Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 23:08, 28 August 2010 (→‎Christopher Monckton, climate change BLP: - request input from uninvolved editors at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley#Specific BLP issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

    Additional notes:




    Anthony Indelicato

    [ No Legal Threats -- Redacted, user cautioned ]

    Gary Fitzgerald

    Appears to be an autobiography of a non-notable person. A candidate for local elections in Ireland who failed to get elected and has tried to keep up a media profile since. User Account Dublinborn appears to have created this article and not much else Special:Contributions/Dublinborn, concern it may violate WP:Auto

    There was a vote to keep after discussion 4-2 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Fitzgerald

    Anurag Dikshit

    Anurag Dikshit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a single pupose IP address and new user is repeatedly removing references (and external links) from this article, and completely removing a section on a guilty plea the subject entered (which is about 40% of his notability) while adding a bunch of off-topic stuff. This is the most recent stable version.

    Tolkien family

    The article has been protected for two weeks because of an edit war over BLP data of Royd Tolkien (whose name was changed to "Baker" in the article by an IP in 2009) and a certain Christopher Carrie. The issue is about the mentioning of a court case Christopher Carrie vs Royd Tolkien which Carrie lost [1]. A look at the edit history of the article shows several edits by and IP calling a link to www.poynter.org inaccurate and then another IP adding a lifetime (1946-2010) to the name Christopher Carrie. In April 2010, User:Ddgrant and User:Solicitr had a discussion on the article talk page about allegedly untrue statements about an earlier criminal history of Carrie. Recently now a User:Christopher Carrie has turned up and engaged in removing any reference to that name from the article, calling the sources given "bogus" and threatening R. Tolkien to be sued again if his helpers would edit the article again: [2].

    Apart from that court case which was called a precedent in the article and has made it to certain law blogs and law news websites, Royd being the great-grandson of J.R.R. Tolkien, and a cameo appearance in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, the section did not say anything about Royd Tolkien's notability and importance as of this edit. That is maybe why User:EdJohnston proposed to omit the entire section. It turns out though that he is in the film producing business, e.g. Pimp (film) and another 2010 movie "Tontine Massacre", and also plays a role in Pimp [3]. He also has his own literary agency.

    For the record, I have reverted two of User:Christopher Carrie's deletions because his arguments seemed to be biased and I would even regard him as an SPA. It has also been speculated at AN3 that he is a sock of Ddgrant. I have moreover notified Solicitr but all in all I had no idea of this recent edit war until 2 days ago. De728631 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have to say that I'm with EdJohnston. Your edit here was well-intentioned, but based upon a superficial analysis that a SPA was edit-warring, and wrong. Much as it displeases me, I find myself in agreement over article content with a edit-warring sock-puppetting (more on which later) legal-threatening single-purpose account.

      I agree absolutely with this limited removal of content. The accusation of blackmail is poorly sourced, and the identification of the person is an unacceptable inference being made by Wikipedia editors firsthand, based upon nothing but the existence of a name in a listing. Our content policies prohibit both. They also prohibit the subtle threats that you observed. I agree with this more extensive removal of content in that this is not discussed in sources as anything to do with either parties to the action, but as a source of subtle change in English libel law. If anything, discussion of this lawsuit belongs in its proper context in articles on English defamation law. It is not biographical to either party. But it is a point of English law that has been discussed by Lilian Edwards, a professor of Law, as such. I have no disagreement (and indeed no opinion) over that section up to the point of the word "Osgiliath", although I strongly suggest that sources be found to support all of it before any effort is made to restore it.

      As to sockpuppetry, even if it weren't explicitly stated in the court decision that M. Carrie logs in under pseudonyms and assumes personae, it's fairly clear that there's sockpuppetry here. I hold Ddgrant (talk · contribs) and Ddgrant2010 (talk · contribs) to be sockpuppets on their face, and have revoked the latter account's editing privileges. (One account only in a dispute, people!) Given that it is reliably sourcable that M. Carrie lives/lived in Solihull, it's also fairly clear to me, from behavioural and geolocation evidence, that 81.86.100.254 (talk · contribs), 86.129.65.231 (talk · contribs), 82.46.191.221 (talk · contribs), and Christopher Carrie (talk · contribs) are all one single person. There's no overlap in edit times, the IP addresses are all parts of dynamically-assigned blocks for ISPs, and since it is plausible that this person will use the named account only from now on, I have taken no action there, although any further progress down the road of threatening legal action, or use of multiple accounts and IP addresses in the future, will of course lead to revocation of editing privileges by me or another administrator. Uncle G (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Come to think of it, I agree with you that the lawsuit does not belong into a biographical overview, it may be added to English defamation law though. So I suggest the following for the article "Tolkien family":
    1. We restore the name "Royd Tolkien" per the court record, IMDB and his official website. But let's mention "Baker" too, as his (unsourced) entry at Tolkien Gateway explains how he usually uses his mother's surname instead of his birth bame Baker [4].
    2. Restoration of the section until "Osgiliath"; the appearance in the film is sourced by IMDB.
    3. We add Royd Tolkien's other business activities, such as acting in and producing films plus being a literary agent. The combination of all this asserts notability — if not for a standalone article at least for this section.
    De728631 (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment copied here from the article's talk page:

    The issue appears to be one of Christopher Carrie or associated puppets not wanting certain information to appear on WP (or anywhere else.) A search on google and cached pages revealed his website http://www.jtolkien.com has recently been taken down. The information contained in section in question of the WP Tolkien Family entry appears to be properly sourced and verifiably sourced. Whether all of this meets WP notability standards is another question - however this point could be applied (and has been in the past judging by this talk page) to much of the Tolkien Family article. However, the court ruling in 2009 does meet notability criteria on google hits alone and does appear to be a notable precedent in internet/blogging and defamation law in the UK. isfutile:P (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    De728631 (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest that the two of you (and of course anyone else interested) work up some properly sourced and neutral text for that section on the article's talk page. Leave out the court case entirely and concentrate on the stuff that, apparently, has been swept along for the ride. EdJohnston, I, or another administrator will happily put it into the article. But while we're dealing with this issue, let's set the bar high, and ensure that the content that we put in is up to Wikipedia standards. Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Soapboxing removed

    • It is not for us to decide on matters of opinion here. The task in hand is to produce an encyclopaedia article which meets notability guidelines and includes factual text backed by verifiable sources. Unsourced assertions are not relevant here - verifiable sources are needed to provide the basis of any new material. isfutile:P (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Soapboxing removed


    As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing notable about the court case, or indeed the entire contretemps of Royd v. Carrie. I don't think Royd's section need include anything more than what is currently there.

    --Christopher Carrie (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC) It was in strict terms of accuracy Christopher Carrie V Royd Tolkien. --Christopher Carrie (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • OTOH (opening an even bigger can of worms) the page long ago had its section on John Tolkien removed; and Fr John is I'm afraid within notability not only as co-author of a book, but precisely because of Carrie's accusations, which were headline news at the time. But how to handle this in an evenhanded way, and not open up Carrie's edit wars again? --Solicitr (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hannes Smárason

    Hannes Smárason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Some time ago I appealed for deletion due to non-notability (which was voted "keep" btw) and after which I cleaned up a lot of the problems I saw with the article. Since then there has been a series of deletions/reverts on this article for an extended period of time (not by me). In its latest incarnation I believe there are issues of privacy WP:DOB and material that may adversely affect a person's reputation WP:NPF. Can someone more experienced than me take a look at it and see what, if anything, could/should be done? Gismoto28 (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Trimmed and bit of the weight and tidied. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, looks much better. Gismoto28 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fraud accusations against Michael E. Mann

    Professor Michael E. Mann is currently the subject of a widely-criticised fraud investigation by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. According to a Va. newspaper,

    Cuccinelli spokesman Brian Gottstein said the revelations "indicate that some climate data may have been deliberately manipulated to arrive at pre-set conclusions" and the use of such data to apply for taxpayer-funded grants could be fraud. "Given this, the only prudent thing to do was to look into it," Gottstein added. "This is a fraud investigation, and the attorney general's office is not investigating Dr. Mann's specific conclusion." [5]

