Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Barry Wellman

User:Bellagio99 removed a good faith edit I made in line with WP:BLP. <Redacted per WP:OUTING> --94.196.127.45 (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I watch the Barry Wellman page along with 102 other pages. The posting of material was from two negative student comments on the very unreliable RateMyProfessor site. There was no widespread sampling of student opinion. So it violated WP:Reliable immediately, and as such violates WP:BLP. In addition, the IP user now is attempting to violate WP:Outing. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You must be kidding: "published opinions of his critical students"? Rate my professor is about the farthest thing from a reliable source. Anonymous, disgruntled students or happy A+ students rating their teachers is in no way usable as a source for an encyclopedia article, and certainly in violation of our BLP policy. Further, there is a misunderstanding of what "balanced" means here - it does not mean for every good thing said about a person we add a negative thing. Balanced means if a statement is made in an article with reliable sourcing, and there is reliably sourced contradicting material, we try to include the whole spectrum. Also, this is not tit for tat - one positive, one negative - it is in accordance with the weight and numbers of the available sourcing and similar standards. This IP complaint is completely out of line, and the subsequent filing of an Afd by an editor who has a history of complaining about Barry Wellman seems to me to be also out of line, as that editor (perhaps the same person as the IP? I don;'t know) did not have any discussion on the talk page, and has selectively canvassed only three editors out of the couple dozen who have edited this article, to announce the AfD - one of whom has never edited the article under the name canvassed, which is a clear violation of policy. Close both of these actions down please so no more time is wasted. Tvoz/talk 22:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that's funny I had a laugh there, most unreliable source ever. Secret ^account 22:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've whacked the AfD, apart from the reasons above, it didn't give a good reason for deletion and it was also malformed so the bots wouldn't pick it up and he'd canvassed people about it. So, I don't think so. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the outing complaint to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Linda McMahon

An editor on this article has three times in 24 hours reinserted materially that potentially violates BLP. The article subject is a Senate candidate; the material being inserted is a lengthy section on the trial of a person convicted for illegal steroid distribution; McMahon's only connection to the subject appears to be that he worked previously for a company she took control of after he had had already been fired (and convicted). Given no source even claims she was involved in any way, this appears to be a simple "smear by association" coatrack, as well as having WP:UNDUE concerns. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Fell---a couple of things. 1) 3 times does not a violation make. It's the fourth time and only after notification to the party involved does it matter. 2) The page to report 3RR is WP:3rr. 3) People who are on this page are more likely to side with excluding controversial materials in light of the policy related to 3RR. 4) If you are going to report somebody do so in more specific terms: "an editor" and "potentially violates BLP" does not tell us much. Give us some links so that we have some idea as to WHOM and WHAT we are talking about.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Diff is [1] which has actually nothing specifically to do with the subject of the WP:BLP. Reverters eem not to understand BLP rules about adding tangential material into articles, and also to not understand Mr. Wales' position at [2] concerning political BLPs in specific. Collect (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

2

User:Screwball23 seems a tad obsessed here - with well over eight hundred edits on the BLP. Moreover he does not welcome anyone seeking NPOV, calling me, for example, "delusional" for thinking that where no other BLP of a politician has their "estimated wealth" in their infobox (even for John Kerry, that I am wrong to suggest that it does not belong in this article's infobox. Also that "tip off memo" to him is NPOV <g> whilst I suggest that term is certainly POV in a BLP. and so on. I have made a total of 12 edits on this BLP, but rather think other eyes are definitely needed. Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Collect has been aggressively deleting this page, disregarding any opposing arguments to his actions. Recently, the issue has been over inclusion of her net worth, which Collect has argued is not allowed because the subject, Linda McMahon, is political. User:Collect recently engaged in a lengthy argument with editors who supported inclusion of net worth into the page, and yesterday had the audacity to delete the net worth again, saying it has "no support" for its inclusion. That is outright disrespect and is a smack in the face of all the people that Collect has argued with pointlessly. See Talk:Linda McMahon for recent disputes, as well as the history of Linda McMahon to see the aggressive actions that Collect has taken in deleting much of this page.--Screwball23 talk 02:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have never "deleted" the page, and my dozen ewdits compare with your over 800 edits there <g>. Meanwhile you have aggressively violated WP:NPA and WP:BLP on these pages. You asserted over and over that net worth is found in other political pages - and have yet to provide an actual example. And I do not consider removing net worth from the infobox as "deleting much of the page" either. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the both of you would benefit from taking a deep breath and walking away from this article for a while!

There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus that the net worth should go in the Infobox; if anything, I'd say it looks like the weight of opinion is slightly on the side of not including it. Plus, given that this is a BLP, there is a need to err on the side of caution, which suggests to me: no clear consensus to include = leave it out.

There is clear consensus that it is relevant for discussion within the article, where it can be given proper context. I personally do not believe it belongs in the Infobox, because it comes from self-reported figures in a campaign filing and therefore is a self-published source; because it is not clear how the figure was derived and if it was derived in a way that could be accurately compared to other businesspeople with listed net worths; and because the given figure covers a range so broad as to be essentially useless. ("Wow! She's either pretty rich, or barely able to afford living in Greenwich!" Well, okay, I kid, but I have family in that part of Connecticut, and I don't kid that much... nonetheless, there's a big difference between $156m and $400m.)

I am surprised some admin hasn't locked you guys for edit-warring at this point; it's obvious you're not convincing each other, so you should be calling in outside help using the published procedures, and then abiding by the result. Instead, it looks like an edit war that's getting rather uncivil. From what I read on the talk page there today, I gotta say I'm skeptical that the processes would be followed. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, last time Linda came up on this board, I was highly critical of Screw's edits. That being said, if the bone of contention here is the Net Worth of Linda, then I my inclination was to side with him. Linda may NOW be a politician, but she was known for decades as being part owner/CEO/whatever her "official" title may have been of the WWE. The general practice on WP, from what I can see, is that many (if not most) successful business people include their networth, but that politicians don't. The reasoning is obvious, because networth can become a POV issue. So the question becomes, how has WP handled notable bussiness people turned politicians in the past? So I did a little research. I looked up a number of other bussiness people turned politician and couldn;t find a single one that listed net worth. For example Michael Bloomberg, Mitt Romney, Herb Kohl, John Hickenlooper, Bill Foster (Illinois politician), George W. Bush, Darrell Issa, or [[Chris Lee (politician). But perhaps richest americans... might merit inclusion... nope most of the ones i looked at didn't include net worth. In summary, when dealing with politicians, the networth, even when exceeding that of Linda, was left off of the InfoBox... and when deaeling with business folks it was not consistent enough to say that her role as a business professional over rides that. Since she has taken a politiical career, and WP's conventions dealing with politicians is to leave NetWorth off, I have to side with Collect here. Inclusion would be POV and against the norms for politicians. Note, I actually spent over 2 hours investigating WP's practices related to this before commenting, and my conclusion differed from the position that I had entering this discussion. But I have to agree with MacWhiz... this is almost getting to the point where a subject ban might be appropriate.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the point in adding a new section on Linda McMahon when there is one open right here on this page. It would have been appropriate to also list the multiple noticeboard discussions on this subject you have had previously. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

First - I had not started a prior section here on this article. Second, the prior section was two weeks old - a point when it normally would have been archived. Indeed, this page was archived very frequently in the not too distant past. Third - might you tell me all those "multiple" BLP discussions I have had on this article? My concerns, shared by Jimbo, about political BLPs containing material which is UNDUE or misplaced, or unsourced or improperly sourced, is pretty clear. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

