American Literary History it's pretty clear he meets our criteria of notability, not that that should matter. Dougweller (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Doug Weller has engaged in multi-year blocking and covering up every edit. The sources are as follows :Newman's article also calls attention to "the capstone of the Walam Olum’s publication history as an authentic document".DOES THIS SOURCE MEET YOUR "NOTABILITY" REQUIREMENTS: The Multilingual Anthology of American literature: a reader of original texts with English translations. Marc Shell, Werner Sollors. New York University Press, 2000.

Doug embraces Oestrichers interpretation of a letter from Napora, claiming that Napora "Recanted". When presented with direct evidence from Napora stating "I Never Recanted Anything". Doug claims that this is a violation of policy. Looks more like Doug continuing his battle to cover up the FACTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Blp#Non-article_space ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The IP, who has edited the article in the past under at least one other IP address and an account, is as in the past cherry picking statements. The 'capstone' bit is from an article which uses the Walam Olum as an example of a literary hoax to, as the article now says, " study the thinking and cultural assumptions of earlier researchers (for example by examining how they treated features of the Walam Olum which should have been clear evidence that it was a fake". Without that context the excerpt is extremely misleading. The Napora thing is another red herring. The bottom line is that this attack on his talk page was a BLP violation. I note that he's toned it down now although he continues to distort the 'capstone' issue and to attack me on the article talk page, but that's what he's been doing for a long time. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Katharine, Duchess, of Kent#Recent years

Katharine, Duchess of Kent#Recent years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This section seems very unsourced. - Kittybrewster ☎ 06:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a few, nothing too controversial apart from she is alleged to like rap music, the whole article could use an interested editors attention. Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg Mortenson

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

Greg Mortenson: I want to permanately remove my name from Wikipedia due to continuous insertion of non-appropriate photo with a grin: contensious in rural Afghanistan where I have worked for 17 yrs

GREG MORTENSON I am requesting Wikipedia to permanately remove the article of my biography from Wikipedia due to continuous insertion of a non-appropriate photo with a grin that could be contensious in rural Islamic society, where it is innapropriate and inflammatory.

Continued re-insertion of this (now more than three times) is a security risk for me, and violate three time insertion' Wikipedia rules, which are not being followed. I don't have time to police this, so please do not put up another article on me. Thank you. Greg Mortenson —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregMortenson (talk • contribs) 08:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Complete removal of the article may be difficult as the topic seems quite notable. Perhaps you could supply a more tasteful photograph. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought so too so I restored the article, minus the photograph being discussed (the entire article had been blanked which did not seem encyclopedic). Weakopedia (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps under the circumstances we could after seven days delete the picture to stop it being replaced again. Off2riorob (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the photo is contentious in Afghanistan? Does anyone know if the person complaining is actually Mortenson? Just curious. -- Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, seems a matter of showing good faith, the picture has been removed, so.... Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The picture in the article now is not the one he complained about? Looks like he's grinning to me, kind of Mona Lisa-like. -- Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing about grinning but It does seem to be quite restricted as far as interpersonal greetings and meetings goes, it is best to only occasionally look someone in the eyes http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/afghanistan.html . Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes that is a new picture, non grinning type. Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems like an otrs came from his company for the new picture, but the old picture is still in use on two foreign language wikis http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:GregMortenson2008.JPG and http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:GregMortenson2008.JPG Senegalese and Hebrew. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that I can compare the old and new pictures, there's certainly a big difference. The current picture is more, uh, subdued. -- Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Generic advice to subject: if you don't like the picture the best bet is usually to send us a better one with an appropriate license. That seems to have happened here, or something close. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Alek Keshishian

• Alek Keshishian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article has only one source, the Internet Movie Database. Yet, it has an entire paragraph, none of which appears in at least the free portion of IMDb. In particular, it has the rather startling sentence: "While studying at St. Paul's School in Concord, NH, Alek realized he was gifted with the ability of telekinesis." I don't know if I'd call that statement "contentious" (as per Wikipedia's policy), but it is certainly unusual and bold. I've never posted to this board before, so I have no idea if I'm doing it correctly or if I should be reporting it at all. I certainly don't know how to fix the article, short of looking for source material on Mr. Keshishian, and, thus far, as an "editor," I've stuck to minimalist changes to articles. -- Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That startling sentence was added with this edit – looks to me like vandalism. Thanks for calling attention to it; it's now been removed. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for figuring that out and fixing it. Thanks for also adding the undersourced warning. -- Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Seymour Itzkoff

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

The subject objects to a link to the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism, which seems on the face of ti a reasonable concern. I removed the following external links, neither of which seems appropriate in a biography:

• Seymour W. Itzkoff profile via lrainc.com
• Seymour W. Itzkoff via Institute for the Study of Academic Racism

He is also critical of the fact that we list only a small and controversial subset of his 22 published books, and requests deletion. Esentially his concern is that this biography, focusing on a small but noisy subset of his work, raises that to a level of undue significance. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

His only concern now is the selected bibliography? Here is what purports to be a more complete list of his works: http://www.reviewscout.com/Seymour-Itzkoff. Or, alternatively, Itzkoff could provide a complete list. In any event, I don't see how a list that is clearly marked as "selected" conveys any particular message. On an unrelated subject, where is/was he a professor? Everywhere on the web, it identifies him in the same way ("American professor"), but of what and where? -- Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, his major concern is that the overall tone is dominated by one controversial facet of his work while the bulk of his work and career is completely ignored. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The article only got three edits all last year and there has never been a discussion on the talkpage, the article has existed for four years. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Guy, I wish you'd be more specific about the part of the article he objects to, but assuming you can excise the objectionable part from the article, wouldn't that be better than deleting the article? -- Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not easy to be more specific. He objects to the fact that there is a "biography" which is, essentially, just a discussion of the controversy over his views on one single topic. He has a long and largely uncontroversial career in the field of education and psychology. What's hard to understand? Guy (Help!) 21:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The Article for deletion discussion is here Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ariel University Center of Samaria