    Another editor has read this to mean that the investigation is into the data itself and has added material to this effect to the BLP on Mann. However, I read the statement as saying that the investigation is into the application for taxpayer-funded grants (the investigation is under the auspices of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act - if there was no financial issue there would be no hook to hang the investigation on). I'd be grateful for outside views on how to parse this statement, as it seems rather important to say exactly what Mann is being investigated for. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It reads to me that the investigation is into the data, the data was used to form the conclusions, Mann appears to have only been responsible for the conclusions derived from the data. There seems to be no claims that Mann falsified the actual data. Why not wait for something to actually happen, this is just the hyperbole and fluff. Off2riorob (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not really clear what it means, though it's hard to imagine you could have a fraud investigation without examining the alleged manipulation (unless the manipulation was an established fact, which it isn't). Because it is very unlikely that the allegation will be followed up in a timely manner (either because reliable sources won't bother, or because Wikipedians won't notice), and is currently so vague, it shouldn't be included. It can be left on the talk page for followup as/when/if necessary. Rd232 talk 01:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That sums it up pretty well. Off2riorob (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. There is a whole section about the CRU email controversy, and the AG's investigation is a direct result of that. The fact that there is an ongoing investigation, and the fact that the underlying data to Mann's claim to fame is called into question is the only way to treat accurately and neutrally Mann's hockey stick research. If the investigation and fraud allegations are left out of the article, then the whole discussion of the hockey stick research and conclusions should be removed as well. Removing the AG investigation leaves the remaining discussion about the hockey stick unfairly represented as accurate and beyond dispute when that is not the case. I object to the wholesale removal of that section of the article, as it was extremely well sourced with multiple reliable sources, and it was stated in a neutral manner. There is an entire article about the investigation -- to remove the well sourced, reliable and notable information from this article is censorship. Minor4th 01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a link in the Mann article to the AG investigation article, with as little detail as possible (can of worms). That should suffice for now (at least to avoid OMG! Censorship! claims). If you're not familiar with them or haven't looked recently, check out WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. That latter is probably still violated by the prominence given to the CRU episode. Rd232 talk
    In fact, whether this is an investigation into the data or the grants appears to be in dispute externally too. Cuccinelli says he is only looking into the fraud issue ("results of Mann's research isn't at question but that he is investigating whether Mann defrauded Virginia taxpayers as he sought five public grants"); whereas the university (and Mann) says that it is "an unprecedented attempt to challenge a university professor's peer reviewed data, methodologies and conclusions." (from a Washington Post blog So any addition would need to reflect this conflict in interpretation by the participants itself. --Slp1 (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which states in more detail my point above: and going further and further into the detail of this in the BLP necessarily becomes more and more WP:UNDUE. Leaving UNDUE aside, there is still a BLP issue from airing unclear and unevidenced fraud allegations at the beginning of an investigation which shows every sign of being politically motivated. Ergo it should be merely mentioned in the existing section (with full [currently sketchy, response aside] details available in the topic article), not immediately promoted to its own section and discussed at length. PS The essay WP:RECENTISM is not irrelevant here. Rd232 talk 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And I must add that I find it disturbing that editors are willing to ignore BLP policy and immediately reinsert the contentious content (and as we're talking about vague insinuations/accusations/entirely unevidenced possibilities of fraud - where it's not really clear what exactly the subject is accused of or what evidence there is - it's surely contentious). For those in the cheap seats, WP:BLP states in its second sentence that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Rd232 talk 17:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are misstating or misunderstanding BLP policy. Please brush up on this policy so that you may apply it correctly in the future. There is no policy that contentious material be removed from a BLP unless it is unsourced or poorly sourced, neither of which apply in this case. Your own quote of BLP policy makes it entirely clear. Please revert yourself as you are the one who has violated policy by removing well sourced information that is about the article subject. If it's acceptable to immediately remove controversial content from BLP's irrespective of high quality sourcing, I have quite a bit of work to do because there are many BLP's that contain negative information that casts aspersion on the LP, and I would prefer that we paint all BLP's in a positive light and not include any of the negative information about them. What do you think? Minor4th 20:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be argumentative (and do pay attention: at the time you wrote your comment the material had been reinserted and I haven't touched it). The substantive material qualifies as poorly sourced, since it is entirely unclear what exactly the subject is alleged to have done, or is precisely being investigated for, etc. That this vagueness may (I haven't checked) be accurately reproduced from acceptable sources does not magically make it well sourced: it is well established that Reliable Sources are not judged reliable irrespective of context or content (because they often make mistakes). By which I mean, to be clear, that in this context the Thing That Needs Sourcing is the fraud accusation itself, not the Vague Media Report Of Ooh He's Been A Naughty Boy. The latter is well enough sourced, the former is not, which creates poor sourcing because what is communicated to the reader as a result is not fact but insinuation. Clear? And you may still disagree, but BLP caution dictates discussing these issues including whether the sourcing is poor prior to reinsertion. In any case, it is ludicrous for this discussion to proceed as if I'd asked for content to be deleted from Wikipedia. The content exists in its own article and remained linked from the BLP. It is a question of due prominence. Rd232 talk 10:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    . Well I'm really not trying to be argumentative but I suppose youre right, my response was a little point-y. I'm frustrated because your removal of well-sourced information in a AGW proponent BLP is so representative of what continually happens im this topic area. NPOV is hard fought, and the section you removed was actually a rare example of a collaborative compromise/give and take among editors of opposing viewpoints. Remarkably, the result was a pretty NPOV summary that included factual information, both the negative and the criticism and response to the negative information. It could be argued that the participation from both sides was an implicit consensus that the summary should be included in the Mann article. It was not UNDUE at all because there was much more attention paid to the reaction to the investigation and it is clear from the summary that the AG's investigation is not well-received. To include praise for Mann's hockey stick research without summarizing the fact that a cloud hangs over it in the form of an ongoing invrstigation by the State AG's office is terribly misleading and intellectually dishonest. The controversy surrounding Mann's research is what the man is most notable for. He is the veritable icon of climate change controversy. Whats more frustrating is that reliably sourced information is often removed from articles in this area when it cuts against the majority POV (a consensus that is shrinking), yet poorly sourced (blogs, op-eds, SPS, Twitter) and completely unsourced content is regularly added to "skeptical" BLP's and articles that call into question the reliability of the scientific consensus. This is why theres an omnibus arb case pending, and the particular article you edited is under probation and has been very contentious and has been subject to many edit and revert wars. For you to come in and unilaterally, and against consensus, remove an entire section citing BLP policy that doesnt apply -- well, at best it's controversial itself and at worst it's tendentious and factionalist. If ChrisO had done it, he would have likely faced severe sanctions; if William Connolley or Polargeo or Stephan Schulz had done it, there would have been an arb com request for enforcement filed. The fact that 2 or 3 editors have reverted you should tell you something. And I should have mentioned before now that ChrisO's description of the controversy is completely misleading as well. The content in question is very clear that it is a taxpayer fraud investigation related to public grants obtained by Mann for his hockey stick research -- thats not disputed at all, and it's stated clearly. But the suspected fraudulent activity involves the question of whether Mann deliberately manipulated climate data to reach a conclusion that he wanted to reach. That is also clearly stated and impeccably sourced. There is actually no controversy over any of that, and there is nothing "vague" about the nature of the potentially fraudulent conduct thay is the subject of the inquiry. Think of this -- if a marginally informed person is googling Michael Mann to learn more about him, and that person arrives at Wiki's BLP, is the person going to get an accurate presentation of what notable, reliable sources have stated about Mann? Nope, not if that section is removed and the remaining content says that Mann has been cleared of wrongdoing and suspicion. Minor4th 14:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well your final sentence makes clear your intentions: you want passersby to be exposed to the vague accusation of fraud right now - before any details are known, and certainly before any conclusions are drawn. Of course conclusions may take ages to emerge publicly and to make it onto Wikipedia, throughout which time these vague insinuations will remain to vaguely discredit the BLP subject. Well that's honest at least... but it is has nothing to do with WP:NPOV or WP:BLP. Rd232 talk 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The accusations are not vague and the response and Mann's reaction are noted. It does not unfairly discredit the BLP. It lets the reader know that there is currently some doubt about the data behind the hockey stick research and it shouldn't be taken as prima facie accurate and above doubt. Minor4th 19:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a good use of the board. The Washington Post has reported it, and Mann is a public figure. That more than satisfies the BLP policy. One of the reasons we have editors who worry that the BLP policy is too extensive is that it gets misquoted this way, and it's an important policy, so we need to be careful not to make misleading claims about it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As the first section of WP:BLP says: "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Reliable sourcing is just the start of the BLP process. There are many more issues that need to be considered. The fact that something appears in the press does not dictate the way we cover it, or even whether we cover it at all. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto Chris, we dont print rumors and vague allegations. Active Banana ( bananaphone 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really very simple. Some people mistakenly think that if it's in a newspaper it's worth including in a BLP. However, WP:BLP makes it clear that there are more considerations to be taken into account than just reliable sourcing. That's the reason why we have a separate BLP policy in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And why the forest fire? You're double posting, which is just annoying. It's not helping any. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I also wouldn't mind closing this down here, its a content dispute with only minor BLP concerns, as per SlimV, when a subject is notable and there are a plethora of quality citation discussing it there is no reason to keep it out of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, when I removed the section I replaced it with a sentence pointing to the main article. So "keeping it out of the article" is not the issue. It is what is appropriate coverage for this barely-launched investigation at this time. Rd232 talk 19:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The "forest fire", as you call it, is because I posted a request for input that seems to have got hijacked for an entirely different discussion. It's most annoying - my original request seems to have been forgotten about. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the issues is what constitutes due coverage. Is 15-20% of the BLP's body text appropriate? Is that the significance of this investigation being launched? Rd232 talk 19:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm glad you mentioned that issue, because this is indeed a problem. Another editor actually wants to expand that section still further to take it up to about 30% of the article length. The ironic thing is that Mann himself is actually not involved - it is entirely a dispute between the University of Virginia and the Va. Attorney General. Mann doesn't work for the university any more and isn't a party to the dispute. So I question how relevant it actually is to his BLP. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would cut the para down to something like this:

    Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli began an investigation of Mann in April 2010 focusing on his work at the University of Virginia between 1999 and 2005.[1] Academic and civil rights groups criticized the decision to investigate and the University of Virginia has filed a countersuit.[2] [3][4] [4] [4][5]

    Ronnotel (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's pretty good but it needs a bit more focus, as the investigation is not "of Mann" himself, and specificity is needed on the subject of the investigation. I would suggest "began an investigation in April 2010 focusing on Mann's applications for research grants at the University of Virginia..." -- ChrisO (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - Ronnotel has picked up the current wording on that point, and it should be changed. Also, I've just read the main article more carefully, and I see it isn't even established that the Attorney General has the legal standing to request the documents he wants - which disputed request is all that this "investigation" currently amounts to! Clearly it needs mentioning in the Mann article, but in view of this a sentence in the CRU section (since that prompted the request) is quite sufficient. Plus, the relation between the request and the AG litigation against CO2 regulation further reduces the relevance of the whole thing to Mann personally - the guy seems to want the records at least in part to support an unrelated legal battle. Rd232 talk 19:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindenting) OK, let's suggest another version, picking up on the point you've just made. I've corrected one point - the university has sued the AG; he didn't sue it, so it's not a countersuit.

    Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli began an investigation in April 2010 focusing on Mann's applications for research grants at the University of Virginia between 1999 and 2005.[6] His demand for documents from the University was criticized by academic and civil rights groups and the University of Virginia filed suit to block the demand.[7] [8][4] [4] [4][5]

    ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That's fine if you include a brief summary about how it applies to the inquiry into potentially manipulated climate data, and that is directly related to Mann and not just the University of Virginia. The whole issue and the reason for the inclusion in an article about Mann is that it's Mann's research practices that are being investigated and called into question. Minor4th 21:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not really - as Rd232 has said, the whole thing is very vague. Basically there is no actual evidence of wrongdoing but the AG wants Mann's old records from the U of V so that he can ... well, nobody really knows what he wants to do with them. You can understand why it's been characterised as a fishing expedition. It's not even clear that there is any actual investigation ongoing, as there's nothing to investigate without the records that the AG wants. Given that, it shows why we need to treat this very carefully - there is a great cloud of innuendo and political game-playing with very little substance. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    This is how it reads now:

    Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli began an investigation of Mann in April 2010 focusing on his work at the University of Virginia between 1999 and 2005. He served a civil investigative demand on the university seeking a broad range of documents in pursuit of a determination whether fraud may have been committed in relation to the award of four grants.[9] Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, criticized it as "a shameful abuse of his office and a real threat to academic freedom in Virginia."[10]The Union of Concerned Scientists released a letter signed by more than 800 faculty members at state colleges and universities, opposing Cuccinelli's demand and calling it "burdensome and entirely unwarranted."[11][4] Mann has stated that subsequent investigations have validated his work and cleared him of wrongdoing.[4] Cuccinelli spokesman Brian Gottstein said that the Attorney General's office was not investigating Mann's scientific conclusions, but said that it was prudent to look into whether grants were fraudulently obtained through the deliberate manipulation of climate data to arrive at a pre-set conclusion.[4] The university filed suit to overturn the demand, citing protection under the First Amendment and charging that Cuccinelli was exceeding his authority.[5]

    It would not be this long if you did not insist on including multiple references and content and quotes about the reaction to the investigation. You cannot leave out the prominent aspect of the investigation into Mann's use of climate data, which is what the investigation is looking into. How about this:

    Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli began an investigation in April 2010 focusing on Mann's work at the University of Virginia between 1999 and 2005. Cuccinelli served a civil investigative demand on the university seeking a broad range of documents in pursuit of a determination whether research grants were fraudulently obtained through the deliberate manipulation of climate data to arrive at a pre-set conclusion. [12] .[4] The investigation has been criticized by academics and scientists as violative of academic freedom.[5][13][4]The university has challenged Cuccinelli's demand, citing protection under the First Amendment and on the basis that Cuccinelli is exceeding his authority. [5]

    Minor4th 21:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not the one adding detail - I've been trying to trim it but constantly have had editors trying to force in yet more content. Again, though, you're missing the point that Rd232 has made several times above - that it's unclear what exactly is being investigated other than the issue of research grants. Your version introduces unnecessary innuendo. There is too much unnecessary detail in general about the arguments on both sides. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you kept adding "unwarranted and burdensome" and "abuse" -- that certainly was you. And there is not too much unnecessary detail. I thought you wanted to avoid the vague accusations. The way to do that is to cite specifically what's being investigated. Otherwise, leave it as it is. it's not too long in any event. it's a small summary in the overall article. It's well sourced, it's notable and it's about Mann. You're not going to keep out information about the investigation though and how it pertains to Mann. Minor4th 21:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only is it unnecessary detail, it misrepresents the sources. The investigation isn't "focussing on Mann's work" according to the cited sources, it's much more specifically "an investigation into "possible violations" by Mann of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act." Your phrasing "determination whether research grants were fraudulently obtained through the deliberate manipulation of climate data to arrive at a pre-set conclusion" does not mean the same as the spokesman saying that leaked emails "indicate that 'some climate data may have been deliberately manipulated to arrive at pre-set conclusions' and the use of such data to apply for taxpayer-funded grants could be fraud." You should be able to follow the distinction. The question of an investigation into climate data is not in the cited sources, but is covered in this source used in the main article on the investigation. That source indicates that on July 13, Cuccinelli's lawyers introduced arguments about Mann's scientific conclusions, and the university's lawyers pointed out that this undermined Cuccinelli's statement that the results of Mann's research isn't at question, and was outside his authority. That aspect should be shown if the Attorney's side is being shown. Looks rather like a blog and hence unsuitable for both articles, but the information should be available in better sources. However, these aspects of this political fishing expedition belong in the detailed article, and are inappropriate in the biography. . . dave souza, talk 22:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I presume by "blog" you mean the Washington Post's Virginia Politics: News and Notes on Politics in Richmond and Northern Virginia. It's perfectly fine as a source since it's clearly covered by WP:NEWSBLOG. The Washington Post is an important source, since it's the area's newspaper of record. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Recently deceased person on a plane crash and BLP

    A user argued that the only person who died in the AIRES Flight 8250 is covered by the BLP policy. I said she wasn't.