David H. Koch Charles G. Koch, Koch Industries

Appear under assualt by folks who insist that they are named "coke" and that they are as evil as Standard Oil, that they provide money to "Non-think tanks" etc. [3] Using such factual sources as Frank Rich's editorials etc. The Koch Industries article then has specific charges included against the brothers, which I suggest is contrary to WP:BLP, though one person says that WP:BLP "does not apply to companies". [4] I think if the sentences refer to the brothers by name, and the source is specifically aimed at the individuals that there is not such an exemption <g>. [5] is specifically and absoutely about living indiciduals "There’s just one element missing from these snapshots of America’s ostensibly spontaneous and leaderless populist uprising: the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it" "those corporate players who have financed the far right ever since the du Pont brothers spawned the American Liberty League in 1934 to bring down F.D.R. " "That rant could be delivered as is at any Tea Party rally today. " "The Kochs surely match the in-kind donations the Tea Party receives in free promotion 24/7 from Murdoch’s Fox News, where both Beck and Palin are on the payroll. " "As Mayer details, Koch-supported lobbyists, foundations and political operatives are at the center of climate-science denial " "But there’s a difference between mainstream conservatism and a fringe agenda that tilts completely toward big business, whether on Wall Street or in the Gulf of Mexico, while dismantling fundamental government safety nets designed to protect the unemployed, public health, workplace safety and the subsistence of the elderly. " "The Koch brothers must be laughing all the way to the bank knowing that working Americans are aiding and abetting their selfish interests. And surely Murdoch is snickering at those protesting the “ground zero mosque.” " all appear , to me, to not be a proper source for charges against the individuals per WP:BLP but rather fall into a broad category f editorial screed by Mr. Rich. Collect (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's late here so this is not a full reply to Collect's claims. If there is a more classic strawman argument than the one s/he makes, I have not seen one. None of the quotes he uses above are in the Wikipedia article, nor, to my knowledge, has anyone ever tried to insert them. The material he seems to object to is highly cited: to the Wall Street Journal, New York magazine, The New Yorker magazine, and this Sunday's op-ed column by Frank Rich in the NY Times. All of the material is highly relevant to an understanding of the biography of this man. Finally, as I mentioned on the article talk page, Collect is at 2RR already so please be aware of that. Arjuna (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am not aware of the correct pronunciation of "Koch". For other people using the same spelling, I have heard both "coke" and "coch"; in any event, my reading of his message above seems to imply a conspiracy to besmirch their name, which I find simply absurd. If Collect is certain that their name is not pronounced "coke", then s/he is welcome to correct that, with proper citation. (I'm not the one who added that material, FWIW.) In short, there is no conspiracy; it it is in error, then it should obviously be fixed. Arjuna (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is pronouced "Cook". I went to school with some Koch's. Arzel (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean people affiliated with Koch Industries or just some random folks named Koch? Because some families pronounce the exact same name quite differently. — e. ripley\^talk 15:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean someone that is related (somewhat distantly but had the same name) to the Koch's that worked summers at one of their bulk stations driving truck. I have also heard people pronouce it "Caughch" (Caught with a "ch" instead of a "t"), but was told by the Koch's I knew that it was "Cook" Arzel (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding op-eds, per statements of opinion it can be considered reliable for statements from the author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. Truthsort (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed entirely that Collect's post is mainly a collection of straw-man arguments. It's pretty pedantic to maintain that Rich's article can't be used for statements of fact (and as indicated it isn't a matter of the wikipedia article here asserting as fact Rich's own opinions). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It was certainly being used for "statements of fact" which were not clearly marked as an editorial opinion. And the "coke" bit was clearly intended to be derogatory - and repeatedly inserted to boot. WP:BLP must be zealously enforced if we are to obey the mandates from WMF. Collect (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And reverts taken to enforce BLP policy are not counted - this is a matter of policy, not of a "straw argument" that calling a person "coke" is contentious, etc. Collect (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you assert, without citing specific policies, that the reverts are to enforce BLP, but it is very unclear whether BLP-compliant sourcing has in fact been violated. The sources seem impeccable to me, so you need to clarify exactly how the New Yorker, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, and other sources are not in fact acceptable. If they are, your reverts most certain do count towards the 3RR rule. Admins, your clarification on this matter would be much appreciated. Arjuna (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Truthsort, for linking to the policy statement on use of op-eds. It does seem reasonable to conclude that Rich should not be cited for these statements of fact that are the ones his piece was used for: "a conservative advocacy group that has close ties to the U.S. Tea Party movement that opposes much of U.S. President Barack Obama's policy and legislative agenda" and "The Koch brothers are major funders to the U.S. Tea Party movement". However, these are relatively trivial statements of fact that are backed by other (reliable) sources including the Wall Street Journal and New Yorker. Therefore, it would seem to make sense to delete the Rich reference but not the other sources, and then to cite additional material - differentiated as critique/opinion - from the Rich piece. This kind of solution would seem to meet BLP standards to a "t". Best, Arjuna (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And such tidbits as "underwriting a vast network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups" are facts for a BLP? Collect (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To repeat, cause sometimes people don't get it unless you do. Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author. I'm sure more reliable non-opinion sources could be found for some of these accusations. One or two from opinionated sources is enough generally speaking. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Coke?

Why all the fuzz about the Coke pronunciation. It has been there from 24 December 2008, long before the birth of the Tea Party movement. It was inserted there by 71.255.80.220 (talk · contribs) without any sourcing. Now that the article has come under scrutiny it is time to remove the vandalism. There is no reason to come to this this forum to complain about vandalism that happened two years ago. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the correct pronunciation for their name does appear to be "coke", like the soft drink. See YouTube video [[6]]. (Yes, I realize this is a partisan source, and no, it's not citable - I'm simply referencing it as evidence on how to pronounce their name, since I was uncertain myself.) It hardly matters how they pronounce it anyway, and finally I agree that the "coke" in the article should go - which it already has. Arjuna (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is another video that may be a bit less POV from the The Rachel Maddow Show. I must admit that the Greenpeace propagandists you linked to are real professionals. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't been following this pronunciation discussion so maybe I am missing the issue, but, in fact, there are plenty of sources for the "Coke" pronunciation. A few examples: Los Angeles Times, re Bill Koch (businessman): "Koch was probably in San Diego for a year before anyone knew whether his named was pronounced Cotch, Cock or Coke. For those who still don't know, it is Coke as in Koch is it."[7] Washington Post re David H. Koch: "To commemorate 100 years on the National Mall, the Museum of Natural History unveils its new David H. Koch (pronounced "coke") Hall of Human Origins."[8] Bloomberg BusinessWeek re Charles G. Koch: "Koch Industries, which Charles Koch (pronounced "coke") took over 38 years ago from his father, company founder Fred Koch, agreed . . . "[9] Associated Press (from 1998) re Fred C. Koch: "The Koch brothers' father, Fred C. Koch (pronounced "Coke") . . . " [10] I'm not really clear about why this should be contentious.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Arxiloxos, good question! It was always a non-issue, but someone decided to try to make it one. Arjuna (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Decided? Vandalism, no matter how old, does not become right. There is no cite for the pronunciation, and WP has a guideline about pronunciations which should be followed. WP:Pronunciation is clear. Collect (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss Arxiloxos' refs above? Rd232 ^talk 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Did that change the MOS on how pronounciations are presented? Collect (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's Coke... does it make it vandalism if it isn't presented in the absolute proper format? No. It is COKE. If you don't like the presentation, fix it, but it is not vandalism. If that is the bone of contention, its wated time effort and space---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Crist

Do allegations that a person is homosexual belong in a BLP where the subject denies the allegations? [11] regards the section at issue. Collect (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sexual orientation allegations

In April 2009, Crist was one of the subjects of Kirby Dick's documentary film Outrage, a Tribeca Film Festival feature about politicians who the film claims are "closeted" homosexuals and who vote against gay rights. The film featured interviews with multiple men who claimed to have had sexual relations with Crist. One of the men in the film was Jason Wetherington, a Republican party staffer, who, three years earlier, was described to Bob Norman, a reporter at the New Times Broward-Palm Beach, as a man who had boasted of having sex with Crist, and who had named Bruce Carlton Jordan as Crist's longtime sex partner. Norman independently contacted Wetherington and Crist, who both denied the allegations. Of Jordan, Crist said, "I don't know who you are speaking about." However, Jordan's father told Norman that the two men were friends, "but I don't think he's seen Charlie in a while."

• - http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2006-10-19/news/crist-denies-trysts

The film and the newspaper article led to media debates about Crist's sexual orientation, about a politician's right to privacy and the political ramifications of the allegations.

• - http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/04/24/outrage/index.html
• - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/outrage-documentary-activ_n_192476.html
• - http://thehill.com/capital-living/24173-as-outrage-documentary-debuts-outing-is-deflating
• -http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cause8-2009may08,0,6665296.story
• - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103832005
• - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/movies/08outr.html

comments

Generally, no, but when the debate is sourced to the NYT and NPR, it's hard to assert it isn't covered in reliable sources. I'd be in favor of trimming the section by 1/3-1/2, since there's some COATRACKing re: the film going on in there. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, trimming of the add ons. Opps, the lots gone. edit summary propogation of rumors/allegations, regardless of citations, is WP:BLP violation . Where is that referenced from? Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see the relevant part of BLP quoted in support of Arjuna909's removal of the whole section. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be used, Avoid gossip - Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject - It really is nothing more that cited gossip is it? There is as Jclemens says in such cases where the story is well cited and well known, keeping it out is close to censorship and troublesome as it is well known and widely reported it will likely be repeatedly reinserted. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This material really seems like a clear-cut case of BLP violation. Yes, the story is out there, but so is the story that Obama is a Muslim or what have you - that doesn't make it any more compliant with guidlines, and so no amount of sourcing will make it so. My sense is that there are only two possible ways to handle this: 1. would be a separate article on "Rumors surrounding Crist" (akin to Barack Obama conspiracy theories), but that possible solution runs afoul of lots of other glitches and I don't recommend that at all either; 2. would be to mention that there have been X rumors, but that there is no hard evidence to support the allegations, and leave it at that. The rumor may or may not be true, but it is not for Wikipedia to propagate such allegations. Arjuna (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It does look a bit hollow so to speak, a man claims he slept with him and there was a documentary, there is not meat to it apart from the allegation, no comment from him, no actually story worthy of any or much reporting, seems less report worthy in that way than the similar story but imo with more meat on the bones regarding William Hague. There were allegations and press reports and his advisor resigned and the living subject made a big statement, where are the BLP differences, seems like an editorial judgment call. Off2riorob (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "Avoid gossip": the film Outrage presents the allegations as truth—it most certainly does not hedge bets or pull punches by using weasel words. Everything in the movie is portrayed as fact. Some men in the film each say Crist had sex with themselves. The film is not a tabloid shocker with weak or non-existent arguments, it is a documentary. Similarly, the earlier Bob Norman piece in the Palm Beach paper is not a gossip item. Norman takes his sources at their word but then follows up with his own investigation to make sure. Norman talked to Jason Wetherington at his parked car (where Wetherington confirmed his own homosexuality) and he talked to Crist over the phone. He spoke with Bruce Carlton Jordan's father about the friendship between Crist and Jordan. He did his own field work before writing the story. This isn't the sort of flashy gossip column item where somebody writes "In flagrante homo: a state governor whose name rhymes with..." etc. All of the material in the allegations section was put there because it "is reliable ... is being presented as true ... [and] is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I also note that all of the other men mentioned in the documentary there is a mention albeit smaller mentions of the issue at their articles. Off2riorob (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