Resolved

 – Violating editor indefinitely topic-banned

On Talk:Ariel University Center of Samaria Amoruso (talk · contribs) has repeatedly called an Egyptian judge on the International Court of Justice an ***** I have removed the phrase once and asked Amoruso not to reinsert it, only to have Amoruso reinsert it and reply "I read the egyptian's judge opinion and in my opinion, he's ************** (emphasis in original). nableezy - 04:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Amoroso's behavior is completely unacceptable. I suggest he be blocked if he continues with this libel. Zero^talk 05:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• I had reverted the first instance with clear indication that it was a WP:BLP violation. Unomi (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an opinion in a talk page. Complete Non issue, and I think users who brought this here should be blocked, as well as the usually disruptive user, Zero, who is trolling here. I clearly stated it's my opinion. It's called free speech - I believe his statements were ********. It can't be libel because it's an opinion, and it's ridiculous. Note that Nableezy is also lying - I haven't repeatedly called him an antisemite. I said he's ********* and then added that it's my opinion, and then explained it again. So it's just twice, not repeatedly, and it's expressed as an opinion. Perfectly legitimate. I say Close this quickly, move on and reprimand nableezy and Unomi for disruptive behavior. Amoruso (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

But isn't that the point, it is your opinion and as such you should not be expressing it on the talkpage, you should only comment regarding improvements to the articles and regarding claims you can cite. I also don't think opining of such controversial uncited claims is correct on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a non issue because This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living people. That's not even the case. Its not the talk page of the person, it's about a university in Israel. We were talking about the relevance of a very controversial and political and biased ICJ decision. This is what the U.S. had to say about it:

On July 13, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Resolution HR 713 deploring "the misuse of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)... for the narrow political purpose of advancing the Palestinian position on matters Palestinian authorities have said should be the subject of negotiations between the parties." [23] The Resolution further noted that twenty three countries, including every member of the G8 and several other European states, had "submitted objections on various grounds against the ICJ hearing the case."

Misuse, narrow political purpose, objections of every member of the G8. And in my opinion, the Egyptian opinion in particular (and he was accused of bias even before the case.

"Israel claimed that Article 17(2) prohibited Judge Elaraby (btw, I never mentioned him by name until now) from sitting as a judge because “he [had] previously played an active, official and public role as an advocate for a cause that is in contention in this case....Israel complained about Judge Elaraby’s 2001 interviewwith an Egyptian newspaper “two months before his election to the Court, when he was no longer an official of his government and hence spoke in his personal capacity.”41 The newspaper quoted Mr. Elaraby’s comments that “Israel is occupying Palestinian territory, and the occupation itself is against international law” and that Israel’s territorial claims were fabricated to create “confusion and gain[] time.” That is clearly an antisemitic statement in my opinion - claims that Israel has fabricated things to create confusion in the world are repeatedly stated by antisemites. anyway, judge Burghental said about this: "although a “formalistic and narrow” construction of Article 17(2) had not been violated, legitimate concerns existed because “this question cannot be examined by the Court without taking account of the context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict” and because the outcome would depend upon “the validity and credibility of [the parties’] arguments.” 45 Against this backdrop, he reasoned that Judge Elaraby’s remarks created an unacceptable “appearance of bias”46 and that the Court had “implicit” power to ensure the “fair and impartial administration of justice.”"

It is at least arguable that if a judge is appearing biased against Israel and still takes the case he's ************* Amoruso (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but with BLP applying on the talkpage just as much on the article do you not see that if you could not cite it and insert it into the article you should not be opining it on the talkpage? Off2riorob (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So if I can't cite "the judge's opinion is ******" I can't say "the judge's opinion is ******** in my opinion" on a talk page about a university in Israel? Amoruso (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, at least it is as I interpret BLP policy. It is your interpretation and opinion as a not notable person, if you had a citation from a notable person and in a reliable citation the notable person opined the same thing then that comment could legitimately be discussed for possible insertion in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

in what article? I'm explaining why in my opinion the ICJ case was not relevant to the issue, and I mentioned how the egyptian's judge (without even mentioning his name) opinion appears ******** to me. I don't see what the problem is. Amoruso (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that WP:BLP applies not only to articles but to every page on Wikipedia. You cannot call a living person an antisemite without solid reliable sources calling that person an antisemite. nableezy - 15:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you're misrepresenting what I said. I'm not calling him an ******** as fact, I'm saying that his comments are ******c in my opinion. He comes off as an ********* in my opinion. I don't see anything on WP:BLP about opinions, and this would seem to reflect the same standard in libel laws across the western world. "Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between fact and opinion. Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable". anyway, this is all I had to say about it. Amoruso (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a court of law, and you dont have free speech here. You cannot say such things on Wikipedia without sources that do so. Saying "it is only my opinion" does not allow you to say whatever you feel. This really is not that complicated. nableezy - 17:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Stating that a person is antisemitic because they argue that the Government of Israel has fabricated territorial claims (over what is internationally recognized as being occupied territory) is a bit far fetched in my opinion. You are seriously cheapening the term anti-semitic by using it in this fashion and I think you should consider retracting or at least redacting comments you have made to that regard. Unomi (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

and that's your opinion. Insinuating that Israel has fabricated territorial claims regarding its homeland of 3000 years in order to create CONFUSION is ********** to me. ******** often say that Israel or Jewish power create confusion around the world or disaster to advance their agenda. and that's my opinion. that's how free speech works. Amoruso (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"free speech" does not apply to talk pages per WP:FORUM. Editors opinions about the subjects of WP:BLPs on talk pages are unwelcomed, unneeded, and against policy. Please use the talk page to discuss how the article can be improved. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

[copied from user's talk page] Amoruso, you do not appear to be listening, and to an extent people are pussyfooting around, so let's be really clear here. WP:BLP applies everywhere, and the most important thing you need to know about it is that if you insist on engaging in commentary that is identified as violating the policy, that is, is polemical commentary about living individuals, then you may be blocked from editing. There are a whole raft of essays and guidelines covering this area including WP:TRUTH, but the most important is WP:BLP and also WP:NOT, which describes what Wikipedia is not for, including being a forum for discussion or an experiment in free speech. You have two choices: you can understand and dial it back about ten notches, or you can carry on and I will block you. This is not because of what you believe, it's because of what you are saying and about whom. If you want to blog that stuff then you're welcome, just please don't bring it here, OK? Guy (Help!) 19:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Look, this is a noticeboard for discussion about BLP issues, keep your opinions to yourselves and don't opine uncitable personal opinions on talkpages and move along. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP is pretty clear on this issue, unless there is WP:RS that specifically states he is an antisemite or issued antisemitic rulings, then such text amounts to WP:OR and must be struck from the article. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 19:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I realize that I didn't understand the scope of BLP. What I always meant to say was regarding the opinion rendered, not the person, and I think I made it clear, but that too seems to be a violation of the same policy, which I didn't realize. I realize that and was given a warning by an administrator on my talk page. Why then did a 2nd administrator take action because an involved editor went and asked him to? I think a warning suffices.. I never meant to violate BLP, I interpreted it incorrectly. I should have read this policy more carefully. It doesn't warrant an indefinite ban over my edits. Amoruso (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely topic-banned