    Wikipedia:BLP#Deceased states "This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased, but material about the deceased may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of the recently deceased"

    My position is that WP:BLP does not apply to the person because the policy clearly states that deceased people are not covered by the policy, despite the policy's statement asking for consideration for recently deceased. His position is that the policy covers the recently deceased despite the policy's statement that "This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased" (He said on his talk page "No, BLP still applies whether someone is dead or not,")

    Refer to: User talk:MickMacNee#BLP WhisperToMe (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And a response to the user, continuing from his talk page:

    • "I can't see how you read that instruction as not being part of the policy." - The instruction clearly states that dead people are not covered
    • "It doesn't refer to any other policy, we don't have any other pages dealing with writing about the recently deceased," - There is no other "policy," and no pages about recently deceased. The idea that one should consider relatives should be taken as a consideration or suggestion. Broadly speaking, living people are under BLP, dead people are not.
    • "BLP is all about consideration for living people, including relatives," - BLP is for consideration about text and articles discussing any living person, but any people not specifically mentioned or referred to are outside the scope. Joe Millionaire is mentioned by name and his actions and events are mentioned, so he applies. But his wife Etta, his son Charlie, and his uncle Buck are not covered by BLP.
    • "so pretty clearly, BLP applies here." I maintain that the first sentence explicitly states that BLP doesn't apply.
    • "And the archive discussion only backs that up - as living relatives likely exist." I maintain that the archive discussions say the opposite. The users wanted to caution Wikipedians to give consideration for relatives, but dead people themselves are outside of BLP

    WhisperToMe (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As a note, this is the disputed edit WhisperToMe (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not looking closely at this, but the recently deceased are covered as it pertains to their family, per the policy. What that means is open to debate, but it's incorrect to say that a recently deceased person's article has absolutely no BLP considerations. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Peregrine: Which parts of the BLP policy are you referring to that have not been already stated in this thread? I think the heading "Deceased" quite clearly states that the dead people aren't under BLP. The family of the deceased are not covered (unless names of family members and/or actions of the family members are also mentioned, which in this case text about the family members themselves is under the BLP protection) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The part that says "but material about the deceased may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of the recently deceased." You're an admin right? It's not saying living family members are protected by BLP (although they are, as all living people are), it's saying living family members are protected with regard to information about their dead relative by BLP. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am an admin :) That sentence is a consideration, a guideline of sorts, something to think about when doing an editorial dispute, not a procedural policy like (the rest of) BLP is. This sentence effectively says: Even though dead people are not covered by the BLP policy, one should still think about possible effects on family and friends. It doesn't imply that the family and friends are protected by the BLP policy in that manner relating the content about the deceased person (if the names of family and friends are mentioned and/or their actions are described and implied, then they are protected by the BLP policy).
    I agree that one should think about how the family would be affected by the posting, but that concern/dispute is not a BLP dispute. It is a concern that the BLP page mentions anyway as a guideline for editors discussing dead people.
    My point is that BLP is not concern when listing the name of the only person to die in an airplane crash, saying that the person had a heart attack
    WhisperToMe (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The dispute is over whether or not the victim should be named, isn't it. As the victim is not a Wikinotable person, there is no need to name her IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is not about the non-BLP concerns; that will begin at the talk page (or I can start it now if you want) - In any matter read articles about "one man/woman survives" plane crashes, and you will often see names of the sole survivors (this definitely is a BLP concern when that happens!). WhisperToMe (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The non-BLP discussion is now at Talk:AIRES_Flight_8250#Naming the sole dead person WhisperToMe (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not every debate about whether a name should be listed or not is governed by the BLP policy. This is one of those cases--Nothing bad is said about her, and what is said is sourced as well as would be expected. Even if it applied, it wouldn't prohibit the edit in question. It's really a consensus question: do we name victims when the name is RS'ed, or do we not? Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with that statement. Once the BLP talk is wrapped up, I will begin a talk page section at Talk:AIRES Flight 8250 so that the non-BLP stuff would be discussed as a consensus question. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Do we name victims when the name is RS'ed, or do we not?" - I think this very much depends on the circumstances, at least for me it does. One very valid question is whether or not naming the name is likely to cause any harm. In the case of, for example, rape victims, it may very well, and so particular sensitivity is warranted. In other cases, where the victim may have been doing something embarrassing, I would say particular sensitivity is warranted... say for example victims of Advance-fee fraud are often deeply embarrassed later for having fallen for it. (Notice that I don't state this in terms of absolute prohibitions but rather in terms of factors that may rightly pull us in one direction or another.) In this particular case, it is not clear (to me) what the supposed harm would be. There's nothing embarrassing or shameful here, the poor woman died of a heart attack after a plane crash.
    I don't think an answer to the very valid question of whether or not naming the name is likely to cause any harm is the end of it, either. There's also the question of whether or not it adds anything to the understanding that the reader may have of the event. In this case, in addition to not seeing what the harm would be, I also don't see what the benefit would be.
    Certainly, to sum up, I do think that recently deceased people - particularly non-notable ones who are innocent bystanders who happened to die in a way that caught the attention of the media - are subject to the BLP policy - but that doesn't automatically mean we don't name them - it means that we take an extra level of care and consideration.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I take Jimbo's point. However, I think there is another consideration as well. Historically, the notification of a person's death generally becomes a matter of public record. There are often issues of probate, discharge of debt, etc. that members of the public have a right to know about. I don't know if any of those issues apply here - however the principle that death notices are a matter of public record is well-established. In fact, I think there would be few instances where a death should not be reported due to privacy concern. Basically, I believe the "L" in BLP is there for a reason. Ronnotel (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The womans name is not notable and adds nothing of any value. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, I agree that adding the name does not appear to add anything of value to the article. However, requiring notability of the subject before listing the name of a decedent is an incorrect interpretation of BLP & N. Ronnotel (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't really referencing any policy, I was just using my common sense, what little I have. The names of not notable people seem to be un-encyclopedic irrelevancies. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Broadcaster "improving" his own entry on Wikipedia

    Listening to the BBC Radio 5 programme Up All Night last night, I heard Cash Peters discussing the changes that he had to his Wikipedia article and elsewhere. From the editing history of the article, he is clearly Monkeynuts54 (talk · contribs). I've reverted the article to a pre-Monkeynuts54 version, added a {{BLPunsourced}} and left what I hope is a suitable message at his talk page. Anything else need doing? Incidentally, those who can use the "listen again" feature on the BBC website will find the discussion at this link, starting at about 1hr 34m 45 s. BencherliteTalk 09:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits you reverted look 100% appropriate to me at first glance. I fact checked a handful of things (not everything yet) and didn't find anything wrong at all. I am not sure why you used scare quotes around 'improving' as it seems that he did improve the entry, and in a factual manner. He also didn't remove any negative information or do anything else that I would find problematic. Again, this is at first glance, can you give more information that would lead us to conclude that this is a problem?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    [Addendum] Your note to him is very friendly and kind, thank you. And I should add a small clarification. While his edits look fine, and I was able to confirm some of it, it would of course be better to have sources. I think the best overall response to this case is for several of us to turn in and help to improve the biography with good sourcing, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Second that last bit. If we all took the time to be so... polite I can't help thinking some of these auto-biographical editors would be hugely valuable :) kudos Bencherlite --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like we might have lost this guy, if this is anything to go by. This would be a pity as he seemed to be fairly committed to following the rules (at least, that's what he told me). I've left a message on his talk page encouraging him to stay, but I don't know if it'll have much effect. The responses to this has been very impressive on most levels, so it would be a pity if he left as a result. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is Monkeynuts a user-name violation? Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tomasz Schafernaker

    I think the section 'Gaffes' should be reconsidered as WP:UNDUE weight. I think this is particularly true in light of the most recent one, raising his middle finger, which seems completely harmless. It is true that the BBC apologized for it, and reported on it. But is it encyclopedic? The other one - referring to the Outer Hebrides as "nowheresville" is probably noteworthy. I'm primarily concerned that the 'gaffes' section is currently about 1/3 of his biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimbo, I don't think it is WP:UNDUE given this article on today's Guardian website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mediamonkeyblog/2010/aug/18/bbc-weatherman-tomasz-schafernaker Here in the UK, he is primarily known as the weatherman who makes gaffes. --Morus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.117.112 (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Joel Osteen

    I've semiprotected the page for one month, as the IP in question wasn't the only one making recent dubious edits. AlexiusHoratius 15:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Organised crime BLPs

    I've had a long-running concern about BLP standards on organised crime biographies. There tend to be several problems, mainly to do with poor sourcing.

    1. Some have basically no sourcing
    2. Many have little or no inline sourcing whatsoever, so although the fact the person is a convicted criminal may be verified, the strings of allegations in the article are not directly so.
    3. Sourcing often consists of a list of a few generic books under a "references" section. No page numbers, and no way of telling if the books back up all, or just bits of the article.
    4. A heavy reliance on primary sources. Sometimes this is DOJ prison records (which simply say x is currently incarcerated). Worse, sometimes the sources are purported court transcripts hosted on dubious sites.
    5. There is also a high use of "fanboy" sites, who's reliability I can't assess.
    6. "External links" are often all there is.

    (Additionally, and perhaps less importantly, notability is often questionable. A petty thief with a conviction for murder would normally be ignored, but does putting "mobster" or connecting him to some Italian family, make him more notable? Again, the sources used to established notability are often appearing to be newspaper columns, that seem to be little more than blogs of people who are into mafia stories. Now, I sure many of these BLPs are indeed notable, but then perhaps some review by editors who are not "single issue" here might help general notability standards be reflected.)

    If anyone wants to help review you can start looking through Category:Italian-American crime families. Don't get me wrong, there are many excellent articles here.

    My own hunting about has led me to delete the following articles under G10 - "negative BLP with poor sourcing". Happy to have these reviewed, or people follow them and identify other problem articles. (I'm also happy for anyone to undelete these and solve the sourcing issues):

    Thanks.--Scott Mac 18:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There are also articles on crime families with unreferenced "current members" sections, like this (all redlinks). That's clearly unacceptable.--Scott Mac 18:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How can an article about a criminal be a negative blp? One would think they'd want to be known for their criminal exploits and anything 'negative' is in fact positive.. but if someone were to attempt to balance the article by adding, let's say, "He rescues cats from trees on weekends", now THAT's a blp vio! :P -- Ϫ 05:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • To answer the question How can an article about a criminal be a negative blp?, if it is poorly sourced, it sure would be a problem and Scott Mac has done good, imho. I don't think we are talking about Al Capone type bios here, this is more about fringy, non notable figures, so great care or normal BLP care or whatever should be used here it seems. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is worth noting that many many years ago we had a complaint from a popular author of gangster history that, in his view, much of our material was simply copied from him. He was pursuing a theory of copyright that was not consistent with the law, i.e. that facts are copyrightable, so if the facts were found originally and written originally by him, no one else could include them. However, at that time, I remember a big cleanup project dealing with this area. It's an area where there are a lot of amateur enthusiasts who range from seriously knowledgeable to being fanboys who are eager but lack knowledge of encyclopedic standards.

        I agree with Scott Mac - articles about Crime Families with "current members" sections sounds really really really bad to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarita Stella

    Resolved
     – Speedily deleted. – ukexpat (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi there, I am new to wiki but noticed this person and she is someone I actually do know. She is not a person that is notable or that should be on Wikipedia... Her profile is pretty dodgy to say the lease and it would be good is someone wold have a look at it and if possible look at it for deletion.

    There are no references to her age, wedding or wedding date it is all heresay. And she isnt notable as for example Cindy Crawford. This girl is a wanna be model from melbourne australia.

    Cheers Jack

    I agree that the article should be deleted as there is no assertion of notability, and the subject appears to fail WP:BIO. I removed the only sourced factoid in the article which involved a charge of assault concerning a "late-night scuffle over a taxi" in December 2005, because that sort of "list of traffic fines" material has no encyclopedic significance. I am watching the article and would be glad if someone takes it to WP:AFD. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks borderline speediable to me so tagged as such. – ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tsem Tulku

    Tsem Tulku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I am adding information from Tsem Tulku's official website about his past incarnation as a Tibetan Lama, followed by other sources, which two new users (Nekoboy86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Libzleng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) repeatedly remove. I just checked, and my sources are still verifiable. I have tried to discuss this on the talk page, but that has been removed as well. // Emptymountains (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nevermind, Tsem Tulku's website has been re-worded once again so that it cannot be cited to verify the point.Emptymountains (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, you'd need a third-party reference for this sort of thing in any case. Self-published sources can't be used for exceptional claims. Yworo (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    John McGrath (Western Australian politician)

    John McGrath (Western Australian politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - information is being repeatedly added that has no veritable source - the reference given is a dead link. There is further information being repeatedly added (relating to a CCC inquiry that cleared John McGrath of all charges) which contradicts the reference that is cited.

    Kevin Johnson

    What do people think about edits like this? (They're primary sources about alleged misconduct with a teenager, presented with no commentary.) User:Temporarywiki seems pretty determined to include it. Indeed, since 2008, he's done nothing but add negative info to the bio. Zagalejo^^^ 03:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say it's undue weight to randomly insert specific external links about a negative event with no context behind it. And I would say maybe User:Temporarywiki needs a temporary vacation from this subject. -- Ϫ 05:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'll try to keep an eye on the page. If anyone else want to help out, that'd be great. Zagalejo^^^ 06:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He's back at it. Zagalejo^^^ 06:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Les Stroud

    Someone has been trying to add the name "Chad Stroud" to the Les Stroud article for months, usually at least once a day and sometimes a lot more. The edits are coming from a bunch of different accounts and IP addresses (all resolving to the same geographic region). The article probably needs to be protected for an extended period. SmashTheState (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done 6 months semi. Taking previous page protections into account. -- œ™ 06:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shawn Little

    Can someone bushwhack this article? It's really, really over-the-top, thanks to the edits of user:Skeezwax. I'd bushwhack, but I was brought to the attention of this article by a media outlet, local to the politician.