From this last comment of yours it seems your take on this section has moved more to the side of article inclusion rather than BLP violation and removal. I believe I have adequately rebutted the "avoid gossip" part of BLP, and with no other BLP concerns cited specifically from the guideline at WP:BLP, I am restoring the "Allegations" section to the Crist article. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it, until consensus is agreed and discussion is over it is better kept out, personally I am for trimming as a minimum. I see the second comment as clear coatracking .. The film and the newspaper article led to media debates about Crist's sexual orientation, about a politician's right to privacy and the political ramifications of the allegations... This is not actually about the subject but more abot tangential issues, this and its half a dozen citations imo do not belong and should be eliminated from the discussion. The gossip about his father is also of no value and can go.Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Leaving just this simple comment .. In April 2009, Crist was one of the subjects of Kirby Dick's documentary film Outrage, a Tribeca Film Festival feature about politicians who the film claims are "closeted" homosexuals and who vote against gay rights. Crist denied the allegations.http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2006-10-19/news/crist-denies-trysts.. we could add another cite to accompany it, this is the only other citation there that actually has any content about Crist, so ...http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2009/04/24/outrage/index.html .. That Palm Beach news cite from 2006, owned by the village voice, I am in the uk but those village voice and the miami new times seem a bit fringe activist to me. Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not enough. Your ultra-brief version has Crist denying allegations that are not stated. It fails to use the documentary film as a source for several men coming forward to say on camera that Crest had sex with them. It fails to discuss the 2006 Bob Norman piece and the answers Norman elicited. The only weak part of the section was the concluding sentence: "The film and the newspaper article led to media debates about Crist's sexual orientation, about a politician's right to privacy and the political ramifications of the allegations." That last sentence is a synthesis of sources, not a direct statement. It seemed to serve as the bucket into which a handful of similar sources were dumped.

The reason that the article has Crist saying "I don't know who you are speaking about" followed by Jordan's father saying Jordan and Crist had been friends is that, based on that and other factors, Norman is certain he caught Crist in a bald lie. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Salon source, Alex Koppelman, says this about Crist in the media:

"The person most reviewers have been focusing on is Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who was recently married—his engagement was announced right around the time when speculation was mounting that he could be chosen as John McCain's running mate. He was actually first outed back in 2006, by Bob Norman, a reporter for the New Times Broward-Palm Beach, who was also the first reporter to the story of former Rep. Mark Foley's sexuality, in 2003."

Koppelman gives credence to Norman's account and names Crist as having the most focus in film reviews. If our coverage of this allegation is not comparatively full and complete, we have failed to give it the proper weight. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The addition I am proposing is plenty. A simple uninvolved comment, if you have a desired addition please present it and we can consider the options. I don't get much of your comments here about these other people, but none of it adds weight to the story. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have not followed the names in the piece, how can you judge the weight they may or may not add? What I propose is the full first paragraph without the skimpy second paragraph made of synthesis. From the top of this noticeboard section, that is. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Its bla di bla, none of the extra content is of any actual value and actually distracts from the simple clear statement. IMO the stuff your attempting to include that amounts to, john harry and frank said they had sex with him is a violation and undue claims, it is more than enough to link to the documentary, we are not gay outing activists, its unproven and we are not going to list all the people that said they had sex with him and got paid to say that. I hadn't realized it was you that expanded the content only very recently, I had thought it was older, anyways, as it is recently added and disputed I can only suggest you understand that people are not happy with the expansion and accept the concise version. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Far be it from me to make people unhappy </sarcasm>. I thought we were writing a biographical entry in an encyclopedia covering all the major facts. This is a major fact, and Crist was the major focus not of the documentary but of the reviewers of the documentary, showing just how much Crist's homosexual liaisons have stirred up the media. It's notable, alright. Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added the concise version, imo it is plenty and people can follow the links for any further detail. If there are any objections to the addition please feel free to remove and continue discussion.Off2riorob (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your "concise version" is wrong in that it has Crist denying some allegation which is undefined. Has Crist made a statement denying the film's depiction of him since the film's release? If so, please show the reference. If we say that Crist is denying an allegation, we must say what that allegation is. What we have very solidly is Crist denying Bob Norman's question about "sex with a man" in 2006. We also have Crist shown in the 2009 film denying various things presented to him. Whatever it is that we say is being denied must first be defined. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Its not such a big deal as you assert, Crist denies the allegations all of them basically as content in the article that he is a closeted homosexual that votes against gays, simple, indisputable. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section as it does not belong in a BLP, it is idle speculation and gossip mark nutley (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Brief comment from someone watching the article since the WikiProject LGBT studies tag went on it a year ago. The allegations, or discussion of them, are well sourced enough that inclusion should not be controversial. I absolutely do not agree with the suggestion that the mention be shuffled off to a "controversy about XXXX" as those articles tend to be cruft magnets at best. At worst they provide a venue for more BLP/NPOV problems or are simply ghettoes for negative criticism. Crist specifically is the subject of speculation because a number of sources assert that republican support for him in 2008 was held back due to the possibility that he was a closeted homosexual. As for presentation, I think this merits at most 2 paragraphs and a sentence or clause in the lede. Protonk (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I dread your presentation of such excessive unconfirmed claims, you want two paragraphs and a comment in the lede about the opinionated rumors that he might be homosexual. To be honest , your comment is against all I have worked towards here and as an Administrator I am appalled by your comment, you should hand in any claimed authority you assert you might have because you have lost any that you dreamt you might have in my opinion.Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I reiterate my strong opinion that this material is wholly inappropriate. Salacious but unproven allegations about something that is obviously as sensitive (to some people) as this should be handled especially carefully in a BLP article. Wikipedia should not be a party to the "outing" movement. I appreciate offtoriorob's effort to construct some watered-down version that is marginally more acceptable, but I'm not sure that's not like being "a little bit pregnant" (to use a double negative). When it comes to allegations about someone's personal life (and not simply their policy positions or public behavior) BLPs require a higher threshold than just "notability" and "reliably sourced". Arjuna (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

One, I said "at most" two paragraphs. And two, describing the sourcing as limited to lurid allegations is inaccurate. If this was just the producers of Outrage making their statement, I would be among the first to assert that we should not devote space to the comments. But they are among those asserting claims about Crist's orientation and the nature of the discussion has moved beyond allegation and denial. As for the admin comments. Eh. I haven't used the bit in this discussion, I'm just speaking as a regular editor. Whatever feelings you imagine a hypothetical admin might have on the subject are pretty irrelevant to me. Protonk (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Suit yourself, your position is against all the BLP work I have ever done at wikipedia and I reject your position completely. What you are on about is also a mystery to me, lurid and whatever is nonsense. As an Administrator you never speak as a simple regular editor, if you want to do that then resign the claimed authority, and thanks for that. Your desire for two paragraphs and a mention in the lede is against all guidelines we have here regarding living people and for an Administrator to desire and support that is awful.Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Protonk's notional two paragraphs would include new material about how allegations of homosexuality lost Crist the confidence of the Republican party resulting in him changing to Independent, which is why the material would take up more space than that being discussed at this time.