I have been alerted to this matter by Nableezy Unomi (edited,  Sandstein  16:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)) on my talk page and have reviewed it. Taking into consideration

• that it is a violation of WP:BLP to express derogatory personal opinions about identifiable living persons on Wikipedia, including on talk pages, notwithstanding any right to free speech editors might have under their national legal systems (see Wikipedia:Free speech),
• that Amoruso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has in this instance repeatedly violated WP:BLP and refused to undo this violation even after multiple warnings (some diffs: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29])
• that Amoruso has been previously blocked twice for WP:3RR violations in the Israeli-Arab conflict topic area in 2006,
• that he was blocked in 2008 by Moreschi (talk · contribs) for two months for the following reason: "Very abusive sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Amoruso. Next block should probably be indef",
• that this sockpuppetry case showed that Amoruso had used multiple accounts to create disruption in the Israeli-Arab conflict topic area,
• that Amoruso was subsequently informed about possible sanctions under WP:ARBPIA,
• that a brief review of his recent contributions indicates that his main activity on Wikipedia is to promote the views associated with one side of the Israeli-Arab conflict, which is a general mode of project participation that conflicts with WP:NPOV,
• that all of this is contrary to WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions's direction that "editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators",
• that users engaging in abusive sockpuppetry especially in a particularly sensitive area are normally indefinitely blocked or, if they are not, are normally allowed (as here) to continue to participate only on a "last chance" basis, and that Amoruso has forfeited that last chance by way of this most recent disruption,
• but that an indefinite block appears to be not yet necessary given that Amoruso's disruption appears to be limited to the Israeli-Arab conflict topic area, and that therefore a topic ban is in order as a less restrictive measure,

I am in application of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions indefinitely banning Amoruso from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict (to include all broadly related pages, discussions and content, with no exceptions for BLP or vandalism reverts). Any violation of this ban, especially in order to disrupt, may result in an indefinite block. This sanction can be appealed as provided for at WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions, but I will not review any appeal directed at me personally before six months have elapsed.  Sandstein  19:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand where this came from. "I have been alerted to this matter by Nableezy on my talk page". What do you mean by that? Why would someone go to your talk page and complain about another user when it's been dealt with here? I go into wikipedia, look at my talk page, see a comment by an adminstrator, which I would have complied with, and then your message. I commented on your talk page about past discretions, and the fact that I didn't understand why this was BLP. It's simply a matter of telling me to remove it, sorry. Amoruso (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I didnt alert Sandstein of anything, I posted here and notified you. nableezy - 21:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm. A robust response, and we've not really given the user time to react to the warnings and clarifications over BLP, but as far as I can tell it's based on more than just this one incident, yes? Guy (Help!) 09:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The harsh sanction is puzzling to me too. It appears that Amoruso has not been given ample time to respond to complaints or indeed understand what they were all about. Amoruso is a prolific contributor on Israel-related topics and improved countless articles in the past in non-controversial topics related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, therefore, the ban is also counterproductive. Apparently at least one stale issue (sock puppetry) was brought up to strengthen the case, even though Amoruso has not edited in a long time under any user name and the sock puppet issue has already been dealt with. I ask for the case to be reviewed, and am sure that Amoruso will acknowledge his mistake as he reads the BLP policy again (it has changed over time, which is likely why he didn't realize he was violating it), and refrain from violating BLP in the future. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think this might be a case for a suspended sentence. If Sandstein is reading this still, perhaps he could comment on that. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein has indicated that he will not review an appeal filed earlier than 6 months from now. At any event the current appeal at AE is malformed and will need to be reformatted. Unomi (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

He can change his opinion and reverse it without a need for a formalistic approach. I presented him with new evidence (WP:RS on which BLP was based on), and with a sincere apology. Amoruso (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Amoruso has also made an appeal at WP:AE. So as not to duplicate the discussion I will respond there to the salient points raised here.  Sandstein  16:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Judge, jury, executioner

Sandstein, I appreciate the detailed reasons that you use to justify your judgement (and you have noticed I take your judgement of me in stride) but it's clear that you have exaggerated on this case. Very peculiar that this judgement comes down in the range of less than half a day(?!). 11 hours using only input from anti-Zionist editors who violate one of your (if not multiple) commandments to promote the views associated with one side of the Israeli-Arab conflict, on a daily basis. This is the BLP page and not the Arbitration page. You are out of line here and I suggest that you take a break from the I-P conflict at this time. This one is classic rage that should go on the Admin noticeboard. --Shuki (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I fully support Sndstein's actions in this case, Amaruso was getting a lot of advice and was just not interested, in fact he continued asserting the violation here, as is revealed he also has history in the same topic field. Off2riorob (talk)