    Does everyone agree that it's worth reverting to pre-Skeezwax, and working from there? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To be honest the pre-Skeezwax version is not a lot better. I'm nuking parts of it, hopefully there is reasonable material under there. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 18:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    checkYok, I hit it with a big hammer and lots of dust fell off :) pretty much everything is now non-dramatic, however I am still unsure about the criticism section. It seems reasonably notable in the context of his career etc. but I am concerned it may be undue. If someone else take a look that would rock :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 19:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Great job, Errant! I made some further general and npov cleanups. The section is now folded into its parent, and appropriate weight in my view. Along the way I found out he's a candidate in Ottawa's forthcoming election so updated the article and talk banners accordingly, too. 92.30.85.175 (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are City Councillors notable enough to have their own articles? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not according to WP:POLITICIAN. – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Simon Morris

    I killed the material about his arrest/prosecution this article says it was all dropped --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 17:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But that self-same material shows that he is talking about suing the police over the accusations and arrest. BLP doesn't mean removing everything if the charges are dropped; it means good, solid, NPOV inclusion of all the information. The stuff you removed should have been supplemented and updated, not suppressed. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say normally if charges are dropped, material should be removed. Talking about suing isn't suing. If he does file a suit, then the context becomes topical again and should be restored. Yworo (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As above; the charges were dropped and he hasn't actually sued just said he might (WP:FUTURE) - I'd say if he does sue and it makes the news then we have material to work with --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 18:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Alan Gell

    The referencing on this biography of a person involved in capital crime case was abysmal. Most of the links had rotted away. I've fixed those that I can. More attention is required. Also note that renaming this to be about the cases as a whole might be a good idea. There's a fair amount of information about other people that could go into an article about the cases as a whole to make it more rounded and encyclopaedic (example example). Uncle G (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Julian Assange

    Can somebody find an English language source for the arrest accusations? I can't find any, and I don't read Swedish. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Our article on Expressen calls it a tabloid newspaper, I don't think there is any harm at all from holding off a bit and await more sources. un☯mi 06:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Rape is a serious charge and having a tabloid as the only source is a BLP violation in my opinion. This story will develop quickly for sure, so let's take it out for now and wait a few days to see what happens. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 08:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is, now, an English source - but the section does not sit well with me.... I've cut a lot of useless/dubious information from it for now. Somone bolder may want to rm most of the rest though --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be cut down to the fact of the arrest order and Assange's denial. But Meco has already served me a 3RR warning... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's now looking like this could be a provebial storm in a teacup with the latest info that the arrest warrant has been cancelled. As I mentioned in the article talk page, I get the feeling this is going to take a very long time to die down though. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is where we ought to say WP:NOTNEWS, and record nothing until the significance can be assessed, at least a few days from now.--Scott Mac 18:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Someone has helpfully copied the made up claims to the talk page, complete with a heading that fails BLP (see here). I was going to remove the section, but the rape claims are all through the article talk page. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The policy applies to talk pages, as you note. Have some citations while I'm here:
        • Per Nyberg (2010-08-21). "Sweden drops rape accusation against founder of WikiLeaks". CNN.
        • Kristing Grue Lanset and Jon Robin Halle (2010-08-21). "Svensk politi: Assange ikke lenger mistenkt". Aftenposten (in Norwegian).
        • Dan Nilsson, Susanna Baltscheffsky, and Sofia Ström (2010-08-21). "Assange inte längre misstänkt för våldtäkt". Svenska Dagbladet (in Swedish).{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
      • Uncle G (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    At Talk:Julian_Assange#Rape_Accusations_Section_Removed, User:John removed a fully sourced section off the talk page citing BLP concerns. Does the sourced section violate WP:BLPTALK ?Smallman12q (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The sourcing on that issue is VERY substantial. I don't see how that's an appropriate removal. The allegations and their being dropped, or whatever the case may be, is still quite noteworthy and it makes me uncomfortable to see anyone redacting discussion history in that manner without good cause and explanation. Freakshownerd (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP concerns aside, is there any reason to keep that section on the talk page? It seems unlikely that there will be a consensus to include that extended version of the paragraph into the article. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 02:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT...is there any reason to not keep it on the talk page?Smallman12q (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the small consideration that it might actually harm a living human being. Any serious suggestions towards improving the coverage as it develops over the coming weeks will be gratefully accepted, but material which merely disparages the subject can't remain. There may be other material which will have to be removed as well. Any other admins or responsible users can help with that too. --John (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Marc Hauser

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

    I'd appreciate it if somebody, ideally somebody who knows more about psychology than I do, kept an eye on this page for the next couple of weeks. Hauser is at the center of a scientific misconduct scandal, where Harvard has confirmed his guilt just yesterday. RayTalk 08:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm, don't know anything about it, but that article has undue weight issues.--Scott Mac 19:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Amber Heard

    If someone can pay attention to this page: on several occasions, a person - which I suspect to be Arthur Wybrand himself - made changes to include an alleged relationship with Amber Heard, without any source. 84.99.59.96 (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

    As the pending changes trial has expired, community consensus is required for continued usage or expansion. The Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, please contribute your position, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrick Carnes

    This page looks more like self-promotion than containing any actual objective information. 83.160.84.240 (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jharal Yow Yeh

    Jharal Yow Yeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- This is a small issue, but if I revert any more, I'll be crossing WP:3RR, so I want to make sure this falls under the BLP exception to 3RR before I revert again. User:Malamaua has been adding a variety of information to this article about an Australian rugby player. For most the added info, I can't tell if it's correct or not (like nicknames). However, one specific sentence I believe must stay out of the article; he's been adding variations on the sentence "Is yet to follow in his Uncles foot steps Kevin Yow Yeh." To me, this is both a violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:OR, as it's an opinion about this player without any references or sources. I warned the article on his talk page here [6] when I reverted the info the third time, but he has re-added one more time. Am I being overly sensitive on this (i.e., can this stay with a cn tag), or does this need to come out per WP:BLP (at which point I'll warn him about 3RR, revert, and report him for edit-warring if he adds again w/in 24 hours). Thank you for your assistance. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I don't think that is a BLP issue of such importance that 3RR should be crossed. I see that another editor has reverted the latest addition. The text that Malamaua wants to add is simply inappropriate as WP:OR and just not encyclopedic. Johnuniq (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Laura Schlessinger

    Laura Schlessinger has recently publicly complained about untruths in her Wiki-bio. See here.

    Looking at the bio, there does seem to be an amazing amount of negative stuff that may be questionable. I've already found statement unsupported by the purported reference. The article needs unbiased eyes, alert to WP:UNDUE, neutrality, and willing to review sources to see if they are reliable, significant, and actually support the text.--Scott Mac 12:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    HOW DO YOU ANSWER CRITICS WHO SAY YOU SHOULDN'T BE GIVING ADVICE BECAUSE YOU'VE HAD AFFAIRS AND ...

    Affairs! What affairs? That's all trumped-up nonsense. And the nude pictures -- the ones that show me from the top up -- those are me. The other ones, the really naughty ones, I don't know how they did it. That's good Photoshopping. The only regret I have is that at the time I didn't think I was cute. Now I look back and say, "Damn, I was cute!"

    NO AFFAIRS WITH MARRIED MEN? NO OUT-OF-WEDLOCK PREGNANCY?

    Of course not. Out-of-wedlock pregnancy? Somebody said that?

    IT'S ON YOUR WIKIPEDIA PAGE.

    Oh. Oh. Yes. Of course. That's the source of truth? Anybody can put anything on there!

    BUT IT'S FOOTNOTED.

    So it's footnoted to somebody else who made it up. I remember "All the President's Men," where they had to find three good sources before they could say anything. Journalism has left that way behind. Does Wikipedia say I have any illegitimate kids?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott MacDonald (talk • contribs) 2010-08-22 12:56:50 (UTC)

    Michael Yebba

    An odd one. Allegations of drug addiction, petty crime, armed robbery, prison, all inadequately sourced imo, followed by the writing of an autobiography and screenplays. Hmmm. --86.150.112.150 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Denise Milani (model)

    Resolved
     – Article was deleted at AFD. User:Donare24 is now indef blocked. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest to bring up that article for AfD. Seems completely non notable to me. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 15:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 15:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Vicente-Ignacio Soria de Veyra

    Anyone want to take a stab at this? The sources seem to be shit from a cursory glance. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Diane Francis

    Back in December 2009 Diane Francis, who has 2 adult children, wrote an article saying the world need a China-style "one child policy" to help combat global warming. Ever since there have been repeated attempts to include this view alongside the fact that she has two children, to show alleged hypocrisy; for obvious reasons this is favoured by people and Wikipedians who think climate change is hokum. However it was considered a BLP violation (Francis was born in 1946 and her children must have been conceived before global warming was a public issue) and rejected for inclusion. One editor in particular (User:Grundle2600) attempted to force it through nonetheless, and after being indef-banned has continued to use socks on various of his pet themes, including this. This led to Diane Francis being semi-protected a week ago [9]. Today User:Freakshownerd attempted to edit war this same thing. There is now some discussion at Talk:Diane Francis whether her view on this matter, without being explicitly linked to having 2 children, might be acceptable for inclusion. One of the issues here would be WP:PSTS - cherrypicking one of many views expressed by a journalist. I express no opinion on whether the view merits inclusion in an NPOV manner (I'm not entirely decided, though given the subject of her books it would appear to be quite unrepresentative of what she normally writes about). Input please. Rd232 talk 20:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rd232's summation above is a bit inaccurate. I was not a party to this debate until today, and only happened to stumble upon it after seeing it being discussed on another editor's talk page in my watchlist. Anyway, I took a look at the dispute and I've suggested a version of the content that:
    1. Completely removes the part about having 2 children. This seems to me to be the major problem with this content.
    2. Removes a third-party opinion piece that was being used as a source.
    3. Replaces "claimed" with "said" per Words to watch. No one brought this up, but I fixed it anyway.
    Here's my suggested fix.[10] As for using a primary source, Wikipedia policy allows it. Personally, I dislike using primary sources for potentially contentious information, but we do it all over Wikipedia and I'm not sure why this article should be used to trail-blaze new policy. As for WP:UNDUE, given that this is a single sentence, I find such an argument to be severely lacking. Of course, if the article were to turn into a WP:COATRACK to promote her views, that would be one thing. But as it stands, a single sentence doesn't seem to be undue weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, going through the history, I should point out that the statement was removed as a WP:COATRACK issue in March per an OTRS request [11]. This was certainly in the back of my mind when I was acting here, but I'd forgotten this detail. Rd232 talk 21:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    One sentence does not a coatrack make. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    True - the term is sometimes used a bit loosely (it wasn't my edit summary). It's worth noting that in mid-December the editor who originally added the content boasted of it being picked up elsewhere from Wikipedia. This is a part of the backstory on why it was considered a BLP violation: it was always intended to damage the subject's reputation. Rd232 talk 21:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See also the editing history I've recovered and posted at User_talk:Rd232#Backstory, showing the evolution of consensus on this matter. Rd232 talk 21:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure about the first sentence? Looking at the cited source, she uses the catchphrase from An Inconvenient Truth to say "The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world." That's not saying it's an answer to global warming, that's saying that global warming or otherwise is irrelevant. She argues for population control "to combat environmental degradation" but ignores coal burning which is more relevant to global warming – there have been plenty of environmental concerns which don't involve global warming. The next source headlines Columnist Proposes One-Child Policy to Battle Climate Change - Bill O'Reilly | The O'Reilly Factor - FOXNews.com but in the interview Francis doesn't make that claim, she says "But I think that I want the conversation in Copenhagen to get off cap-and-trade and subsidizing people to pollute and all that stuff or the science argument, which I don't understand, and get on to things like conservation and population control." So, she shows no interest in global warming, but goes on to give other reasons for supporting population control. The headline and intro "a shocking proposal to save the earth from climate change" are editorialising by Fox News guest host Laura Ingraham who seems to be maintaining the shock jock standards expected of O'Reilly – hardly a reliable source. Similarly, the third source is an opinion piece Planetary birth control gone mad by Lysiane Gagnon in The Globe and Mail – doesn't look like an acceptable source for a BLP. Oh, and none of them seem to connect the proposed population control with the number of children that Francis has, so that's unacceptable WP:SYN. We'd really need a better secondary source showing that this column by Francis is significant to her bio before we could include anything about it. . . dave souza, talk 21:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Rd232 is being dishonest and abused his tools after edit warring against consensus and two other editors (and now many more). The content was sourced to Francis's column, an interview she gave that is entirely about the issue, and it is also covered in these sources:

    It should also be noted that Rd232 has been abusing his admin bit and propagandizing his left wing viewpoints in other articles as well. The controversy over her position on this issue is by the best referenced most sourced aspect of the whole article, much of which is advertorial. If opinions of other notable figures can't be included then there shouldn't be an article because what's there is sourced solely to her personal website and professional CV.