To Off2riorob, I don't believe the exact WP:BLP quote has yet been found, one pertaining to your complaint about the section. I believe that the argument about gossip has collapsed against the breadth of sources, and I have yet to see another BLP guideline brought forward to challenge the text. Determining how BLP affects the section is why we are here discussing the topic, so let's lay the BLP cites on the table. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I find Blinkster's assertion that the gossip argument has "collapsed" to be laughable. A film made by the "outing" community is gossip; until there is dispositive evidence in a RS, this is all mere allegation about someone's private life. Full stop. Arjuna (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My copy of Webster's says that gossip is "rumor or report of an intimate nature." If we select just the "report" part, then yes, this is all gossip. We would normally "avoid gossip" as per BLP concerns but we would include it when the intimate information has become public, and the person involved is a public figure. Once the reports get as large as several national newspapers and a documentary film, they are past the point where we would "avoid" them—they are already out in the world, and we have a responsibility to report notable factors in the public figure's life. Every other politician target of the film Outrage has that fact mentioned in his Wikipedia article, and Crist was seen to be the main focus of reviewers of the film. We are wa-a-ay beyond trying to avoid gossip, it is hitting us in the face. We report it as responsibly as we can. Anything else is hiding the head in the sand. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just leaving a general comment not suggesting a specific set of claims in the article. For a long biography of 80-100k in readable text, an upper limit of two paragraphs covers a sma ll to medium size issue in the life of a person. Up to two paragraphs can also mean one paragraph or one sentence. The exact outcome will depend heavily on normal editing, UNDUE, and BLP. If the allegations are mentioned sufficient space must be given to qualify and contextualize them for a reader, hence the rather generous upper limit. Protonk (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Another source by Bob Norman, following his 2006 outing of Crist: "Crist Denies Trysts II". In this followup article one week later, Norman describes a videotaped sworn testimony made by Dee Dee Hall in which she said that Bruce Carlton Jordan told her at a party he was in a sexual relationship with Crist. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not been able to locate any reliable sources connecting the dots from allegations of gay sex to a loss of confidence within the Republican Party, leading to Crist taking a non-party-affiliated path in 2010. There are only blog posts by non-notables. I don't think Protonk's notional expansion of the allegations is going to happen. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times I have to say that my comment at the top wasn't some framework for specific line-by-line changes to the article. Protonk (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything—I thought you struck upon an interesting angle, a mere suggestion, as it were, but I felt it was worth a good long look. I followed it around Google but it led me to a bunch of dead ends as far as RSs go. Oh well: I will be satisfied with the article describing the 2006 outing and the 2009 documentary targeting closeted and hypocritical politicians. However, I will be keeping an eye out for two things: a reliable source commenting on now-unaffiliated Crist's easing up on his former gay rights clamp-down positions, and a reliable source saying that the Republican party lost faith in Crist from the allegations. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thought experiment

Let us imagine that Kirby Dick made a film called Lol Cheezburger which focused on cat owning politicians who had supported laws restricting cat ownership. Let us further suppose that one of his subjects was a Republican politician named Barley Brist and such a mention generated comments from NPR, the NYT and the LA Times. Would it violate BLP to include mention of Brist's cat ownership in our biographical article on him, provided such a mention was given due weight, cited to impeccable sources and did not defame the subject? Protonk (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

To say that I find that completely unconvincing is a massive understatement. Even to attempt to elucidate the stunningly obvious reasons why this analogy is spurious would be to inflict a grevious insult to editors' intelligence. Fail. Arjuna (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the part where you start "Would it violate" is some logical fallacy. No opinion on anything else. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously an elected republican passing as straight or actually straight would feel accusations of homosexuality were damaging to their image and life. But we need to separate that concern from the panic which normally accompanies issues like this. Is that specific concern enough to justify excluding this information. Note I'm not equating the two nor arguing that an editor who agrees that our hypothetical Brist should be outed as a cat owner would have to accept some claim about Crist's homosexuality. Just introducing the thought in order to disambiguate the two "BLP issues" into a serious, real issue and a fake issue born of our cultures attitude toward homosexuality. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No analogy on the internet escapes the analogy police. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Brist would never own a cat; he clearly is a dog owner, as can plainly be seen in the many articles about him and his new dog. LOL. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody cares if a politician has cats or dogs - they do care if he's gay, has been rumored to be gay for many years and discussions of his non-straightness have been made into a movie and discussed in national press. If the cat lobby can whip up hysteria over declawing laws then you might have a point. Instead we have the Republican party which has used gays (and abortion, immigration, guns et al) as a wedge issue for over fifty years with much success. Gays remain a hot topic of political battle to this day. Gay republicans are seen as hypocritical and many have lost their career when they have been outed in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.11.99 (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

They could join the Log Cabin... Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability

• Whatever happened to "verifiability, not truth"? It is verifiable that Crist has been the subject of persistent allegations regarding his sexual orientation. It is verifiable that Crist has denied these allegations as untrue. There is no reason for the exclusion of this verifiable information cited to reliable sources from his article. "Crist has been the subject of speculation regarding his sexual orientation" is not the same as saying "Crist is gay".
• To go off on a tangent, part of the problem is with how biographical articles tend to be constructed, especially for living people. They tend to be very compartmentalized, with sections like "early life", "career" and "personal life" instead of integrating the material. Thus a section like "Allegations of homosexuality" or whatever tends to appear more prominent than it is in a way that it would not be if the same information were integrated throughout the article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger Scruton

Certain editors are trying to include an article from the Guardian [12] which reads like an attack piece and contains numerous examples of thoroughly unpleasant, and potentially libellous material. In addition, the source which the article hinges on is a leaked e-mail, the use of which the subject himself most strongly objects to in the same article—"The whole thing is quite immoral - the stealing of private correspondence and making it public," protested Prof Scruton. I think that this reference should not be included because it is obviously contentious and potentially defamatory. Jprw (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been coverage of this particular controversy (and a reference to the Guardian story) in the article in question since October 2004. What has changed is that User:Jprw recently sought to delete all reference to the controversy. The essence of the story is that the Guardian revealed, through the use of a leaked email whose authenticity is not in question, that the subject of the article, a noted moral philosopher and public commentator, was in receipt of a monthly subvention from the tobacco industry, which he was seeking at the time to increase, in return for his help in placing comment pieces on issues of interest to the tobacco industry (some by himself) in leading newspapers. The philosopher's response (duly reported in the text recently deleted) was to deplore the leaking of his email and to assert that his links to the tobacco were in the public record. The story attracted significant interest and as (carefully) written up for Wikipedia seems to me to be relevant, balanced, and appropriately sourced. Was the original story "defamatory"? Well, even in the UK's notoriously plaintiff-friendly legal setting, the subject never sued..... Nandt1 (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The section seems OK, though a "controversies" section isn't much better than a "criticism" section, which is deprecated; integrating into the rest of the article somehow would be better. However the "No mob veto" paragraph is solely sourced to their website, so I would delete that unless there's more sourcing to show it's worth mentioning. PS whatever the immorality of the Guardian using a leaked email, it's surely exceeded by the immorality of what Scruton doesn't deny doing; and at least the former has a public interest defence. Rd232 ^talk 13:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a second view from an administrator? This material really seems to be problematic to say the least and is also creating a problem in terms of WP:WEIGHT, and I have to take issue with Nandt1's assertion that "The story attracted significant interest and as (carefully) written up for Wikipedia seems to me to be relevant, balanced, and appropriately sourced". It is none of these things. Jprw (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not clear how many administrators have to rule on this matter before Jprw will accept that the discussion of this matter (which has stood on Wikipedia for nearly six years) is a legitimate one. Two? Three? More? WP:WEIGHT is raised but seems a red herring in that we provided a shortened text, with no separate headline of its own, but any reference at all to the controversy gets deleted by Jprw (as has just happened yet again). Nandt1 (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This story was very widely discussed at the time. See the coverage in the Independent[13], the British Medical Journal[14], the New York Times[15], the New Statesman[16] and many more. The issue was also noted by the World Health Organisation[17], by Action on Smoking and Health[18], and many more professional and lobbying orgnisations. This is a very significant incident in Scruton's life, and the coverage is certainly not undue. RolandR (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Judging by that, the coverage is substantially understated - which may be part of the problem. If the issue had been decorated with more prominent sources (without necessarily being all that much longer, but perhaps a little), its significance would have been clearer and perhaps not challenged, or at least not removed wholesale. Rd232 ^talk 20:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A second reviewer... Nandt1 (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In view of the numerous further high-profile sources cited by RolandR above I accept that it is significant enough to be mentioned. What I would ask for is that the incident be sourced to one of RolandR's sources and not the Guardian article which felt uncomfortably close to being an attack piece. I hope that can be a sensible compromise. Cheers, Jprw (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger Scruton again

The Roger Scruton article was the subject of a report here just recently. That one dealt with Scruton's dealings with the tobacco industry. This one is about Scruton's comments about homosexuality. UserNandt1 has insisted on adding his own unsourced commentary on Scruton's views about homosexuality. I've tried to explain on the talk page that Wikipedia has policies against doing that sort of thing, and that we need to simply report things without adding our own commentary, but Nandt1 has persisted in adding his own interpretation and analysis, for example here. That edit makes it look as though Scruton has written an essay specifically about homosexuality - something he hasn't, to my knowledge, ever done. Scruton has written an essay ("Sexual morality and the liberal consensus") that deals essentially with liberal views on sexual morality; it argues that homosexual sex should be illegal, but homosexuality is only one of the subjects it mentions, so it's not really "about homosexuality". Nandt1's intention seems to be to make it look as though Scruton was repudiating that essay, but while he could have been doing that, it isn't at all clear that he was, since he didn't mention it by name in the interview Nandt1 added his commentary to. Nandt1's edit could inadvertently make it look as though Scruton was repudiating comments he made about homosexuality in the Daily Telegraph in 2007, but there's no sign that he has done that either.