I realize I was wrong. I didn't get any advice from a neutral or administrator. I started discussing this with you, and I thought we were still inquiring about it. What advice should I have believed from the users rv'ing me and attacking me? I really had no idea that this was a violation of WP:BLP. An indefinite ban over a mistake? If an administrator would have told me to comply I would have. Amoruso (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I do feel for you but it may be a good thing, there is a big wide wikipedia out there and there is a lot of work needs doing, constructive work, not adding something that is removed the next day and on and on. it is only a topic ban , you are still free to edit the other 99.99 percent of the wikipedia and you will get a review in a few months, your wheels haven't dropped off. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to say I am shocked at the way things are going on here. Nableezy who initiated this discussion has been blocked numerous times in the past for his bad conduct. Nableezy is well-known to be a politically motivated editor. His main contribution to en-wp is introducing political propaganda, usually anti-Israeli, to articles. He hardly hides it, and yet he managed to organize a group of supporters who team up with him. He and some of his friends "hijack" articles and prevent any change which they don't like. They also intimidate users who challenge their conduct (I am among them). In this case, he managed once again to drag the en-wp community into holding a "kangaroo trial". This is one of the lowest moments of this community, and believe me, I've seen some low moments before. What does it take for people to tell Nableezy, Harlan Wilkerson and several other editors to release en-wp of their grip and let people edit articles for the benefit of free knowledge? What does it take to make people here realize that the NPOV rule that used to be cherished so much here is becoming nothing but a sad joke at the hand of Nableezy? This is not Wikipedia anymore, this is merely a faint shade of what it used to be. If you want it to finally die, let Nableezy continue his rampage. DrorK (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The behavior cited here does not match the sanction. Unless there's something else going on regarding the community (or certain editors) being fed up with the editor, this seems to reflect either over-zealousness regarding BLP or else a misunderstanding of the conception of antisemitism as it pertains to Israel. On that last point there is a frequent, albeit much criticized, belief in some circles that anti-Israeli opinions equate to or derive from antisemitism. We don't need to get into that here, but it is neither unusual nor surprising that someone would think such a thing. The discussion in question was tangentially related to the article content, but seems to have devolved on both sides to the usual bickering about the legitimacy of Israel's territorial claims. At any rate the editor in question simply did not understand that BLP prohibits name-calling on talk pages, seems to get that point now, and has apologized. Sanctions are supposed to calm disruption, not punish for past behavior, so what's the justification here? Bringing up years' old trouble seems to support the assumption that (some) people simply want to get rid of an editor they are tired of hearing from. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.. For the record, I await his response of course but here's my apology to user:Sandstein and an explanation that my mistake was based on an WP:RS who used the same word prominently. That WP:RS was in the Jerusalem Post and referenced in an article in Florida Law Review.Amoruso (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Amoruso canvassed Hertz1888 here. Factomancer (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Asking one user of an opinion is not canvassing. I think you're proving Wikidemon's astute remarks. Amoruso (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that Amoruso has apologized and now now understands about "personal opinions/freedom of speech" on talk pages ect is not "good/acceptable", so a ban or whatever is being called for is overkill/punishment, imho. This can always be changed or reviewed in a few weeks/months, right? Anyways, good luck to all :) --Tom (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for information, I have been canvassed via e-mail by Amoruso, in which he states " could you have a look at yom kippur war article and perhaps alert wikiproject israel? i'm concerned that it seems that egypt was victorious in the war, both by picture in the lead, caption and actual statement of who won the war "strategically" based on one misreading of one source... this is in contrast to reality where israel won decisively. don't mention me, i'm currently topic banned". пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Sambrook

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

There has been an OTRS complaint in regards to this article. It would be nice if someone could take a look at this article and make it compliant with policy. It would make the email correspondence much easier. Thanks in advance, NW (Talk) 17:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's uncited and although there is nothing that looks as if it is desperate for immediate removal it could be stubbed back, it could use someone who is knowledgeable about cloning and cancer type research. I also left a request at the talkpage of the Science and academia WikiProject Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The subject does not like the fact that he's on Wikipedia at all, so please be sensitive. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit better now, User:Crusio has added a few citations that support the content. If anyone is a molecular scientist feel free to wade in. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry to hear that the subject doesn't like to be on WP (I sympathize, I had muy own bio deleted through AfD...) But his bio would never get deleted at AfD. The single fact that he's a member of the national academy of sciences of Australia satisfies the notability guidelines for academics. His hugely-cited book would also be enough. Then there are lots of influential publications ad such... Can you perhaps give an indication about what exactly he doesn't like? If it is nothing controversial (and I haven't seen anything controversial at all), I could try to re-word the entry to accommodate his concerns. --Crusio (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, that's my view as well, so we need to be sensitive and ensure that it tells a fully-rounded story of his career. We should be scrupulously fair always, but especially when the subject finds the mere existence of an article to be a problem. Thanks, Crusio, for helping out. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Alan Callan

Alan Callan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was stubbed in January, the subject seems angry that it's not been built up again. Anyone who feels motivated to do someone a good turn, please have a go. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Guy. Just added a couple of things with reliable sources and made a few improvements. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP in user space at MfD

[30]. More eyes, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

List of LGBT Jews

I have just pruned out every entry in List of LGBT Jews which was either not sourced, or not sourced to a reliable source. There were no sources that they were LGBT, nor even that they were Jewish. I'm not sure if any of the remaining sources are reliable for both categories, if anybody wants to do some research, then please go ahead. Woogee (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me, at first glance, as though you have pruned the list too heavily. Surely there is no doubt about Allen Ginsberg, Sarah Schulman, Tony Kushner or Dana International, for instance. It shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources for these, and for many others. I'll see what I can find. RolandR (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Andrea Dworkin was Jewish and Lesbian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment-I also left a note at the LGBT project talkpage regarding this list and there is a degree of discussion there. Off2riorob (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Also for discussion at AFD here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not only must the sourcing show that they were LGBT, it must also show that they were or are Jewish. Woogee (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Reza Pahlavi