    Also, the last edit I made after Rd232 made his 8th or 9th rever had nothing to do with this dispute and attempted to fix some of the flowery propagandistic language used in the article that is sourced only to her personal webpage and corporate bio. It's disgusting that Rd232 gets away with abusing his tools in this manner. But when other admins like Sandstein, Bwilkins and Tnxman refuse to do the right thing and assist an abusive admin like Rd232 it makes Wikipedia a really vicious and unpleasant place to edit where the rules are only for non-admins. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please focus on the content here, which is what this board is for. All concerned should note, as can be seen from user talk:Rd232#Backstory that there was a strong consensus against inclusion of what Freakshownerd tried to edit war into the article. That consensus was strengthened by the March OTRS ticket I mentioned above, and a number of others have removed the content before the hooha of the last couple of days. Somehow Freakshownerd is under the impression that there is a strong consensus in his favour - there very much wasn't, and now there's a new debate, in which I don't intend to participate myself any more than necessary (eg with this background stuff). Rd232 talk 21:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and for the real gluttons for punishment (in terms of reading lots of material...): more backstory at ANI in December. Rd232 talk 22:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with your take on it. This looks very much like material that's been added purely to damage the subject's reputation - the backstory pretty much confirms that - and I can't see how it factors in to her wider notability in any way. Did she campaign on this issue? Was it the subject of any significant controversy? There's no indication of this - it would seem from the backstory that this is basically an out-of-context remark that a political opponent has highlighted in order to damage her reputation. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rd232: With all due respect, I don't care about the backstory. I only just encountered this article today. Who or what happened before me is not my concern. What is my concern is that I've attempted - in good faith - to preserve this content while addressing everyone's concerns. So far, my compromise has the consensus of the majority of editors who've weighed in so far. However, if you think that my suggested compromise still doesn't meet your expectations, then you should suggest an alternative compromise. Can you please suggest an alternative text that addresses your remaining concerns? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've said that I don't want to be involved in this discussion in this way. I'll say it again explicitly: I don't want to be part of the decision on this. Previously I was enforcing the strong prior consensus, and trying to communicate the basis of that [I could have tried harder; mea culpa. I thought it was pretty obvious] to the 2 people who showed up recently. Now I've provided relevant info, and I think that's about all I've got to say. Others should be able to decide this issue. Rd232 talk 23:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rd232 is again being dishonest. He did want to be involved in the discussion and he ranted on about the issue when another editor asked why it was removed. "She was born in 1946. Article was written in 2009. Global warming didn't become a big issue til about 1989 at the earliest. Are you suggesting that she has to kill one of her adult children to express a view on what's best for the planet? You claim to be a lecturer on philosophy - explain this one to me. (And per WP:BLP, do not reinsert the text without discussion concluding.) Rd232 talk 07:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)"
    The content is discussed in her piece, was the subject of an interview she gave ot a major media outlet (not something mentioned mind you, but the subject of the entire interview), it's also been covered in several other opinion pieces and was noted critically in the National Review. The rest of the article is full of peacockery from her CV, so mentioning her position on this issue is blatantly NOT coatracky or a BLp violation. These are absurd claims since the responses and criticisms of her position haven't even been included despite NPOV. What we have is an extraordinarily abusive admin edit warring against consensus, reverting to his preferred article state, and then blocking those with differing opinions even when they are no longer engaged at the article. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your various vitriol is growing tiresome, even in the circumstances; and if you have any reason to believe that you're not about to get blocked as a sock, you might try a different sort of attitude and focus on content here. Now my comment above is quite clear: previously I was enforcing the existing consensus (that it was a BLP violation) and communicating that consensus on talk (not very clearly, I'll admit, but my exchange was with Wbehun, who claims to be a philosophy professor, so I felt I could let him join the dots). Rd232 talk 00:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How is her opinion or her critics noting that she has two children despite advocating for a one child policy for the rest of the world a BLP violation? It's the only aspect of the entire article that's been covered substantially, in fact it's been discussed in numerous sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Any chance someone completely uninvolved til now could explain this? Rd232 talk 02:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look. The "one child" suggestion look well sourced. The comments about her having two children are just bloggish/tabloid style attacks - there is no need to report them as part of her biography. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 14:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    New edit introduces possible BLP violation

    An IP has just added the following "National Review, The American Spectator, and Newsbusters have accused Francis of hypocrisy for favoring a global one child policy while she herself has two children."[12] The cited sources appear to be three blogs. AFAIK, third-party blogs should not be used to source contentious material about living persons. I decided to err on the side of caution and have removed this material.[13] Can someone please review this edit and my revert, and provide feedback? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've taken a look at it. The sources are bloggish and not appropriate for use in a BLP. The National Review doesn't use the word hypocrisy at all; The American Spectator says "Hypocrisy aside", so doesn't directly accuse her of hypocrisy, and the Newsbuster is a blog post with comments, which we can't use in a BLP in any case, and the only "accusation of hypocrisy" is in a comment, not in the original post. This addition clearly violates WP:RS, WP:SYN and WP:DUE. Yworo (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is a BLP violation for the reasons you state. Anyone not familiar with the article should also check out the lengthy debate on the talk page. As for the IP that added the content, I have a suspicion... Might be that user who edited the article and just got blocked... SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 19:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for reviewing my actions. Unfortunately, Freakshownerd's block has ended and has restored the BLP violation.[14]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't restore it. I modified content added by another editor and actually toned it down. Per NPOV opinions and viewpoints that disagree are to be included. The opinions are by several notable figures and they are not even detailed. I actually REMOVED the word hypocrisy, and including the notable opinions of other notable figures is in no way a BLP violation. Freakshownerd (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is your edit,[15] is it not? You re-added the part about the 2 children and sourced it to blogs. This goes against the consensus of both the discussions on the article talk page as well as this noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I restored opinions sourced to numerous notable persons published in notable periodicals per wp:npov. As I've noted on the article talkpage, I'm okay with removing the two child tidbit, although it's clearly not a BLP violation. I do object to your violating NPOV and removing the many opinions that differ with hers, and I think your edits have been damaging to the article. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Stephan

    There was a "controversy" section created on the Doug Stephan wikipedia webpage. Presently there is an ongoing dispute and possible litigation between Doug Stephan and Armstrong and Getty. This section was created and obviously added by the Armstrong and Getty team in an attempt to slander Doug Stephan. The references have been created by Armstrong and Getty. I am requesting that this section be deleted since it is poorly sourced and potentially libellous.


    Thank you, username: Michsora Michsora (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a reason why you failed to explain any of this in edit summaries, on the article talk page, or in any other way? To all appearances, you are simply removing text and sources. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The text of the controversy section is sourced both by reputable trade media articles on the controversy and by links to audio files of Doug Stephan uttering the very words on a news radio program that the article claims he said. I don't think you can get much better than an audio recording of the subject of a biographical article uttering the words that the wikipedia article reports him as stating on a regional news program. If you have an issue with this article, raise it in the talk section before blanking it. Addisonstrack (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Warren Farrell

    There has been a content dispute on the talk page of the article about Warren Farrell [16]. Users Sugar-Baby-Love and Cybermud removed this sourced information [17]. Cybermud argues that citing James Twitchell is libelous and bad because according to Cybermud Twitchell is a "plagiarist" who "admitted to academic falsehoods."[18]

    In his book "Forbidden Partners: The Incest Taboo in Modern Culture" (1987), Twitchell writes that Farrell wrote an unpublished book advocating incest. In her book, Jane Caputi confirms that James Twitchell wrote that Farrell wrote an unpublished book advocating incest [19].

    I would like to know if it's a breach of WP:NPOV to include this in the section 'Incest controvery' in the article about Warren Farrell? Thank you. Randygeorge (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The above comment is factually incorrect on three accounts.
    • 1)George was reverted by (to my knowledge) three editors, not two. See here.
    • 2)That Twitchell has admitted to lying in his work is a matter of objective fact and is not just merely something "Cybermud argues". See here and here
    • 3)Cybermud did not say that the claim was libel. He or she stated that it potentially "opens WP up to a libel suit." There is a distinction there.
    I humbly ask George to correct his or her falsehoods made in the above comment. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I humby ask you to refrain from uncivil attacks and claims that the reliable sources I added comes down to me circulating "falsehoods." James Twitchell's book was published in the Columbia University Press and it is perfectly reliable. Jane Caputi's book as just as reliable. Even if Twitchell were guilty of plagiarism, plagiarism doesn't equal lying. Plagiarism means using pieces of descriptions written by others. Several other authors have pointed out Farrell's association with incest and Twitchell is simply one of them. Randygeorge (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not make an "attack". I asked you to retract factual errors that you made.
    And I see that you have made other factual errors.
    • 4)Plagiarism is an act of writing. It means someone steals credit for something that they did not actually write. Please read= plagarism.
    • 5)We absolutely have not seen from you that "Several other authors have pointed out" what you claim. The only source that we have seen from you about Farrell advocating incest is a reference in a book to a claim that somebody else made in another book. That's it.
    Please correct these errors. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That section should be removed. There is evidence that Twitchell ever saw that unpublished that unpublished book, or that he is a reliable source. We do not even know exactly what Twitchell said about it, but just Caputi's parenthetical remark in a gossip book. Twitchell-Caputi claim is contradicted by much more reliable source. Keep the false gossip out. Roger (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when is a book published in the Columbia University Press not a 'reliable source'? He commented on Farrell's work. A book published in the Columbia University Press is super reliable and when it's backed up by another book which confirms that Twitchell said this, it's even more reliable. Please post this "much more reliable source" that contradicts the "Twitchell-Caputi" claim. I'd love to see it. Randygeorge (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. For multiple reasons. This is a very serious charge, and even the book distances itself from the claim and attributes it to Twitchell, who is a weak source at best. per WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE this should be deleted. I actually have significant concerns about the rest of the section too for very similar reasons. --Slp1 (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a possibility for confusion here so to clarify, user Roger is not an editor of the article, it is Randygeorge who wants to add text that author Warren Farrell "advocates incest." The source he/she is using is in a footnote that claims someone else has claimed it and is written by an admited plagarist Even if we weren't adhering to the more stringent WP:BLP requirements this would be a worthless reference.--Cybermud (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For what's it worth, this blog claiming to reprint the entire original Penthouse article says:

    If pushed to the wall, would Farrell urge incest on families? "Incest is like a magnifying glass," he summarizes. "In some circumnstances it magnifies the beauty of a relationship, and in others it magnifies the trauma. I'm not recommending incest between parent and child, and especially not between father and daughter. The great majority of fathers can grasp the dynamics of positive incest 'intellectually'. But in a society that encourages looking at women in almost purely sexual terms, I don't believe they can translate this understanding into practice."

    Which means that it is wrong to label Farrell as "advocating/supporting/recommending incest". Note that the link also includes explicit depictions of incest allegedly from the original article, which many Wikipedia users will find disturbing. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That content needs looking at checking to see if the citations are WP:RS and if the test in iur article is covered in the reliable citation, and if the guy is being portrayed in a fair way, from what I saw he is not advocating incest just saying through research that it is not in every case a negative thing. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    • For at least the duration of this discussion, I've removed the section and used {{BLP unverified}}. Due to sufficient initial concerns including but not limited to, use of self-published material and selective use of various sources in such a way as to imply or present particular (POV) interpretations of those sources, in my view this is a prudent measure given the content. --92.30.85.175 (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please tell me what "self-published material" you speak of? All sources in this section are published books and if you check the editing history you will see that several people have posted something about this controversy but their edits were reverted without providing reasons. This section is the best sourced section in the entire article. I disagree with you actions and your decision to remove sourced, notable and relevant material. Randygeorge (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, no problem. Please be aware it'll take some time to fully go through the different concerns, before I can give a more detailed reply. For now, here's one item.
    (Incidentally, please could you try to include citation information (e.g author, title, page numbers). It's great you're making effort with sourcing - esp. being fairly new, and the cite information will help others evaluate and compare references against content more easily.)
    One self-published work, whose title is Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences (2003), is the Reisman book. According to the book, the publisher is "The Institute for Media Education, Inc". Judith A. Reisman is President of that organisation. As yet I don't know if there's any copyright link issue with the linked source. In the book, where she self-describes as an "independent researcher and scholar" (p. xxi), she states the Kinsey Institute or groups/individuals connected to it through lobbying and targeted efforts to censor, prevent her work from being published through "print and broadcast media, all relevant professional conferences and journals, book publishers and such" (p. xxiii). That's as maybe. But the verification requirements restrict how and whether self-published sources may be used, particularly on articles about living persons. 92.30.85.175 (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. But could you explain to me why the LA Times article, the Schlesinger book, the Kinnear book, the Kimmel book, and the Eli Coleman book were removed? And why? If you make a simple google books search you will see that several authors write about Farrell in relation to his "positive incest" claims. I am relatively new here (not so new as you, but new) and not so familiar with the way things work. I though you include notable opinions by reliable sources in proportion to their prominence and that's it. I didn't think that several editors can just get together and "vote" that these opinions be removed. Am I very mistaken? Randygeorge (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be very recently added by a new editor Rndy George , his additions seems to be getting reverted at other articles as well, as here at Mens rights - Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Off2riorob, for noticing this. Sugar-Baby-Love and Cybermud have been following me around and reverting my edits. They have followed me to every single article I have ever edited and they do it together. I suspect they are sockpuppets but I will address this someplace else.
    As you can see the concerns revolve around Cybermud's and Sugar-Baby-Love's unfounded claims that James Twitchell lost his academic credibility. Randygeorge (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that you are projecting allegations of sock-puppetry to take attention off of yourself. Be advised that I am considering making a request to check your status since I strongly suspect that you are a previously banned user. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I am noticing your additions in this situation, this gossip is not like its breaking news, its seventeen years old, allegations in a BLP that someone is a advocate of incest are very serious claims indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So time reduces the quality of reliable sources? Does this mean that criticisms voiced decades ago can't be included in Wikipedia articles. Why is an exception made for Roman Polanski or other living persons? And how come the entire section was deleted by an editor? I suppose this means that we can start removing all critical information about living person. Randygeorge (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think thats call editorial judgement, we are especially careful not to include defamatory content about living people. Strange that after 17 years its not been notable until the last week and personally I think its a bit of excessive portrayal. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, I take offense at being called a sockpuppet (my edits are unique enough at least to be a meatpuppet). I understand that George's advocacy of The Truth has likely forced him to fight off bot-net hordes but my edit history speaks for itself for anyone who cares to look. It also bears noting that George's account seems created specifically to promote incest claims in the Warren Farrell article, practice Tendentious editing and POV pushing. There is already a large, and IMHO WP:Undue section on incest in the article created solely by George, but he refuses to be satisfied until it literally says he is "promoting incest."Cybermud (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Randygeorge and Sugar-baby-love, two of the editors involved in this dispute, are also the subject of commentary in WQA here, a discussion I've also offered an opinion on--Cybermud (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Heinz Nawratil