The ongoing disputes at the article make it essential that more editors take an interest in it.

I should note that the administrator SlimVirgin has been involved with editing the article; she has actually argued in favor of including original research on the article's talk page. See her talk post here. SlimVirgin seems to feel that we must include original research or the article will somehow be "misleading": "...if we don't add the context, it sounds as though he's repudiating his more recent views too (e.g. the 2007 Telegraph views), which I think he is not. That's the problem: what we write will either be misleading or OR." I am very uncomfortable with that attitude, and would like others to comment on whether it is appropriate. UserVOBO (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

See also this edit by SlimVirgin, which seems extremely dubious in BLP terms. UserVOBO (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misdescribing the situation, VOBO. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

In what sense? A more specific comment would be more helpful here. We need to keep the article free from original research (such as our own speculation on/commentary on Scruton's statements about homosexuality) and BLP violations (such as inflammatory statements that he holds the view that "homophobia is understandable" - which was partly based on the source you used but went beyond what it actually said). That's why an edit like this, made by you, is problematic. Scruton was probably thinking of "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus" in his Guardian interview, but you do not know that for a fact, and shouldn't have asserted that that was what he was doing. UserVOBO (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

He has written one famous essay on sexuality, dated 1989. It became famous because in it he makes arguments about homosexuality that many people would find very objectionable, including that children should have feelings of revulsion instilled in them about it.

In a 2010 Guardian interview, he withdraws this: "I took the view that feeling repelled by something might have a justification ... And in that essay I experimented with the view that maybe something similar can be said about homosexuality. And I don't now agree with that ... (my bold)."

To argue that it's OR to make clear he was talking about his 1989 essay is to apply the NOR policy without commonsense. There is an NOR noticeboard you could ask instead of here, by the way. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If making it clear that Scruton was referring to "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus" was your objective, then your edits at the Scruton article haven't reached it. At the moment the article says, "In a Guardian interview in June 2010 Scruton said of his earlier essay..." - since that immediately follows a description of his 2007 Telegraph comments, readers might mistakenly conclude that he was retracting them rather than what he said in "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus."

Replacing "his earlier essay" with "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus" would prevent that possible confusion, but it would make the statement even more obviously original research. I said on the talk page that I was prepared to leave some comment on his Guardian interview in the article, but that was in the spirit of compromise and out of a desire to avoid edit warring, not because I think it's the ideal solution. I'm concerned that we're not giving our readers the credit to assume that they can understand Scruton's comments without our unsourced attempt to explain them.

WP:NOR and WP:BLP issues are not separate from each other. If a BLP contains original research, then that is at least potentially a BLP problem. UserVOBO (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It was you who objected to us saying the 1989 essay! That's why I changed it. I really don't know what you want here. The NOR policy is not supposed to be applied so rigidly that we daren't draw a single conclusion no matter how unavoidable. And it really is better to have these discussions on the talk page—starting a forest fire of posts in various places is time-consuming to respond to. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Replacing a clear piece of OR with a vague and possibly misleading piece of OR isn't really progress. What do I want? I'd ideally like to see the original research removed altogether. UserVOBO (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I must second SlimVirgin on this controversy. Scruton himself says directly that "in that essay" he experimented with arguments which he no longer stands behind. Various drafts of the lead-in to his quote, offered by SlimVirgin and myself and repeatedly challenged by UserVOBO, have noted that, in the quote in question, (1) he is referring back to an essay of his own. In some versions of the lead-in text (though not the current draft), we have also noted that (2) he has explicitly disavowed earlier views. I.e., our contantly rebuffed attempts to come up with an acceptable lead-in comprise variations on parapaphrases of the man's own words. (The only instances in which we went beyond his own words were one or two versions which explicitly identified the essay he was repudiating -- I have argued this is pretty self-evident, but I would accept it is not spelled out by him in so many words -- and that detail has been droped the current draft). But really, to try make this into a big story about "Original Research" verges on being baffling. Nandt1 (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

VOBO, the essence of OR is twofold: it occurs (a) when something is entirely made up by a Wikipedian; and (b) when a Wikipedian goes beyond the sources in such a way that the sources, if asked, would say, "But that's not what I meant!" Neither of these things applies to this situation. We have to be allowed to join up sentences and explain context; otherwise our articles would just be lists of quotes. The key is to do it in a way that the sources would agree was true to their utterances, and that is clearly the case here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Note to readers: The above discussion is continued further at the Discussion Page for the article on Roger Scruton. Nandt1 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

1.8.7

I don't know how this works exactly, I'm somewhat new here. The article above has citations that keep being put back in, but are causing trouble for the artist involved. True they may be, but the truth of the matter is that the information leads to threats against their person. How do I know? I am personal friends with them. I don't know if I'd consider the information libelous per se, but the information listed here just seems to perpetuate the amount of death threats and hate mail they get. What can I do to keep it from re-appearing?

Quaranj (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

These are statements that the subject of the article made to a weekly newspaper in one of America's major cities and to a national magazine. I understand and sympathize that her choice to do so turned out to be regrettable, but it seems to me that it's a bell that can't be un-rung. You say the statements are true, and it's backed up by multiple reliable secondary sources; that would estop any claim of libel, because libel is a false statement. Removing a verifiable, uncontested fact solely because it is inconvenient—even extremely inconvenient—for the subject seems to me to run counter to the principles of an encyclopedia. Consider WP:HARM, which notes that "Do no harm" was rejected as a principle for WP:BLP because it's incompatible with NPOV. WP:HARM has an inclusion test. Is the information already widely known? In this case, definitively yes; it has been widely published. Is it definitive and factual? Again, yes; you acknowledge it's a fact, and there are multiple reliable sources. Is it given due weight in relation to the subject's notability? You may have a case here depending upon how the fact is included in the article. Stating the bare fact in question may not give it sufficient due weight. However, reading the cited source, 1.8.7 feels that this fact has had a direct impact on her career, so the information itself could be given due weight in the article with proper context. Based on that test, I'd say that it's reasonable for this information to be included. Again, it's not that I'm not sympathetic; I think it's terrible that this person has threats against them because of this fact. However, she made the choice to widely publicize this information, and she is a public figure, so I don't think she has the right to ask that it be removed from a biography. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It also looks like there's a conflict of interest here. Quaranj's edit history seems to be mostly edits to the 1.8.7 page. On his talk page, he made the statement "Might as well remove them all then, because there is _no_ way she is posting here, that's specifically my job. If I don't do it, she wont either. I know her personally and have her fullest consent. If that is not enough, then Wikipedia will suffer. " apparently in reference to the person in question. It's making WP:TEND come to mind, for me. The idea that it's "his job" to edit Wikipedia on behalf of 1.8.7 troubles me. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just the sources and the material is good but the user persists in attempting to censor it - might require a block. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Mirza Masroor Ahmad

• Mirza Masroor Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Peaceworld111 has repeatedly removed well referenced section 'Friday Sermon of 30th Jan 09'.
Although I hope a compromise has been reached, Peaceworld111 has stated in talk section they don't wish to argue, thereby shutting off further discussion of the issue.

I can't say that I see what you see. It looks to me like Peaceworld111 is actually inviting you to discuss the issue on the article's Talk page; they just don't want to argue with you on, or about, your personal blog. Nothing wrong with that. The method Peaceworld111 used also seems to me to be consistent with BOLD, revert, discuss, at least at first. It looks to me like you stopped discussing before he did, which breaks the BRD cycle. You mentioned a compromise; how's that working out? (I've always liked the saying that in the best compromises, everyone walks away satisfied, but not happy...) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Macwhiz,
In the article it has been edited by Peaceworld111 to 'With reference to the second Ahmadi Caliph's experiences with Bahai's'.
This comes across to me as implying that the experiences Mirza Masroor Ahmad spoke of are factual experiences, however, given that in the cited article Mirza Masroor states that a Baha'i explained away why Abdu'l-Baha got married twice when in reality as the wiki article on Abdul-Baha testifies He remained monogamous all His life, i feel it is extremely unlikely that such words were ever spoken.
Therefore i feel it would be more accurate to describe these experiences as 'alleged' experiences thereby avoiding giving the positive impression that all these experiences are factual.
Is it possible for me to either add the word 'alleged' (which Peaceworld111 is certain to immediately remove), or to keep the article neutral and in some other way raise doubt on these experiences, such as by adding a phrase along the lines of, 'The experiences referred to by Mirza Masroor Ahmad are not all verifiable in independant sources'?Daniel De Mol (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark Harper bio being repeatedly censored by Peter Karlsen