This is a request for extra attention to Reza Pahlavi and Yasmine Pahlavi. Reza Pahlavi is the heir of the Shah of Iran, a defunct throne, and Yasmine Pahlavi is his wife. User:RezaPahlavi asserts that he is the subject of the bio and that he "owns" them.[31][32] He is editing the articles actively, and also claims copyright on some (apparently) professional photographs. The matter of the editor's identity will have to be handled through OTRS, but we should try to avoid other problems that would require their attention.   Will Beback  talk  01:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please contact my Secretariat's office at <redacted> to confirm identity. We are happy to confirm identity and ownership of all copyrighted materials and bios for both Reza Pahlavi and Yasmine Pahlavi. Thank you. RezaPahlavi (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You will have to contact Wikipedia permissions via the process set out at WP:IOWN - the OTRS volunteers are the only ones who can deal with this. In any event, you do not own any article on Wikipedia, even if you do establish your identity. – ukexpat (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you much. And just to clarify, I used the word "own" in reference to the updated bio my office put on my Wikipedia page, which I indeed did write and did give permission for another site to use - which was then called into question as a possible copyright infringement based on that other site's usage. That was the where the term "own" was used. Not for the Wikipedia page, specifically. Many thanks. RezaPahlavi (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if an editor owns the copyrighted material, it is still a copyvio if large parts are copied into wp. The only way for the material to become acceptable (for wholesale inclusion as opposed to just sample quotes) would be for the material to be released under a free license, for example based on the creative commons cc-by-sa license. Crum375 (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if textual material is not copied verbatim, but only paraphrased from one or more copyrighted sources, then there are no licensing restrictions. For images to be used, they would have to have the appropriate WP-approved licensing, such as the cc-by-sa. Crum375 (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:COI is more relevant than anything else. People should not be editing articles about themselves, nor should they be directing people that work for them to do so. The proper way to get an article about yourself changed is to declare your conflict of interest at the article's talk page, and make proposed changes on the talk page, where they can be evaluated before being added. Its not that people add relevent information to articles about themselves, its that because of the problem in maintaining an appropriately neutral tone when writing about oneself, it is better if proposed additions are vetted before being added. --Jayron32 05:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Lierre Keith

I know nothing about Wikipedia and how all this works. I've tried to familiarize myself with your rules before posting this. My name is Lierre Keith and I am a writer. I was publicly assaulted while speaking last month. Immediately, a Wikipedia page was created about me, and if you look at the history of the page it was created to report the assault. That's all that was in the entry. A few other facts about my life were added later.

I am trying to get the report of the assault off the page. In the whole course of my life, everything that I've written and done--that's what gets a mention? It seems to me that is a news event, not something for an encyclopedia. Hundreds of public figures are assaulted, threatened, and protested every day, but it doesn't get included in their Wikipedia entries.

This takes on a note of urgency for me, as the harassment/stalking has continued. The threats are escalating--they are now threatening to throw acid in my face. One thing about stalkers that is known for sure is that they thrive on attention. Every public bit of notice they get is only encouraging their obsession with hurting me. Please, I would prefer to have no entry on me at all. But if it has to stay, can you at least take down the line about the assault? You're rewarding their behavior and giving them more fuel for their obsession.

My Wikiepdia name is "smallword" ********************* Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallword (talk • contribs) 03:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, smallwood. Please take a little time to read this Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help and with a declared Wikipedia:Conflict of interest , people should not be editing articles about themselves, simply make your case on the talkpage as I see you have been doing, the pie incident appears to be out now with only the citation remaining. I see the article was only narrowly kept as no consensus recently, If you think that this article is causing added risk of harassment to yourself then you might want to report your concerns and possibly request deletion... here...

From the policy page.. you can ask the Foundation's team of volunteers for help. Please e-mail info-en-q@wikimedia.org with a link to the article in question and specific details of the problem. For more information on how to complain, see here, and see here for how to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Episkopon

Episkopon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Living persons are named as alumni of a controversial secret society (Episkopon), but there is no citation or source for this. I think this is dangerous. I have tried to apply some tags to this article, to indicate where it needs fixing, but I am not sufficiently experienced to deal with this all myself. It's a very contentious and important topic, but the article has some serious flaws. Could someone please take an interest and help out with this? It would be so very appreciated. Thank you.

By the way, the secret society was recently implicated in the press for nearly killing a student during a hazing ritual.

As well, several of the living persons named as alumni are very prominent individuals:

Bill Graham (...a former Canadian politician. In 2006, he was Canada's Leader of the Opposition as well as the interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada between the resignation of Paul Martin and the election of Stéphane Dion as his successor. Graham was variously Minister of National Defence and Minister of Foreign Affairs in the cabinets of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin... Graham serves as chancellor of Trinity College at the University of Toronto; chair of the Atlantic Council of Canada; and co-vice chair of the Canadian International Council. He is a director of the Empire Club of Canada and a member of the Trilateral Commission.)

Adrienne Clarkson (...is a Canadian journalist and stateswoman who served as Governor General of Canada, the 26th since that country's confederation. She was appointed as such by Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, on the recommendation of then Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien...)

Sapir Academic College

The user User:Cautious has been making repeated BLP violations on the article Sapir Academic College (about its president Ze'ev Tzahor), which I have reverted. I have taken the liberty of blocking the user for 48 hours after repeated notices and warnings to his talk page. The user apparently also edits under the IP 178.183.224.24. I ask that someone put the page on their watchlist and takes action if blatant BLP violations are repeated. Thanks in advance, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

watchlisted. Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Brittny Gastineau, part the third

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

This has been previously covered twice on this noticeboard, here [33] and here [34], as well as in a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page Talk:Brittny Gastineau (See "Bruno" section).

There is once again a discussion going on as to whether or not to include details on the subject's appearance in the movie "Bruno," where she made comments (which she later said were a joke) about the pregnancy of Jamie Lynn Spears and abortion.

The consensus has been that including this information is giving undue weight to a comment made in passing in a comedy that all parties agree was a joke, and that it's disparaging to the pregnant person to include details on a trivial mention. The material has been out of the article for months after the previous discussion, but a new editor Reswobslc has come along to readd the information, and claim there is no consensus. I've reverted in hopes of continuing the discussion on the talk page, but I was in turn reverted by 128.104.truth, who was one of the original editors pushing for inclusion of the material, claiming it was "the truth" [35].