    78.53.41.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this IP range has been adding biased mudslinging into various article the person behind that IP range dislikes. Typical examples are here: Heinz Nawratil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where the drama has been going on since 2009. It seems the historian concerned had to register (!) and say a few words in his defense at talk page, but the 78... IP troll keeps adding inflammatory Category:Pseudohistory here. The POV synthesis was really then
    He keeps adding similar insinuations - usually trying to portray the German historians, no matter how controversial, but they are in fact scholars, - to portray them as Nazis. The sources he provided usually do not contain the information that has been disputed, the IP, however, just removes the cn tags. Check the editing history at [20] - he has been edit warring there since 4 December 2009 . I've reported the IP user's activities elsewhere, too, but all I got where accusations that I am edit warring. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed an unsourced mild claim and will watch the article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nawratil has been discussed on BLP twice previously, in a somewhat different context. The last time was here [21]. The consensus was that there was more than adequate sourcing for many claims many about him and his "work". Incidentally some of this applies to ZFI that Seidler has been associated with.radek (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly, that's where a conflict of interest comes into play. Last time you were seeking the confirmation that he is not WP:RS on the topic for expulsions of Germans during WW2, now, when WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV issues have been raised, it is of course in your best interests to cement a view as negative as possible of him. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 22:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean "conflict of interest"? What are you talking about? I repeat, Nawratil has been discussed on BLP Noticeboard previously and there was consensus that the sourcing was more than adequate for claims about his "work". Of course he is not RS (except possibly for what his own opinions are), that doesn't even come to play. The previous inquiry on BLPN was whether or not he can be described as being associated with the extreme far right in Germany (per Martin Broszat's quote). This is obviously encyclopedic information, and if it is well sourced - which it is - should be in the article.radek (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Renoir (surname)

    Article Renoir (surname) addresses origin of name Renoir and lists prominent members of the artist's family. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renoir_(surname) In Feb 2010, IP user introduced a "Gabrielle A. Renoir" to the article, including a spam link to a page advertising a novel in progress. In June, this edit was noticed and challenged. Since then, IP user and user WikiEditorandWriter have persistently introduced edits and comments that appear to directly and indirectly associate this "Gabrielle A. Renoir" with the artist's family. Rather than turn this into an edit war, would ask a more experienced editor or an admin to take a look at the page and ensure that material meets Wiki standards on verifiability, COI, and NPOV. Hiernonymous (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved
     – Hiernonymous (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Doug_Stephan

    There was a "plagierizing material from other programs" discussion created on the Doug Stephan wikipedia webpage. Presently there is an ongoing dispute and possible litigation between Doug Stephan and Armstrong and Getty. This section was created and obviously added by the Armstrong and Getty team in an attempt to slander Doug Stephan. I am requesting that this section be deleted since it is potentially libellous, and that the IP address no longer is allowed to post comments on the page.

    Thank you for your time, Mich Sora Michsora (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting. Mich seems to be a SPA whose sole reason for being here is to expunge any reference to this dispute. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    William Dembski

    Could I get some help at this article? A couple of editors strongly opposed to his view on Intelligent Design keep removing career information from the lead, despite it being sourced to Time magazine and indisputably accurate. Obiously we can't have editors disparaging subjects they disagree with and engaging in content changes that have the potential to damage someone's career. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This sudo sci fi stuff does seem to be attracting attack situations, people appear to strongly want to make it out as rubbish and its proponents to be fools and idiots, in a very similar way to the global warming situation, very tedious. Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a quick look at it and it's not an obvious BLP violation. Ultimately, it seems to be an issue of WP:WEIGHT as to whether this person is more famous for being an ID proponent or a mathematician, philosopher and theologian. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I approached the lead by listing degrees and affiliations rather than titles and professions. If he's a mathematician, he's seen as a bad one. He's been a professor of theology, is currently a professor of philosophy, but I don't think he's been a professor of math or statistics. I also don't think a Time article from 2005, the year of Dover v. Kitzmiller which took a substantial wind out of the intelligent design sails, is the best source for him being a mathematician. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, that "disparaging subjects" comment is really, really irritating. I have sourced to reliable sources that disparage Dembski's claims. I have never disparaged the subject on their mainspace article. Claiming that my edits "damage someone's career" is inaccurate and rather serious on wikipedia. Dembski is a controversial figure because he promotes pseudoscience. The only people who take his work seriously are popular figures and other Christians pushing the same pseudoscience. Theologians, philosophers and mathematicians have all heavily criticized his work, which is mostly ignored in the serious scientific community. It is not controversial to note this, nor is it, as far as I can tell, against BLP. I have consistently been told I am wrong, I am a vandal, I am POV-pushing, I am violating BLP, simply because I have included sourced criticisms of Dembski for pushing creationism and Peter Duesberg for pushing AIDS denialism. I cite sources that are critical of individuals. I do not include my own opinion. BLP does not mean "let's be really nice to this person and pretend they were never criticized for doing anything". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Warren Goldstein

    Warren Goldstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ongoing edit war regarding negative but sourced BLP material. Gigs (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    John Cannan

    Please give me an opinion on this. I deleted after the creator blanked, then restored after an anon said he was interested in bringing it back. Not sure the encyclopedic value outweighs the BLP concerns. Dlohcierekim 23:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If the article is poorly written, then it should just be improved. That doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable argument for deleting it again.
    Anyways, it appears to me to be currently problematic in some respects. We have one large pargraph of information all run together without any context or chronological order. And this is not a reliable source at all.
    However, this seems to be a valid topic for an article existing in the first place. This person has been covered by many sources. See here, in which he's described as a "sex killer who terrorised Midland women in the 1980s", and here and here for examples. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So, from a BLP standpoint, it can stand? Dlohcierekim 14:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think someone should rewrite the page almost completely. But I also think that the article should not be deleted. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong Name-Vai.Gopalasamy Naidu

    Vai.Gopalasamy Naidu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The name given here is wrong

    His name as per government gazette is Vaiko.He has never been called Vai.Gopalsamy_Naidu. Naidu is a caste name, that he has never used in his name. All leading News papers call him Vaiko. ref- Today's 'The Hindu' - http://www.hindu.com/2010/08/25/stories/2010082556200100.htm (reported by User:G.Kaarthikeyan)

    I had a quick look at this and a google of the names, if there is someone that understands Hindu names that could comment as the name we presently have this BLP under doesn't appear to me to be the most used or well know one. Off2riorob (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrice Oneal

    Edit war going on at Patrice Oneal. An anon user who apparently has dynamic IP keeps deleting relevant information from this article. Patrice Oneal was convicted of statutory rape at age 16 and has spoken publicly about it. He was recently barred from Canada as a result. More than one editor is trying to keep this information in. Anon 199... is repeatedly deleting it.76.24.237.160 (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrice Oneal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Wow, someone who is now 40 years old has a bio on Wikipedia where it points out that when he was 16 he had sex with a 15 year old girl and was convicted of statutory rape. Glad I don't have a bio here. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea me too. Off2riorob (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This information looks to be properly sourced, not the subject of any controversy and it belongs in the article.
    @John and Rob: I'm not even gonna ask... --FormerIP (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with FormerIP. But I think that prehaps some context is needed-- such as comments from his discussing the case and so on.
    On a side note, in Canada I believe that consensual relations between a 16-year-old and a 15-year-old cannot be prosecuted. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pamela Geller

    Pamela Geller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Can someone take a look at this discussion occurring in Talk:Pamela Geller#"Controversial", and "false" claims about some of the content being inserted in the article? Truthsort (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Article is being used to attack her by her opponents. Many users come to wikipedia to only add attack content about people they are opposed to. Such contributors are one of our biggest problems and detrimental to the existence of the whole project. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I have started to feel that way specifically about User:Arjuna909, who is piling on with his point of view and filling the article with undue weight, as well as violating WP:OR and WP:Verifiability. Truthsort (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Truthsort for opening this discussion on WP:BLP. As noted on the article talk page, I agree that admin clarification is warranted and indeed it was me that first suggested admin clarification would be desirable. Obviously I disagree with your characterization of my edits, which I think are careful and appropriate material consistent with BLP guidelines. As can be noted from the discussion I think there are unusual issues here and so I look forward to clarification from the admins. Best, Arjuna (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What unusual issues is that? Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the article's talk page for more information. Briefly, the inflammatory, over-the-top nature of her more controversial blog postings are such that they are not taken seriously enough by mainstream sources to merit explicit refutation. This problematizes citation of her claims as "false". Though I have nonetheless made substantial progress in that area, Truthsort apparently still objects to use of the terms "false", "controversial", and "unsupported" etc. Arjuna (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Truthsort and Offtoriorob need to remember WP: NPA. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, obviously her blog post might be considered over the top, but I must say if it doesn't even get covered by the mainstream media, then is it still relevant for inclusion in the article? I would simply prefer to let her post speak for themselves from the primary sources, instead of writing in "this is false" and "this is unsupported with evidence". And given that there was criticism from Media Matters and SPLC before, I simply think it is undue weight to continue adding criticism from those groups. Also, I'm not sure how pointing out that a user is not following Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines deserves noting me of WP:NPA. Truthsort (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is still certainly current need for more eyes on this article. Active Banana ( bananaphone 01:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that statement. There is a lot of blatant POV pushing, tendentious editing, and just general nonsense going on. Please re-read Wikipedia guidelines, AB. Truthsort, who accused you of WP:NPA? Arjuna (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhhh, who accused Truthsort of NPA? Stonemason makes that allusion right thereActive Banana ( bananaphone 01:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, missed that. FWIW, I didn't take Truthsort or Offtoriorob's comments as PA. I'm pretty battle-hardened and minor snippiness (Offtorio, not Truthsort) doesn't phase me. I told T that this is a tough but amicable battle so no worries so far. Same goes for you, AB. Arjuna (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Arjuana, please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Truthsort (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please, Truthsort. It was a figure of speech, not a policy statement. The key word was "amicable"; I was trying to show warmth and civility even though we disagree on some things. I would urge you to be careful in what kinds of assumptions you make. Next point is that discussion of this sort (i.e. not pertinent to the subject at hand) is just wasting space. Let's move it to the article's or individual's talk pages. Last point: unless I've missed something, the silence here from admins has been deafening. Arjuna (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Derogatory comments against George W. Bush and others on user page