There is an autobiography warning at top of Mark Harper's page. I have now found evidence that it is indeed being abused as a self-flattering page. I have tried to put perfectly reasonable contextual info and found it repeatedly removed by "Peter Karlsen" on false grounds. It's all in the section on disability claimants. He first claimed the citations were unreferenced but they were referenced as the specificl r4 Any Questions as you can see. Then he repeatedly removed two final sentences as supposedly unsourced and yet they are self-evidently true (but necessary explanatory context) so no need for sourcing. He is clearly just looking for pseudo-excuses to keep that page censored of all unflattering content. I suggest that if this abuse continues any further then the whole page should be removed. I suppose it would be no surprise to find that Conservative Head Office have a full-time wiki-censor at work, probably also improperly getting administrator status just to add to reinforce the abuses.86.171.172.129 (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And yet Mr Harper does not appear to have any qualifications or competence in diagnosis or assessment of disability, any more than "everyone" does. And being able-bodied does not prove absence of severe disability. is neither sourced, nor appropriate NPOV language. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Not so. It is not non-NPOV, it simply states some highly relevant facts. Sure those facts do not flatter but that's not a failure of NPOV. It was fully appropriate because it supplied the necessary context for appreciating that Mark Harper's words were highly misleading and prejudiced against disabled persons, indeed hate speech as they encourage "everyone" (i.e. all the narrowminded bigots) to falsely assume they ARE competent to evaluate disability and act out their hostility accordingly. It did not need to be sourced because it is obviously true, it's there not as assertion but as contextual explanation. The only reason "Peter Karlsen" removed it was in order to massage that bio, removing anything unflattering. "Peter Karlsen" promptly appeared on cue and engaged in a persistent bullying intervention to impose his censorship. This is consistent with him/her being a professional bio-massaging agent, a professional abuser of wikipedia. The fact that s/he's done some good minor tidbits elsewhere proves nothing, as any professional massaging agent would cover his/her tracks by doing some goody stuff to fool the impressionable.86.177.168.105 (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And this is inappropriate, as well. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually that is irrelevant to the above, as at no time was that reversion by "Peter Karlsen" disputed, though it did fit in the pattern of bio-massaging by him/her.86.177.168.105 (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Forrest Hylton

The source of criticism on this page [19] is not reliable. Marta Lucía Ramírez is a former minister of defense, not a scholar. She should not be listed as a credible source for scholarly criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forresthylton (talk • contribs) 19:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcomed the above user. Also placed welcome messages for a bunch of other user talk pages, and semi-protected the article page, for 2 weeks. Other admins, feel free to change that. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Eido Tai Shimano

I posted the request for help to revert the page to former date, after someone again inserted attacking material, not based on facts. I do not know how to do it myself. There was a consensus before to leave the version done by Slp1 on September 9th. I have another question: How and where to place the request to block editor Tao2911 from editing this page? Can someone block him, please. The problem has been going on for months and there is no resolution to it. Can someone help, please. It looks that Tao2911 started edit war again there...Spt51 (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are having problems whitewashing the page.Tao2911 (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The language of last edits by Tao 2911 is not appropriate for Biography of Living person and it is not based on reality and sources provided. The attacking tone of this as well as many previous edits made by this person on that page shows clearly that there is an agenda and lack of objectivity. If you read article NYT you see that some information came from blogs and sources, which have been here decided as not reliable. All facts and wording were agreed by consensus before by many administrators on several boards, and last version edited by Slp1 on December 9th is closest to the facts, if it should be included at all. Please, revert to this version and please, take some actions so the same person, who does is again and again over last few months, is not inserting untrue and harmful information here anymore.Spt51 (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that the wording "sexual abuse" is absolutely not acceptable in this case. It has not been used in any printed sources and there are no facts to it. Accusing a person of this may be considered illegal. Please, remove this immediately. Sorry, I do not know how to revert the article to a version from September 9th. Spt51 (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Note, this query was posted on the article talk page with a {{helpme}}, and I thought that copying it here was likely to get the necessary assistance.  Chzz  ►  20:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a living person that has never been charged with anything at all related to these allegations, user Tao is constantly adding content that in the end results in an attack. Take the weakest claims you can and write it all in the most negative way and you have the situation. The whole content is valueless and is meaningless, close to gossip. If he had been charged I would think yea a small comment but what User:Tao2911 is creating makes the guy out to be a serious sexual violator and he hasn't even been charged with anything ever. Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Tao2911's editing pattern isn't acceptable, and I think the statements that user tried to add to the article aren't really supported by the article.

However, the August 20, 2010 New York Times article does support the contention that Shimano acted in an ethically questionable manner where sexual liasons with his students were concerned. The Times is a reliable source. I know that there have been a ton of arguments over the Aitken papers, Tricycle, and other sources on BLP/N and elsewhere. In those arguments, a common refrain against permitting their use seems to be "not until a Reliable Source with Editorial Oversight publishes it." We now have a Reliable Source, with Editorial Oversight, conferring legitimacy upon at least some of those claims. It strikes me as disingenuous to say that the Times cannot be considered a reliable source because it refers to these other sources; I thought the whole point of the secondary-source policy was the idea that we trust and rely upon these secondary sources to properly vet their data. I don't say that shimanoarchive should now be a RS; I do think that the portion of that information published by the NYT, if cited to the NYT, is now reliably sourced.

That said, what the NYT published is a very limited claim, and the items that Tao2911 was adding go well beyond what the NYT now sources. It would be very difficult to come close to what that user posted using the NYT article. However, the fact that Shimano resigned from his own board after allegations of inappropriate relationships with his students, allegations that came from multiple sources, is notable and should be included in a neutral fashion. Likewise, I think the part of the article discussing the different viewpoints on sexual relations in Asian Buddhism as compared to America might even merit a sentence, if someone can think of an NPOV way to do it, in order to give appropriate context to the allegations. I think that while BLP/N admins should take appropriate action regarding Tao2911, they should make sure no one misunderstands it as an impeachment of the NYT. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am going to revert to the prior version per BLP. It is clear that Tao2911's edits do not have consensus per problems with verifiability and neutral point of view, which has been a longstanding pattern with this editor's edits. I personally think a topic ban is becoming increasingly necessary.

Macwhiz, I think you will see that the NYT article is used in the prior version; I agree it is a reliable source and can be used, just not for making claims that even the NYT couches with "reported" "alleged" kind of language. You might also find it interesting to read WP:LAUNDER about how we have to be careful of RSs laundering facts from unreliable ones. If there are tweaks to be made let's discuss them first, on the talkpage. --Slp1 (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, and I missed that in looking at the diffs. The version that was in place before Tao2911's edits appears to be neutral in tone and factually substantiated. I agree that his edits were neither. I understand the concern of laundered facts; my point was that spt1's initial post in this thread said that the NYT information "came from blogs and sources, which have been here decided as not reliable"; I don't think anyone wants a mistaken assumption that the NYT article is necessarily tainted because it mentions those sources. You and I are in perfect agreement about how it may be used in this article. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I am just trying to condense and summarize many sources reporting on abuses. Here is the terrifically inelegant Slp/Spt version read until I edited today:"Shimano has been the subject of allegations of sexual and financial improprieties.[8][9][10] In 1964, while living in Hawaii with Robert Aitken, there were misconduct allegations, which led to a rift with Aitken.[1][2][3] In New York, in 1975, 1979 and 1982 Shimano was accused of sexually exploiting emotionally vulnerable female students, as well as financial mismanagement; he denied the allegations.[11][12] The accusations resulted in departure of students and monks from the Zen Studies Society.[8][13][14] In July 2010 Eido Shimano and his wife resigned from the ZSS board of directors when a " recent inappropriate relationship" between Shimano and a female student was disclosed.[3][15][16] It was announced that Shimano would retire in April 2012, and in the interim would no longer take new students.[3][15] In September 2010 Eido Shimano sent the letter of apology to Sangha members and friends, in which he announced that he would retire as abbot of the Zen Studies Society in December 2010.[17][18]"

Here is my edit: "Shimano has been dogged by persistent allegations of sexual and financial improprieties,[3][8][9][10] beginning in 1964 in Hawaii.[1][2][3] In New York, accusations of sexual abuse occurred during the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's.[11][12][3] The accusations have resulted in the departure of students and monks from the Zen Studies Society.[8][13][14]

In July, 2010, a female student publicly revealed that she had been having a long term affair with Eido Shimano, which resulted in Shimano and his wife resigning from the ZSS board of directors.[3][15][16] In September, 2010, Shimano sent a letter to the ZSS community apologizing for his misdeeds, and announcing that he would retire as abbot of the Zen Studies Society in December, 2010.[17][18]"