I'm not going to edit war over this, but more opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for the attention. Dayewalker (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am a newcomer to that article. I see no consensus for omission as Dayewalker claims. Just a lot of people arguing over whether or not consensus exists: "yes there is, no there isn't" style. I readded a much briefer, more factual version that amounts to one well-sourced line that avoids the concerns previously brought up. The line briefly says she appeared, said something about abortion she later called a joke. There should be nothing wrong wit that. Reswobslc (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please present your desired addition and the supporting citations here for discussion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, both can be found in this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brittny_Gastineau&diff=prev&oldid=355478887 Thanks Reswobslc (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You want to add this..Off2riorob (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In 2009 she appeared in the Sacha Baron Cohen documentary comedy Brüno http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0889583/fullcredits#cast, in a talk show scene she later described as herself "joking around" . She is depicted cheerfully agreeing with suggestions that a pregnant teen actress should abort her baby. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=43723

That is correct. It is substantially shorter than the entry past folks were contending over, and avoids mentioning who's baby she suggested be aborted, something others have been concerned about. It is not clear to me why there is any further concern. Reswobslc (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets wait and get a couple of opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

First off I would like to apologize for my previous edit war over this person's page. But I fully support the recent edits that Reswobslc have added to the page. It presents the material I had tried to include, but in a well-sourced and non-controversial way. It acknowledges that it was a joke, but it does include the necessary information. I had previously tried to present it in a controversial manner, and that was my mistake. My previous mistakes should not be a factor in not including this new edit. 128.104.truth (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 128.104.truth and (especially) Reswobslc that this should be included. The old version that 128.104.truth was a pest about adding was inappropriate to include based on WP:BLP, but the new version (seen above) presented by Reswobslc is appropriate according to WP:BLP and should be included. Unflattering information should not be removed from Wikipedia articles because it is unflattering. If that were the case there would be some articles that would get so reduced that they would barely be a stub. This information is well-sourced and appropriately worded. INCLUDE --Spidey104^contribs 14:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What is unflattering about the comment? Is it that even though the expression is lifted from a comedy show and not real life it could be wrongly interpreted that she is a real life supporter of abortion? Also, who wrote the San fran article? Why does the http address have blog in the title? Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

When I said it was unflattering I was referring to the scene in general; she looks stupid and ridiculous in the movie. The reference is for how Brittny communicated to the world that she was "in on the joke." Nowadays it is normal for celebrities to communicate this type of information through a blog, twitter, facebook post, etc. That part of the new edit is the least important (in my opinion), but it is the part that softens the impact of the scene and why I feel people would be willing to include it in the article now. --Spidey104^contribs 19:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that this is a scene from a comedy program where she had a walk on walk of part where adding it to her BLP would give WP:Undue weight and could well easily be misunderstood and the comedy comment be mistakenly assumed to be her personally held opinion, easlily leading to the mistaken understanding that she said this baby should be aborted and that she supports abortion, which as far as I know is a very controversial issue in America. It is a bit like wanting to add to an actors article that he once played a gay actor and wanting to add, in the movie lala John Harrison said he wanted to have gay sex with (add the name of your choice here) it's misleading and risks attributing and asserting the opinions and comments from a comedy movie to the real person. I see it is already added to the bruno/movie article where it has less weight than if it was added to this living persons BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

She wasn't playing a character in this movie. She was herself. She claimed she was "in on the joke" after the movie came out to try and save herself some embarrassment over being duped, but it's probably not what is the truth. It's not undue weight because it is only two sentences in a much longer article. Leaving the comment about the movie as only a statement that she was in it is not putting enough weight to it. 128.104.truth (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I would take even the comment out that she was in the comedy she wasn't named in the credits and is one of the most minor things she has been involved in. She was playing herself, so it is her personal position as regards abortion then? Have we got any reliable citations that also comment on her supporting abortion? Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey hey hey, don't change the subject of the debate. Until now no one was debating whether or not to include the information about her being in the movie, because that is verifiable (especially if you've ever seen the movie). She is uncredited in the movie because of the way she was duped. The quote is verifiable as part of the film, and the secondary citation is where she claims it is a comment made in jest. As a celebrity I doubt she has made any separate claims on her views about abortion because of its controversial nature. But the absence of additional evidence is not the evidence of absence. This should be included. The new version put forth by Reswobslc portrays it in a proper weight (not undue) and in a reasonable manner. 128.104.truth (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would never support inclusion of this content as presented, we are encouraged through BLP policy to take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity. In this case it also seems IMO to be a case of Guilt by association to her own comedy comments. I also note your comments here in the thread titled return to the fight seeking support from Spidey104 to add the content. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(OD) I'm certainly glad for the discussion on the matter this time around. 128.104.truth, you were adamant about including this information in the previous discussion because it's your personal opinion this shows "the truth" about her, your above comment about "saving her some embarrasment" seem to indicate that's still how you see it. Whatever your personal opinions are, that's no reason for inclusion.

As for the new suggested version of the incident, I will agree it's better, but I still see no reason for inclusion. It was a comment made in a comedy that no one says was meant seriously. Including it gives undue weight to an off-the-cuff remark, which should be avoided on a BLP.

I'll obviously abide by whatever consensus develops here but my main question is, what exactly does this section add to the BLP? Dayewalker (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Daywalker's comments. What exactly is this adding to the article? How did this event affect the subject's notability? If her appearance in the film had sparked considerable controversy, I could see including, but it being written up a few times in some blogs doesn't really cut it. It appears that the same reason for not including it to begin with (WP:UNDUE) is still very much an issue. As I understand it, the fact that the content didn't have a source was never really an issue. As I said on the article talk page, just because something has a source doesn't mean it belongs in the context of Wikipedia. As an aside, all of this talk of "truth" and "fight" is bordering on WP:BATTLEGROUND, and is quite off putting. Comments about other editors being "voracious" for following policy and having the gall to establish a consensus is not collegial. Pinkadelica^♣ 09:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What does it add? It explains what her part in the movie was. For any other actor in a movie you say what the role was. Since she didn't have a role in this movie it is necessary to say what she did in the movie. 128.104.truth (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• User:128.104.truth is claiming that there is a consensus to insert this disputed content here with the edit summary 3 for inclusion. 2 against inclusion. 1 neutral. Consensus reached. Thank you for your time. Content is currently back in the article. I dispute that there is any consensus to include the content here and perhaps a few more editors would comment either way to create a clear consensus. If not perhaps an uninvolved Administrator would comment as to the consensus either way, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Should every comment this person makes be included in the article? What makes this comment special? Oh, that's right, some people think it makes her look bad so they want it included. It's been covered by gossip pages, tabloids and blogs after all so it's obviously notable. </sarcasm> --Onorem♠Dil 15:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"It's been covered by gossip pages, tabloids and blogs after all so it's obviously notable. </sarcasm>"

I could use the same argument to support deleting her entire page, so what's wrong with including this small bit of information? 128.104.truth (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If gossip pages, tabloids, and blogs were all that were being used as sources, I'd have to say deletion should be considered. It appears that there are a few good sources there though. --Onorem♠Dil 16:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

128.104.truth, you've seen this article as a battleground since you came to it as an IP. If you think it should be deleted, then AfD it. That doesn't give you a right to assume consensus and edit war on a BLP.