    Resolved
     – consensus appears to be that the User page comments are opinionated but don't violate WP:UP or WP:BLP - Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Recently I've come across a user whose user page contains a number of negative remarks against Republicans, George W. Bush, and others. This is a violation of WP:BLP, and I posted a comment to the user's talk page asking to remove the text. So far it has not been removed. I am mainly asking for a second opinion on whether to remove the entire section, remove selective statements, or give the user more time to respond. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Its a bit soapboxing and opinionated, is there any specific comments you feel are BLP violations? I thick we are allowed a bit of leeway on our users page but where the acceptable line is I am unsure, there is imo excessive personal details and opinions there and also more at User:Linda Olive/Katrina story. I also left them a note about this thread.Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's within the acceptable range of opinion. Now, if she wanted to be ranting that McCain couldn't run for President because he wasn't a natural-born citizen of the US, that would be on the wrong side of the line. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the contents are framed as "I believe" but "Bush was the worst president of all time. He was the most awful and destructive one ever. He is a disgrace to the country." may have crossed some lines. Active Banana ( bananaphone 19:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's pretty clearly a statement of opinion, even if it isn't prefaced with "I believe..." So if statements of opinion are no big deal, then I wouldn't single that one out. MastCell Talk 20:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on the statement of opinion, of course, but there are reliable sources supporting that opinion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mamilla_Mall this article is in main space but is a redirect from her userspace and needs imo moving correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh? She started the article in userspace and moved it to mainspace when it was ready. What's wrong with that? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it correct to do it like that leaving it as a redirect? Its not correct imo. Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's OK, but not the other way around. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it is, it just seemed funny to see
    A stub-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    (Redirected from User:Linda Olive/Mamilla Mall) ...... at the top of an article, but I see it only appears when you access the page from the redirect. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Part of me thinks that anyone who lived through Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans is entitled to hold a somewhat negative opinion of George W. Bush. Whether they should express that opinion at length on their userpage is arguable, I suppose, although I'm not sure this is very far out of line with many other political statements in userspace. MastCell Talk 20:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is within the acceptable level of expression of Opinion on a Userpage - it is certainly not a BLP violation as it doesn't claim to be a biography of anyone other than the author herself.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP is NOT limited to article content in articles about people. WP:BLP applies to content about living people ANYWHERE within Wikipedia. Active Banana ( bananaphone 21:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Banana is totally correct. I think that is a good guideline as Sarek opines, could I source the opinions to a wikipedia RS, and I think the answer is yes and so they are not so extreme to warrant Administrative removal. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the user page is ok. I really hated that obnoxious user page where a now-blocked user had an offensive picture and and an offensive statement about Bush, but the user page in question is just someone's opinion expressed in reasonable language (and it all comes after "My political views are very left-winged" so readers are alerted that a political harangue follows). The language used is mild compared with what can be read in opinion pieces in many reliable sources, so the page is ok to give the user's opinions (I'm not saying the opinions are valid because you can find worse in reliable sources — I'm saying that prominent politicians on all sides receive worse reviews than on this user page and there is nothing that is a BLP problem or that violates WP:UP). Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am marking as resolved as there seems to be little objection to the comments. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom

    List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Are there sufficient references and are they adequately reliable? // Thincat (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What an awful article, in , out, not out in public and with lots of uncited names, horrid. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OMG – "Widely known to be Gay"! It's a good thing we have some LGBT experts looking after articles like this. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you don't need a WP:RS if your sexual preferences are widely known . The whole issue to me of labeling people by their sexual preferences as if it is a noteworthy thing is degrading to those preferences as if they warrant reporting and they are as such special and not the norm. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I should speak more plainly: I am now watching the article, and am ready to join any attempt to delete it (unfortunately, short of an ArbCom case, that would probably fail, but it may encourage onlookers to clean it down to WP:V and WP:DUE material – that is, about one short paragraph). Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP states that we should remove "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced...." Since sexual preference is a non-observable characteristic (unlike, say, jobs held, skin color, schools attended, etc.), and it has a particular charge, wouldn't it be considered "contentious"? Furthermore, couldn't we argue that we could extend the logic of WP:BLPCAT to articles like this that are lists: "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." That is, I would say that unless these politician's sexual preference are directly relevant to their work as politicians (for instance, perhaps it was an issue used, positively or negatively, in campaigning; or perhaps a politician known for focusing on LGBT laws and issues), then they should be removed from the list? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think present policy agrees you there Qwyrxian, it needs to be relevant to their notability or shouldn't be included. Clearly any user that felt that was needed could remove any of the contentious uncited content on sight. I have had a look at two or three of the uncited names and found the claims to be citable and at least one other user has also looked and I have left a note about the article at the LGBT noticeboard alerting them.If you feel or see anything contentious you can remove it also. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/the-iiosi-pink-list-2010-2040472.html this may be useful for citing a couple. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO this sort of thing should be dealt with by a category rather than a list article. The advantage of a category is that when X is identified as gay, that's done on their own bio page, where knowledgeable readers are going to notice it and make sure that it's properly cited. If people insist on having a list article, then all entries should be RSed within that article. Don't rely on "there's a source for this elsewhere in WP, or at least there was when I first added this guy to the list". --GenericBob (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that a list article like this does not make a great WP article. However, I think it is unlikely to get deleted. Given that, I would say that the opinion that the sexuality of a politician needs to be shown to be somehow particularly relevant to their public life in order for them to be included is wrong. It just needs to be verifiable from a reliable source. --FormerIP (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well as I know and as is in the guidelines that is incorrect. The old I have a citation so I can add what ever I want point of view. Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:BIO#Lists_of_people Every entry about a person in every list needs to be individually cited within that article. Active Banana ( bananaphone 00:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the list as it currently is should probably be deleted until each and every entry can be reliably sourced. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If the list is to stay, it might be improved by moving to List of "out" LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom. Also, is there really no article on History of LGBT people in the United Kingdom? (Possible merge target?) Rd232 talk 00:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Jclemens that it should be deleted. I'm not sure we should even have such a list. Categories are more easily maintained because of eyes on the articles of the subjects. Who's been watching that list? Yworo (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst someones clearly taken a lot of time to create the list. I agree it should be deleted unless all the un sourced stuff is removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you can delete the article based on a discussion here. It needs to be nominated for deletion.
    Rob: regarding "the old I have a citation so I can add what ever I want point of view", I think I must have missed the email that made WP:V and WP:RS old hat. If a list article for gay UK politicians is to exist, then it should include or exclude people based on whether or not they are gay UK politicians, according to RSs. There is no good reason to restrict the list further than that. --FormerIP (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V does not say "include everything that can be verified." It says "do not include anything that can be verified." Furthermore, WP:BLP is equally as important as WP:V, and thus must be weighed here. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I said: "it should include or exclude people based on whether or not they are gay UK politicians, according to RSs". BLP doesn't really alter this, it just underscores the need for RSs. Assuming the list is kept (although I'm not sure that it should be) there's no other sensible criteria for inclusion or exclusion. There is no basis on which to talk about how connected their gayness is to their public life. --FormerIP (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Any administrator who was so inclined can delete the entire article as a G10, if they perceive that the problem is sufficiently serious and lack time to do a more thorough excision of unsourced content. I don't happen to feel that strongly about it, since there's no hint that these allegations are new, or that the persons involved would be unduly harmed by them, but past precedents make it clear that any admin is expected and encouraged to take all necessary actions to prevent harm to living people. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Surely the issue is notability? If these people are notable simply for being LGBT then perhaps they merit being on a page relating to the history of LGBT. But how many of them are notable on that one issue? However, since they are all politicians, their notability is inherent in them being a politician, not in them being LGBT. Therefore, a sourced reference regarding sexuality might be warranted in their own biographical wiki page (assuming they are notable enough as a politician to merit one and that sexuality has been a notable issue in their biography), but there are no grounds regarding notability for a page such as "List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom". To put it into perspective, should there be pages for "List of politicians who ride a bicycle to work" or "List of politician who predominantly wear purple" ? It may be that they do ride a bike or wear purple, of even both, but these facts are not inherent to these people's notability, and therefore do not merit list format pages. isfutile:P (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Politicians being "out" is a significant part of gay rights history. It certainly merits coverage as a proper (prose) article, and the current list would be a resource for that. Rd232 talk 12:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond that, notability does not apply to article contents, only to article topics. Thus, while an individual LGBT politician may not meet WP:POLITICIAN, the topic as a whole is certainly notable, and hence a list of verifiable members is acceptable, even if some of those individual list members is not individually notable. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to inform you all that a deletion discussion is now underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "[Named person] is stupid!"

    Noticeboard regulars might like to take a quick look at this edit at Talk:Stupidity. Yes, there's discussion of George Bush to consider from a BLP perspective. But there are several other items there. Uncle G (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ziana Zain

    Anyone have a machette and a couple of hours to trim the fanbloat ("cited" to wordpress and tripod and other non-reliable sources) from this article: Ziana Zain? Active Banana ( bananaphone 02:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't. Can you hook us up? Are you involved in an edit war over it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mayoralty of Michael Bloomberg

    Material that is currently at Mayoralty_of_Michael_Bloomberg#Statement_regarding_taxation_of_Indian_cigarettes is under dispute. I and User:Scarlett Lily support including that information, while User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz disagress.

    User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been unwilling to discuss the section at Talk:Mayoralty_of_Michael_Bloomberg. I hope that we can have some outsider perspective here. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has broken the Three Revert Rule, without an explanation. I ask him to discuss the issue in more detail here. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not telling the truth. As I pointed out quite clearly in the edit summary for the edit you complain of, the main text in the the section in question is copied essentially verbatim from a cited news article, and can't be used in a Wikipedia article. Removal of copyright violations, as well as BLP violations, is exempted from 3RR. You're harassing me, including the utterly phony sockpuppet accusations you posted on my talk page, because I removed obvious non-free images from a BLP you're the primary author of, and following me to other articles on subjects you've shown no interest in to manufacture a controversy is pretty clear evidence of bad faith. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The section, if too close to the sources, could easily be changed such that it is not that close. That's different from wholesale scrubbing of a topic.
    And I am not harassing you. I see evidence of sockpuppetry in that when I post a question to you, you don't respond but instead an anon responds to speak for you. That looks suspicious, as any editor would tell you. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've readded a discussion of the topic with the language changed so that there is no longer any copyright violations. You can see that change taking out the old version here, and my new version at here.
    I believe that I am still within the bounds of the 3RR limit since I added different material than my previous edits. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    following me to other articles on subjects you've shown no interest in to manufacture a controversy is incorrect. You can see from my previous edits that I've always been interested in the Republican Party, liberalism, the Democratic Party, and other U.S. political topics. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are, once again, not telling the truth. Both users you accused of misconduct responded to your phony accusation, plainly speaking for themselves. You responded with incivility, personal attacks, and inappropriate escalation of your misbehavior by templating one editor's talk page with an accusation against the other. Copyvios should be removed on sight; no editor has any obligation to rewrite such text and add it back, particularly when the editor believes, and states clearly, that the substantive content is out of compliance with BLP and generally inappropriate for the article in question. You, however, despite being put on notice that the text was a copyvio, added it back. That's blockable behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not interested in your desire to move this further into a flame-war. What was said on your talk page is clear enough for everyone else to see.
    when the editor believes, and states clearly, that the substantive content is out of compliance with BLP and generally inappropriate for the article in question
    This is very frustrating. It's all well and good for you to hand-wavingly assert that a topic being included in an article is contrary to BLP. But it's you against two editors, who have different editorial judgement. And you have been either unwilling or unable to explain why on any talk page that the content is contrary to BLP. The copy-vio issue is a legitimate one and is now taken care of. What else?
    I believe that you have clearly undertaken blockable behavior, but I am still hoping against hope that you will be willing to cool-off and actually substantively debate the issues about the topic and whether or not it should be included. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Presenting only one side of a supposed controversy, as both you and the borderline SPA did, is so obvious a BLP and NPOV violation as to require no detailed explanation. Removing the de minimis mention of Bloomberg's response, as your last edit did, aggravates the violation. And deliberately avoiding any mention of the underlying controversy is a distortion incompatible with BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go! You say that you have a problem with the section since it presents "only one side of a supposed controversy".
    That wasn't so hard, was it?
    Okay, now that you've finally indicated that you're willing to debate the substantive issues rather than flame-war, let's deal with that issue.
    Bloomberg's response should be mentioned. The problem is that he has not really issued any substantive response, to my knowledge. What we have is a one sentence non-response, in which his office essentially dismissed the issue. I've made this change to the Bloomberg article.
    More context is surely needed. What exactly would you like to add that isn't there now? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    JetBlue Flight 1052

    JetBlue Flight 1052 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article was previously a BLP under the title Stephen Slater

    A user has objected to this material [[22]] as trimed for reason of BLP (I am not sure what this is supposed to mean exaclty) is this material in breach of BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The whole article was trimmed to remove some of the more dubious claims and to change the focus of the event from the living person an in a (BLP) to a article about the event as was commented on by the administrator when the article was replaced into the mainspace. Admins comment - "I have closed the DRV on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater as "move to JetBlue Flight 1052 and relist on AfD." Please re-evaluate this article, now as a page about the event. I have not changed anything in the article, so if it is kept please rewrite it to reflect the event. I abstain. User:King_of_Hearts - However it appears to have been a waste of my good time as the keep stevie is fab crew have ignored any such issues and have even began expanding it, which IMO just gives more reason to vote to delete it (again). Off2riorob (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO I don't see how an article on the event can do anything but focus on this one person, as I mentioned on the AFD page. It was news precisely because of what he did. Anything else that could possibly be said about the event still stems from his action. My vote was just to redirect it elsewhere. — e. ripley\talk 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that wasn't how it was replaced by the admin though, excessive direction of the article onto S Slater is in itself imo considering the replacement comment by the admin a BLP violation in itself, without the tabloid tittilating comments that User here wants to further replace like...A passenger said, I know a drunk when I see one, the steward was drunk when he got onboard. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That kind of stuff really isn't necessary, I agree. I'll watchlist the article and happy to help improve it when the AFD has run its course. — e. ripley\talk 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Steven Slater (categorizing redirects)