As you can see, "In New York, in 1975, 1979 and 1982 Shimano was accused of sexually exploiting emotionally vulnerable female students, as well as financial mismanagement." This is clearly "sexual abuse" by simply another name - I don't know what Slp's complaint is about. He or Spt wrote that other version. The Times mentions more allegations that simply these specific years, including some subsequent. They mention Shimabno Archive, and ZSS spokesperson says the the board found much of that material credible and it led to action on their part. There is simply willful obtuseness going on here - that stems from bias. I don't know why I am being singled out when Spt51 has transparently been trying to whitewash the article for months, patrolling it and reversing any attempt to bring in up to date information.Tao2911 (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that your version is highly POV e.g. "dogged" "misdeeds", and is also unverifiable e.g. "sexual abuse" (cf sexual exploited which is used by Tworkov here ). The other difference is that Spt55 seeks to minimize BLP problems rather than making them worse, and s/he always seeks to get consensus first, rather than, as you do, editing, having your edits reverted by two editors and protested about on the talkpage by others and then claiming that you magically have consensus. Please note that you are at risk of being blocked for WP:3RR (if nothing else) if you revert again.Slp1 (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Spt51 has transparently been trying to whitewash the article for months, patrolling it and reversing any attempt to bring in up to date information." Tao2911, please do not make false accusations against me. Again this is not based on facts. I did not edit so called "allegation section" before, except one time only recently adding link to Tricycle to actually include up to date information! You can look at history and see what my edits were. Yes, I did argue the sources you were including in the past, because I knew there were not acceptable by Wiki rules. And you were also inserting citations which were false. There are many people who patrol this page exactly because of your actions there. They simply revert your edits and that happens after almost every edit you do. Today I did notice your edit after it was already reversed two times by other editor. And I knew your comment about your edit being a consensus version is not true! I was going to reverse it again myself, but do not know how, so I asked for help. I do not see you being honest in discussions and you very quickly accuse others. Maybe it is worth to look into this. What we all here are trying to do is to have encyclopedic true information. This is not a newspaper with all the revelations and rumors included immediately as they come, true, or false. And when it comes to biographies of living people rules are strict. Can you become objective and accept what was decided by consensus? Nobody is victimizing you here.Spt51 (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

To specifically address one part of Tao's claim that especially bugs me: "sexual abuse" is not the same thing as "sexual exploitation." The accusation is that Shimano had consensual sexual affairs that are seen in America as being inappropriate due to the teacher-student relationship, or possibly—in the latter cases—for some other reason that can't be determined from the reliable sources. I have not seen any allegations that Shimano forced himself upon anyone; the term sexual abuse requires an element of force by definition, and requires that the act be non-consensual. Absent any proof of either element, the term "sexual abuse" is beyond hyperbolic, it's dangerously inaccurate. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right! And to the point. Because this discussion and inserting all sorts of allegations and sources into Shimano page has been going on for months I consulted professional people, friends I have, psychologist and lawyer, as I pointed out in Talk page there, and this is absolutely not acceptable, in some ways illegal. Thank you for adding this comment. I hope many more people with clarity will express same view here. Spt51 (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Mary Ann Jackson

• Mary Ann Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since 2005, Wikipedia has reported that Mary Ann Jackson, an American former child actress, died in 2003. We have now received, at Ticket:2010091010009642, a prima facie credible message telling us that she is in fact still alive. The information about her death was not referenced to a reliable source, and I am unable to find a reliable source reporting the death (there are several websites carrying the same information about her death, such as IMDB, but they could well have copied from one another and/or from Wikipedia).

Accordingly, I have removed the information about her death. But I find it strange that we would have this sort of serious misinformation for so long in an article that has been edited so often including by veteran editors. I am therefore asking anybody who may be interested in the topic to help check if there is not indeed a reliable published source with relevant information about Mary Ann Jackson, and will also contact former editors of that article to comment here.  Sandstein  20:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• That does sound weird, and it troubles me that a search of Google News doesn't return a single thing on her. If she died in 2003, I would think there would be at least one obituary available online. The claim was that she died December 17, 2003 in Los Angeles. There's an LA Times obit for Joe Cobb and J.R. Smith dated December 15, 2002, so it defies belief that Jackson would've died without commentary. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• What gives me pause is that several editors in good standing, independent of each other, added or altered specific details regarding the supposed death. [20] [21] [22] Skomorokh 22:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The last two of those three edits are just spacing and dash fixing. I don't see how either of them imply that the editors involved had any reason to verify the content they tweaked. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • No, both add specification about the cause of death (although arguably, the last may have been simple rewording). Skomorokh 12:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• I can't find the article I saw at the time I put that she had died. I did see an article. I think it might have been in a California newspaper but it's been so many years. I remember the article had the details about her wearing '50s clothing. I was a fan of Our Gang and of Mary Ann's so I was sad to read about this and put the information in her bio. If I'd thought she was alive I wouldn't have done that. I'm very sorry. --JamesB3 (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Eugene Michael Vazzana records her as having died in 1991:
  • Eugene Michael Vazzana (2001). "Jackson, Mary Ann". Silent film necrology (2nd ed.). McFarland. p. 265. ISBN 9780786410590. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |isbn10= ignored (help)
• Everett Grant Jarvis also records her as dead in 1991, and buried in Lake View Cemetery, Cleveland, Ohio. Xe even gives the location of the plot:
  • Everett Grant Jarvis (1996). Final curtain: deaths of noted movie and TV personalities, 1912–1996 (8th ed.). Carol Publishing Group. p. 280.
• Uncle G (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Uncle G. That is ... weird. Would it be possible for you to mail me a scan of the respective pages, so that I can ask the person who wrote the e-mail to comment?  Sandstein  10:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• No, for various reasons including the fact that I don't have the ability to scan books here. ☺ Vazzanna's biography says "(b. Los Angeles CA, 14 Jan 1923 – 1991 [68?], Los Angeles CA)" and Jarvis's table (one of several) reads "JACKSON, Mary Ann | 1991 | Lake View Cemetery, Cleveland, OH | Section 43, Lot 678". Uncle G (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay. Thanks. Er, what should we do now? Technically I suppose this allows us to re-add the information about her death, but why 1991 rather than 2003? And if so, what do we tell the person who not only wrote to tell us that Mary Ann Jackson of "Our Gang" is alive, but even e-mailed us a current photograph of the lady?  Sandstein  21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Note that the anon who added the death notice to this article also added, at about the same time, an apparenly spurious death report to the article on another "Our Gang" actor, Harry Spear. [23] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    • why 1991 rather than 2003? — I don't see how we can answer that. It's what the books say (those two, and the further books that I found but didn't cite because they acknowledge those two as their source), and presumably it's 1991 rather than 2003 because that's the correct year. If we could find the article that JamesB3 saw, we could compare it against the sources that we do have, and evaluate how diligent each source has been in terms of fact checking and so forth. But we don't have it. JamesB3 didn't properly record what it was at the time, doesn't now remember what it was, and I cannot turn anything up. I presume that I'm not the only one to have looked.

      Note that this means that we don't have a source for all of this content in that article, too. Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Taavi Peetre

His death needs a reliable source. The only one I can find with this name is in Estonian, so I can't see what it says. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved now. SFB 17:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

NAMBLA and Curley v. NAMBLA again

I wrote earlier and the suggestion was to clean up Curley v. NAMBLA to address naming people as pedophiles concern which I did. Could you please look to see that it was helpful and still accurately reflects the main points of the case? I tried to just summarize what the various books and articles stated. On the other front the NAMBLA article still names a lot of people, some of them likely to be alive, as producing publications for the group and it's sourced to the court documents for the case which was dismissed. I would think since these men, guilty of ickyness or what have you, don't have articles about them that their names don't really add anything. On the Curley v. NAMBLA case I only supplied the names of the child-victim, the parents and the two convicted murderers. On the NAMBLA article the summary includes "has been defended by poet and free speech advocate Allen Ginsberg.[6] as well as author Samuel R. Delany.[7]" Ginsberg is dead but only supported the group as a free speech issue, Delany is alive and supports, I believe, a similar sentiment that sexuality issues even among teenagers can be researched and indeed may prove to be helpful to understanding a variety of personal and societal issues. By putting their names in the summary of NAMBLA article are we linking them to one of the most despised groups imaginable? Should their names be in the article at all? Cat clean (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Were you aware that Curley issues are being discussed at Talk:North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association#Skewed_discussion_of_Curley_v._NAMBLA? As suggested to you here and per WP:CONSENSUS the Talk page is the proper venue for these issues. Anyway, I went ahead and deleted the unsourced defendants per your valid BLP concerns--good catch. Lionel (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed the other content to address the concerns about Samuel R. Delany, by alleging he supports pedophilia we distort what he actually said about his support for a group "like NAMBLA" and why. His quote actually goes a long way to understanding why anyone would support them at all. And that talkpage reference was to address that FAQ that was deleted by WP:CONSENSUS. Cat clean (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Motsoko Pheko

An IP has just come along and reverted some of the text in this article [24] with an edit summary calling the deleted text libellous and mischievous. The IP has replaced the deleted text with what looks like promotional text, unsourced, quotes in caps, etc. Was the original stuff a BLP violation? Is the new stuff any better? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The cite says the expelled issue was in an appeal process and we don't seem to have the outcome and there is no mention in our text of the ongoing appeal, which is from 2008 so it must have been resolved by now? Off2riorob (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• - http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=nw20080703141704321C677520

James P. Barker

Hi, I'm sure this issue has arisen before: categorization of biography articles.