With all due respect, your comment about it being "necessary to say what she did in the movie" makes no sense at all. You've said before it was necessary to show "the truth." It was an off-the-cuff line in a comedy, it's not a political position she's taken. Dayewalker (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to accept the omission of this comment based on the fact that it caused no significant public uproar other than the publication of a few gossip column articles (despite their appearance in the SF Chronicle and New York Post) and based on Wikipedia's intentional bias toward sensitivity toward living people. While I think including the statement in the article is fair game and would feel no shame in leaving it there, my pressure has principally been behind excluding it only for good cause, not necessarily inclusion at all costs. I find User:Pinkadelica's argument that "if her appearance in the film had sparked considerable controversy, I could see including" to be persuasive. On the other hand, Bruno is a fairly well known film and her appearance there, like it or not, is relevant to her notability to a meaningful extent. Is it fair to suggest that the reference to abortion constitutes the majority of the negativity? I think it would be reasonable perhaps to add (instead of simply saying that she appeared in Bruno, but short of referring to that she sold herself out), that she appeared unwittingly as part of a prank - along with a link to SFGate or NYPost - and leaving it at that. Example: "In 2009, she unwittingly appeared in the Sacha Baron Cohen comedy Bruno as a participant on a fake talk show[ref]." Reswobslc (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the content is back in the article and sourced to Page Six no less. Page Six is notorious gossip rag and, as far as I know, isn't considered a reliable source for a BLP. I'm still not seeing consensus to include it, but whatever. It's quite obvious there's an agenda here. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Bob Tallman

• Bob Tallman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A cleanup tag was placed on this article due to statements in the section entitled Early years which could be viewed as attacks. While sourced, they place undue weight on the subject's religious belief and do not seem noteworthy as he is not a convert to the clergy where such incidents might be viewed as inspirational. Morenooso (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Michaels

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

Subject is essentially being accused of claiming a position and title (state climatologist of Virginia) he did not hold. Other editor(s) are misrepresenting source to support the POV that the position in question did not exist. The relevant text from the newspaper source is at:

• http://www.cavalierdaily.com/2007/09/27/michaels-resigns-as-state-climatologist/

Quoting and highlighting the relevant sections:

“ Patrick Michaels has officially resigned as the Virginia state climatologist, a position to which he was appointed in 1980.

Controversy arose in 2006 about the validity of Michaels’ position, when Gov. Tim Kaine’s office claimed Michaels did not hold a governor-appointed position and said his views did not represent those of the Commonwealth. At that time, state officials said no evidence could be found that a governor had appointed a climatologist since 1980 and that the ability to appoint the climatologist shifted to the University in 2000.

”

This seems rather clear. The position was governor-appointed in 1980, when Michaels received the title. In 2000, the responsibility to award that title shifted to the University (Michael's employer) and in 2006, the new governor clarified his office no longer handled the appointment.

However an editor is misinterpreting this as "the position itself did not exist", and expressing it in language prejudicial to the article's subject. See diff:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Michaels&action=historysubmit&diff=355699691&oldid=355675003

The article is on CC probation, so I am leery about reverting this violation myself. FellGleaming (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the content from the lede....

a position he was appointed to in 1980and resigned from in 2007 amid uncertainty over whether he still officially retained the position

It is presented in the lede and totally unexplained in the text, it is quite a serious claim and should be expanded on and explained in the text, who did hold the position then and who said he did not hold the position and what was the outcome. The citation goes on to say Regarding the upkeep of Michaels’ office, a replacement has not yet been found. this was after he resigned, he clearly did hold that position and that should be made very clear, the people who claimed that he did not need naming and the situation requires explaining. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I must disagree with Rob, who is in error. It should be removed from the lead as a contested claim on a BLP. Extremely good sourcing and consensus for this claim must be established before restoring it - and then, it should be to the article body, not the lead, unless and until consensus exists that this is important enough not to constitute a violation of WP:UNDUE as well as WP:BLP. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear, I do not support this in the lede at all, explained and cited a bit better I may support it same as KillerChihuahua in the article body. I actually removed it and referred editors to come and discuss here but user WMC replaced it saying he didn't see anything wrong with it but as yet he has not come to discuss it here. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification - I have struck my error. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries, the typed text can be poor representation of the thoughts. I actually removed it with this edit summary I don't think this is a fair representation of the detail, and not anyway in the lede, there is a thread for discussion opened at the BLPN Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The article text is still making the improper claim. Am I correct in assuming it should be removed? FellGleaming (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There is support here so for for its removal from the lede but it is not really an desperate situation, better to wait for more discussion as you have already removed it once today and the article is restricted to 1RR. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Gone from the lede. The discussion in the rest of the article remains, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Raymond Arroyo

His article is being subject to an IP using it as a coatrack to make some statement about the Iraq war, and perhaps vilify Arroyo's religious fidelity. Similar edits have occurred in the past at other articles of related people, e.g., George Weigel. I have reverted a second time but do not feel like escalating into editwarring. A few sane eyes on the article would be helpful. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 3 days, per the general trend toward liberal semiprotection of WP:BLPs. Perhaps that, combined with an invitation to the IP to participate on the talk page, will move things forward constructively. MastCell ^Talk 03:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sarabeth Tucek

(Copied from WP:ANI)