    The categorizing of the article was reverted here. Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects says that categorizing a person's category (e.g., birthdates, location, etc.) is acceptable on a redirect. In this case the redirect is to an event. Given the considerable drama with the with the Steve Slater/Flight 1052 articles (see above), I'm posting it here as I'm trying to avoid an edit war.Americasroof (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It also starts with ..Most redirects should not be categorized. Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Questionable talk page comment

    WP:BLP policy was invoked on Talk:Junko Sakurada, but in a way that seems to me to be a little questionable. It sounds like the person was suggesting that he knew some gossip about a person without saying what that was. Thanks. Wolfview (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I will remove that part of my comment. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Enright

    These two gentlemen share a name with a fellow accused of stabbing a NYC cabbie in a hate crime. Note that the accused hasn't been convicted and doesn't meet WP:PERP, so I've deleted the article on the third Mr. Enright per the requested G10, removed the entry from the disambiguation page, and semi-protected both. More eyes are welcome. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have G10'ed this three times today now. I'm sure more eyes would be helpful. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association#Notable_members_and_supporters

    An editor is on a roll conflating gays and lesbians with child rape/pedofilia, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association#Notable_members_and_supporters, I can't edit the page but numerous entries have no information of supporting NAMBLA and much of it has no sources. Cat Cleaner, Cat clean (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Those claims would all need verifiable sourcing within hte NAMBLA article itself - since no sources were included, I have deleted the entire section. Active Banana ( bananaphone 13:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. I've been cleaning up some really questionable categorizing and saw the entire NAMBLA article seems to be making the gays/lesbians equals pedophile argument. I appreciate you doing that. The opening section still has Samuel R. Delany listed as a notable supporter. He's not, he's a notable author and critic. The claim is sourced to the NAMBLA website which uses a quote purportedly from Delany but which does in no way confirm this. Cat clean (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That claim has a citation, but it is not a place that I can go to to verify the claim. Active Banana ( bananaphone 13:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole page, published by NAMBLA states -"I read the NAMBLA [Bulletin] fairly regularly and I think it is one of the most intelligent discussions of sexuality I've ever found. I think before you start judging what NAMBLA is about, expose yourself to it and see what it is really about. What the issues they are really talking about, and deal with what's really there rather than this demonized notion of guys running about trying to screw little boys. I would have been so much happier as an adolescent if NAMBLA had been around when I was 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.

    ~ Samuel R. Delany, noted science fiction writer, 

      Queer Desires Forum, New York City, June 25, 1994. 
Copyright © NAMBLA, 2003.

    This simply can't support that Delany is a noted supporter of NAMBA can it? It seems like it way to wedge a mud sling against Delany for supporting sex with minors when he's simply stating they have printed some intelligent discussions. This seems like an unverifiable quote picked out of a discussion forum and presented out of context by an unreliable advocacy group. That can't be the way to go here? Cat clean (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's another one - Hakim Bey is noted in the [23] section as a noted contributor to the group's newsletter/magazine with a really questionable source. [24] I think that needs to go. Cat clean (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And more -Curley v. NAMBLA, which is quite a messed up article, lists defendants in the case linking them to NAMBLA, which may be true, and the NAMBLA article conveniently lists them all there as well, but the case was apparently dropped and no one was convicted and there is no evidence these people are notable at all. So why even name them? As they have no articles on them isn't it a sort of mud-sling on people who are only known through a court document? Cat clean (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    RE Delany - if that is the source, rather than the vague "is a supporter", a more specific wording is better "Delany praised the NAMBLA bulletin as 'one of the most intelligent discussions of sexuality '" or "Delany stated that he 'would have been so much happier as an adolescent if NAMBLA had been around'" Active Banana ( bananaphone 14:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    RE Curley v NAMBLA if Jaynes and Sicari are still alive WP:BLP then until properly cited much of that article really needs to get removed ASAP. Active Banana ( bananaphone 14:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At first glance the section on Curley at the NAMBLA article appears to have citations and if they are valid, that content probably should be moved in to completely replace the existing content Curley article content. Active Banana ( bananaphone 14:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    V. Ganapati Sthapati

    V. Ganapati Sthapati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Article is poorly sourced, references mostly come from subject's own web site. Article is highly self-promotional, especially prior to recent copy-edit. Flagged BLP dispute for this reason; see talk page. At least one claim is documented by a reference that doesn't back the claim. // Macwhiz (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It could use a decent informed copy edit but it is not that bad, the subject has been involved in some top quality projects. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nicole Alexander and Shaquille O'Neal

    Is this a reliable source concerning the pair's relationship? It may be from a reliable source, but it's still just reporting rumors. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If that the only claim then I would say no, gossip and tittle tattle nothing of sufficient quality to claim a relationship. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrice Martinez

    Please, note that the page is being addressed by someone User:Pppedia who stated

    The article however does not seem to breach any personal information beyond the professional career of the actress (Privacy Act of 1974). It is unknown whether Pppedia is or not really the representative of the actress, but instead of addressing the problem to the Wikipedia administration the user chose simply to vandalize the page including his threatening notice. It seems that there is some problem of association Ms.Martinez with her formal husband Daniel Camhi mentioning of whom I removed from her article, however that information is still available at IMDB where I drew most of the information in the first place. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - User:Pppedia indefinitely blocked per our No Legal Threats policy. Exxolon (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This article needs sourcing - remember IMDB is not a reliable source - but there is no controversial info on the page so there is no urgent BLP issue I can see. Exxolon (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anne-Marie Imafidon

    Anne-Marie Imafidon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Several statements have been made in the article on Anne-Marie Imafidon which are questionable and require sources. I have tagged these with "citation needed" tags, and have appended comments inside the tags to say why the statements are questionable and require sources. (To take one example, the subject is described as having received a British government scholarship to study at John Hopkins University in the United States, whereas I strongly doubt that the British government ever gives such scholarships to anyone to attend university in a foreign country. User "FactStraight" has reverted, removing all of my tags without adding any sources.

    Please could others take a look at this. Quite a few questionable statements have been made on the internet about this individual and those to whom she is related, so unearthing WP-worthy facts and supporting them with reliable sources may take a fair amount of time and effort.Cloudrising (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted based on the fact that vandals are not entitled to edit Wikipedia articles and that the familiarity of the anonymous IP user with Wikipedia's standards & rules, combined with a recent history of flagrant, uncorrected vandalism on several articles, and now the new handle, "Cloudrising", suggest someone who is editing this article with a private agenda and using sockpuppets to conceal their identity while doing so. If the source of the edit is a vandal, it is irrelevant what the content of the edit is. FactStraight (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well i went over there and what Cloudrising did was entirely appropriate, tagging uncited material in a blp is the correct thing to do and you should not have reverted him, nor is what he did vandalism. I have removed a lot of unsourced content and formated ref`s. mark nutley (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Omar Barghouti

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

    Could we have more eyes on this Omar Barghouti an user apparently the subject objects to it being mainly criticism and one of the usual I/P suspects wasn't helping much, although a few other users are involved. Needs someone to look over the blp aspect of it. Thanx. Misarxist (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm, what? 'being mainly criticism'? Have you even looked at the article? there are 4 lines of criticism (sourced), out of 29, with responses to criticisms outnumbering the criticism by about a 2:1 ratio. The user, if he is Omar Barghoti, shouldn't be editing his own article in the first place, and certainly not edit warring against 3 other editors, and violating 3RR despite being warned about it, in the process. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    One year ban - Prem Pawat

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

    An admin is proposing a one year topic ban because I removed "unsourced material" five times from a BLP in three days.[25]

    I removed "Satguru" three times from the following sentence in the lead of the "Prem Rawat" article and replaced it with "Perfect Master" because the sources cited said "Perfect Master".[26] As the diff shows the sentence said - "At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers". There are two in-line citation given for that sentence. Lewis says "he was recognized as the new Perfect Master and assumed the title, Maharaj Ji" and Downton says "he was elevated to his father's position as Perfect Master at the age of eight".[27] The whole discussion is here.[28] I believe I am entitled under WP:BLP to remove "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced immediately and without waiting for discussion". Even so I argued about it until it was clear no one cared that "Satguru" was unsourced.

    The second "unsourced" material I removed twice was put into the above sentence without consensus and is an incorrect translation. The added material said "the new Satguru (English: Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers". The source provided gives the correct translation as "Satguru: True dispeller of darkness and revealer of light".[29]

    I believe there is no justification for a one year topic ban for removing clearly unsourced material. As WP:BLP says - "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material". I believe any sanction, if any, should be against the editors who added "Satguru" and "(English: Perfect Master)" when the sources cited do not support those claims.Momento (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Perfect Master - Satguru - it seems a bit like hair splitting to me and not really a BLP issue. You should imo be better making your case on the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Momento page, as I see you have done. Perhaps as an advice, consider a voluntary offer to stop editing the Rawat article and contribute to other areas where you are not so involved. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not hair splitting. Either a source supports the edit or it doesn't.Momento (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)This is clearly not an actual blp issue but repeated editwarring against a group of other editors based simply on a difference of opinion. You should expect sanctions for that, especially since you have been subject to such sanctions before. Repeating the same behaviour that got you topic banned in the first place doesn't seem to be a very good strategy.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Difference of opinion? I'm not the source who contradicts the claim. I am just the editor who removed the unsourced material as per WP:BLP.Momento (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very incomplete description of events. The proposed remedy is being discussed at WP:AE and concerns editing behavior, not content. As for potential BLP issues, there's nothing contentious about the assertion that Prem Rawat once held the title and role of Satguru. There are numerous, uncontested sources which say so. The material has been in the article lead for over a year with no complaints. As recently as three weeks ago, Momento himself proposed changes to the lead that retained the "satguru" assertion.[30] There is no BLP violation here.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Monckton, climate change BLP

    Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This is a request to BLP editors to please help get Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in better shape. The overall tone of the article is very negative and a quick read through almost seems like Wiki is trying to smear this guy or make him look bad. A review of the sources to some of the negative info reveal that there are self published sources and some others that may be less than reliable. There are potential coatrack issues that drag this BLP down as well. I have stated on the talk page of the article that over the next several days, I am going to be working on the BLP issues in this article. This is a contentious BLP related to climate change, and it would be really helpful to have some fresh eyes looking over this article and editing the BLP issues. I know this is not a typical report for this noticeboard, and if there is a better venue for me to ask for this type of assistance on this article, I welcome input and suggestions. Thanks. Minor4th 22:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    have posted a number of issues at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley#Specific BLP issues, and I would welcome input from other editors on how they should be tackled. I will again repeat my request to Minor4th to discuss and obtain consensus for his proposed changes, which he has so far declined to do -- ChrisO (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ Helderman, Rosalind S. (2010-05-04). "State attorney general demands ex-professor's files from University of Virginia". Washington Post.
    2. ^ Walker, Julian (2010-05-06). "Academic group urges UVA to resist Cuccinelli records demand". The Virginian-Pilot.
    3. ^ Helderman, Rosalind (2010-05-23). "Va. attorney general off to rocky start with state colleges". Washington Post. This past week, more than 675 Virginia professors also signed a letter asking that Cuccinelli drop his demand for documents related to the work of former U-Va. climate scientist Michael Mann, calling it "burdensome and entirely unwarranted.
    4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Cite error: The named reference Walker_2010-05-19_Virginian-Pilot was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    5. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference McNeill_2010-05-28_CDP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    6. ^ Helderman, Rosalind S. (2010-05-04). "State attorney general demands ex-professor's files from University of Virginia". Washington Post.
    7. ^ Walker, Julian (2010-05-06). "Academic group urges UVA to resist Cuccinelli records demand". The Virginian-Pilot.
    8. ^ Helderman, Rosalind (2010-05-23). "Va. attorney general off to rocky start with state colleges". Washington Post. This past week, more than 675 Virginia professors also signed a letter asking that Cuccinelli drop his demand for documents related to the work of former U-Va. climate scientist Michael Mann, calling it "burdensome and entirely unwarranted.
    9. ^ Helderman, Rosalind S. (2010-05-04). "State attorney general demands ex-professor's files from University of Virginia". Washington Post.
    10. ^ Walker, Julian (2010-05-06). "Academic group urges UVA to resist Cuccinelli records demand". The Virginian-Pilot.
    11. ^ Helderman, Rosalind (2010-05-23). "Va. attorney general off to rocky start with state colleges". Washington Post. This past week, more than 675 Virginia professors also signed a letter asking that Cuccinelli drop his demand for documents related to the work of former U-Va. climate scientist Michael Mann, calling it "burdensome and entirely unwarranted.
    12. ^ Helderman, Rosalind S. (2010-05-04). "State attorney general demands ex-professor's files from University of Virginia". Washington Post.
    13. ^ Helderman, Rosalind (2010-05-23). "Va. attorney general off to rocky start with state colleges". Washington Post.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=381584363"