There are current issues on this article, relating to the subject's date of birth. The only verifiable information I have found is a late 2007 interview, referring to her age as 34 and implying a DOB circa 1973. However, several editors (or perhaps one), currently identified as Mjo5650 (talk · contribs · block log), is attempting to insert a claim that she was born several years earlier, based on personal knowledge. I have asked for sources, but the editor has not replied to my messages except to add a hostile message on my talk page here. In addition, the subject of the article (or someone claiming to be her) has sought to remove any mention of her DOB from the page (and at one point asked for the article to be removed). My reaction to all this, apart from seeking fruitlessly to engage the editors in discussion, has been to remove the contested DOB info from the article per WP:BLP, and revert changes which re-insert it. I'm not sure whether to go for protection of the article, blocking of Mjo5650, or both. Advice, or suitable action, welcomed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What about a twitter tweet confirmation? If the user is adding uncited birth date claims and refuses to produce any citations then simply revert and warn and report, there is a lot of quacking unconfirmed accounts there....the subject is semi notable and their exact day of birth when weakly cited is of no value anyway. Personally for what its worth in this situation I would support replacing the cited interview interview implying 1973, she is approx this age and a editor who simply insists on personal knowledge and cites that on request have not been produced should not be allowed to removed a cited claim. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Twitter would not be a RS. I would remove the DOB/age material. If it is only one person who is inserting the material, warn that person and then block. If it is several people/socks then semi-protection might be appropriate.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As regards twitter -I have been involved recently in more than one discussion where twitter as a self published source for non controversial content in regard to the twitter account holder only and as such for a subjects birth date was supported by consensus as reliable and acceptable. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Anwar al-Awlaki

On first blush, there isn't much of a BLP problem with this article. But digging a little deeper, I'm detecting serious problems related to whether the claims in the article are actually supported by the citations. In many or most cases, the article attributes claims to citations that do not fully support them. My efforts to clean up the content and realign our concrete statements with what citations actually say have met with serious resistance on the article talk page, including personal attacks and a general tendency to spend more energy discussing my motives than discussing article content.

Most grievously, some editors have unambiguously argued that because the subject is an accused terrorist, WP:BLP does not apply to him, and have reverted my efforts to clean up the article without discussion beyond personal attacks and accusations of pro-terrorism POV warriorship on my part. I do not want to use sysop tools to enforce BLP in a dispute in which I am a direct participant, but without help, I do not see any alternative. More eyes please, before this boils over. --causa sui (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear which of the positions you've taken on that article's talk page you would like us to focus on here. Is it that you still want to reduce size of two pictures to half of what you admit is the Wikipedia guideline size? Despite the fact that the people in the pictures are mentioned with the subject of the article in 130,000 ghits ... because in your POV the pictures are "not entirely encyclopedic"? Or was there another more grievous issue that you would like us to focus on?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Willie Soon

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

- The continual reinsertion of material that violates BLP, despite ongoing discussion on the talk page. The problem centers around the following source which is being used to impugn the scientific integrity of a BLP.

• [36]

This source has several problems.

• It's a personal letter by one individual, not fact-checked, being used to speak to the actions not only of the letter's author, but other people as well.
• It's not visible on the author's own site, but on a self-published advocacy site which may have modified it, deleted portions, or otherwise modified its meaning. Further, this group is clearly hostile to the article's subject who is being impugned here.
• The letter's version of events conflicts in subtle, but important ways from reliable sources already in the article.

See below for a WP:RS on the same incident. It is the official statement which appeared in the journal involved in the incident. It differs substantially on the number of people who resigned, and the reason for doing so (not a direct protest to appearance of the paper, but because Von Storch was requested to validate his subsequent editorial retraction with the full editorial board first, which the journal's publisher (as seen in this official statement published by the journal) would not allow:

• [37]

Diffs of the most recent revert is below.

1. [38]

Fell Gleaming^(talk) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've protected the page to stop the ongoing edit war until others can sort this out. Sorry I don't have time to do more than this, but I'm embroiled in my own battles currently (see above). --causa sui (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Anyone else have time to attend to this? The article is on protection now, but with the offending material still in place. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 12:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Tom Schulman

Unsourced BLP. The claims that were there previously were not sourced to the provided sources, so I removed them. I just got reverted by an IP editor with no prior edits. I have re-reverted. Woogee (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted another IP adding claims that aren't supported by the references they added Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Bavarian throne

Line of succession to the Bavarian throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I saw this edit, and there is nothing I can do because neither for the original information nor for the new information any sources are offered. Some obvious problems:

• The article is about a fiction. The Bavarian throne was abolished in 1918, and there appears to be no chance that it will ever be revived.
• The article is a single huge BLP violation. It lists 21 living people and makes an unsourced claim about each person on the list.

In the past I have observed similar problems with the poor sourcing and maintenance of such list articles in the scope of WP:ROYAL. Since this facilitates the work of hoaxters and fraudsters, I think we need to start enforcing some minimal standards. Hans Adler 08:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As Bali ultimate said in WT:ROYAL#Non-notable nobility and hoaxes: Template:Former monarchic orders of succession "appears to be a navigational aid to entirely unsourced, unverifiable claims." Hans Adler 08:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted repeated vandalism to Prince Luitpold of Bavaria (b.1951) back in March. This looks like more of the same. Woogee (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thundera_m117 userboxes

I suspect that there may be problems with two userboxes on Thundera_m117's user page. One (shown on the bottom lefthand-side) carries the text "This user knows Anti-semites use Self-hating Jew and irrational Anti-Zionist Jewish Fundamentalist as their political opportunity against mainstream Jewish Community and Israel" and shows a picture of Noam Chomsky; the other (shown in the middle on the lefthand-side) carries the text "This user was not surprise at Mahathir Anti-Semitic hate speech at the Organization of Islamic Conference". Since the user edits irregularly, I edited the user page to remove what I thought were probably BLP violations, leaving the editor a message to explain what I had done. The user has now reverted my edits.     ←   ZScarpia   15:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

:Perhaps this is better at ANI? Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Noam_Chomsky article, he is not described or catagorised as an anti semite there so it may well be an issue to portray his as such in that way. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I was working on the principle that this is the place to bring possible BLP violations, not just issues concerning articles on living people. Any suggestions?     ←   ZScarpia   17:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Kelly O'Donnell

An IP user has been adding some controversial info to this article (diff), citing newsbusters blog.

I do not believe that this is an acceptable reliable source.

Fortunately, following some warnings, the user has taken the discussion to the talk page.

I would greatly appreciate it if others could comment, in Talk:Kelly O'Donnell#Controversy.

I have posted here specifically as it is a BLP issue, and on RSN for reference validation; I hope that I will not be accused of board shopping; I am not involved with the issue, but am a neutral third-party trying to keep the discussion on-track.

To keep the thread clear, please comment on the article talk. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  20:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)