Following a series of edits made yeserday [25] please would you consider adding your thoughts on the relevant discussion here, thankyou. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I weighed in on this on the talk page. The question is whether or not an individual who admitted to, pleaded guilty to, was convicted of, and is not appealing the conviction for participating in the gang-rape of a 14-year-old and the subsequent murder of four people can be classified under Category:American mass murderers given that another member of his military unit actually pulled the trigger. My thought: To say otherwise, you'd find yourself arguing that Jim Jones wasn't a mass murderer either, as he neither prepared the poison drink nor poured it down people's throats. Not a BLP issue. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Rich Rodriguez

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

Although this article is well sourced, it currently places far too much weight on any controversies, IMO. Nearly half the article is about how unpopular he is. Do you all agree? Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any value in the minuscule details of what are actually five minor violation issues (I haven't looked but they look like they could well be cut and copy also) in this section, I think the article would benefit by their removal. Just leaving the citation and the comment after there were five violations. I am getting nothing http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/misc?URL=/templates/ArticleMultiMediaPopup.pbs&Date=20100223&ArtNo=100223022&Category=SPORTS06&ObjectClass=831&Params=Id=152428 this cite ? Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that those paragraphs were unneeded per WP:UNDUE, not to mention just copy and pasted. I removed them. With those gone, it seems okay. He has had a lot of criticism, and the article reflects that, but I feel it's long enough that there aren't any other UNDUE issues. Grsz¹¹ 15:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that helps a lot. Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Antonio Inoki

• Antonio_Inoki#Personal_life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article alleges personal and political corruption without any citation to sources. //  Mr JM  02:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• - I have removed all the uncited contentious claims from the personal section. Off2riorob (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.  Mr JM  14:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of works - BLP violation?

Is criticism, which is sourced to a 3rd-party published review in a reputable media outlet, of a work by a living person (a sculpture,a book, a movie), using harsh terms, a BLP violation against the creator of the work? For example, is describing Of Pandas and People as "this book is worthless and dishonest" or "a wholesale distortion of modern biology" an attack on Percival Davis? HupHollandHup (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the first one, at least, has to presented in a way that it's clear it's a direct quote from a notable source. If so I would think it's acceptable since it is a criticism of a public person's public work. Wolfview (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, no, quotes from a well sourced review of a book are not an attack on the author (particularly when they say that the book is worthless and dishonest, not the author). I was going to say that the quotes you mentioned suggest that the sources were not "good" as no reasonable review would use such language, however, I have just read the comments in context at Of Pandas and People#Overview and my conclusion is that if a creationist is going to write a school textbook refuting evolution, then such forthright comments from suitably qualified sources are appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The real subject of concern here is an article written by Steven Plaut in The Jewish Press. It is currently being discussed here.     ←   ZScarpia   00:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC) (11:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC): amended the article link)

No, the real subject of concern here is a matter of principle: is criticism of a book the same as an attack on the author. You are correct that the impetus for my query is the discussion at The_Invention_of_the_Jewish_People article, but a principle is the same regardless of its specific application. If we can legitimately call a book by a creationist "worthless" and "dishonest" without violating BLP, we can describe a book by a controversial academic as "recycling myths popularized by neo-Nazi groups". The principle is the same, and the reputation of creationists is not held in lower regard than that of professors of French intellectual history, at least not on this project. HupHollandHup (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Claims that a book is worthless, poorly written, ignores the evidence, and similar, are fair comment and they can be quoted if the commentator is notable and the source is reliable. Claims that a book is fraudulent, was intentionally written to promote an odious cause (such as Nazism), and similar, are libels against the author. HupHollandHup is claiming that it can't be libel since the commentator doesn't name the author (only the book). No court of law would ever accept such an argument and we shouldn't either. The fact that the commentator (a political activist with a reputation for vitriol) was previously found guilty of libel in a court of law for making similar charges against someone else ought to ring the alarm bells very loudly. Zero^talk 01:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Claims that a book is dishonest are equivalent to a claims that a book recycles myths - which is the quote you removed from the article on the specious claim that it is a BLP attack on the author, a claim rejected here, above. I haven't made the claim you are suggesting (in fact, I explicitly said I am not making that claim), rather , I made the claim exactly as I stated above in describing my query - that criticism of the work is not the same as criticism of the person. Contrary to your pointed but rather baseless assertions, courts (certainly in the US) regularly rule that criticism of public works by public persons are immune from defamation charges, falling under the "fair criticism" defense. Please exercise more care in stating my claims exactly as I present them, or, if you are unable to do that, refrain from restating my claims at all. The commentator in question is an academic, and his previous libel convictions , which are of a different type altogether than the aforementioned book review, 3 of the 4 have already been overturned on appeal, with the 4th one still on appeal to a higher instance. This tells us more about the quality of the judge ruling in the first instance than about the commentator. HupHollandHup (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks like it may be a case where strong claims (eg comparing a Jewish person who is a serious academic - or anyone else, I suppose - to a neo-Nazi) would need strong sourcing, and an op-ed (incidentally, it looks to me like it may be miscategorised as a book review) by someone who appears to have multiple court cases for libel against him may not meet that standard. Are similar claims made by any other sources? --FormerIP (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No such claim is made. In fact, no "claim" is made - an opinion is expressed. The opinion is that the book recycles myths that were popularized by neo-Nazis. That's not the same as saying the author is a neo-Nazi. And why would we need other sources making the same claim? This is a matter of opinion, as all criticism is, not a WP:REDFLAG statement of fact which requires multiple sources. HupHollandHup (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The question is whether it is appropriate to include the criticism. The claim (oh yes it is, but call it an "opinion" if you want, it makes no difference) made in the source is very strong, and so it would require very strong sourcing to support its inclusion in the article. The author of the source apparently has a track record in terms of libel. As far as we know, no other sources make a similar claim. So, all in all, we don't have the very strong sourcing that would be needed to support the inclusion of this very strong claim (or opinion). --FormerIP (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, personal opinions do not need 'strong sourcing' or multiple sourcing. That's the nature of personal opinions - they belong to a person. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) - We can and should imo use editorial judgment to keep isolated opinions that are not the generally opined position out of an article, an isolated extreme claim would be better to not be included. Off2riorob (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We always can and should use editorial judgment to decide what material goes in an article - that's not the issue. The question is rather if harsh criticism of a work is the same as a BLP-violating attack on the creator of the work. The answer to that question seems to be "no", according to policy. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The source isn't a book review as you have claimed, it is an op-ed claiming that various Jewish intellectuals are anti-semites and, in some cases, in league with neo-Nazis. The claim about Sand is a claim, not an opinion. Sand is accused of "recycling myths popularized by neo-Nazi websites". That's an extremely strong statement to make. It isn't just "harsh criticism", it's a specific accusation. Nothing else corrobrates it and the author, described by some editors as an extremist, appears to have a history of libelling people. --FormerIP (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong on so many counts, I am beginning to think you haven't even read the article in question , nor the relevant policies. (1) The statement is about the book, not Sand: "Recycling myths popularized by Neo-Nazi web sites, Sand’s book is a pseudo-analysis..." - this is the heart of the matter, and per the above discussion, allowed by the BLP policy. (2) Your claim that "Nothing else corrobrates[sic] it " is wrong. A very similar claim, that the book repackages Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe (which was debunked by all serious scientific research) was not only made - it appears in the article itself. (3) the author has had exactly one case of libel against him, where he was convicted on 4 counts, of which have been overturned on appeal with the remaining 4th still on appeal.
As to policy, can you explain, in policy terms, exactly why saying a book is "worthless and dishonest" is permissible, but saying that a book 'recycles myths' is a specific accusation that requires multiple sources? HupHollandHup (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) I fail to see how it could be the case that an accustation that the book recycles neo-Nazi material is not an accusation that the author of the book recycles neo-Nazi material; (2) the idea that the book "repackages Koestler" is not corroboration that it "recycles neo-Nazi material" - Koestler is very obviously not a noted neo-Nazi; (3) okay, so there may be a debate about exactly how much libel has been committed by the author of the source.

I haven't claimed that saying a book is "worthless a dishonest" is permissible. I think it would mainly depend on how strong the sourcing is - exactly as in this case. --FormerIP (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be having problems with reading comprehension. Nowhere in the quote that was removed was a claim made that Sand is a neo-Nazi, or that the book recycles neo-Nazi material. The claim was that the book recycles myths, and that the myths were made popular by neo-Nazis. That's far from the same or even similar things. Compare and contrast: "Wagner's music is neo-Nazi" "Wagner's music is popular with neo-Nazis". HupHollandHup (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm noting that a lot of your posts start with personal attacks, Holland. If "Wagner's music is popular with neo-Nazis" is well sourced and relavant enough to his article, then it can go in. The point is not really to do with the syntax of what Plaut says, it is just that, rather than a reputation for fact-checking, Plaut appears to have a reputation as an extremist and a defamer. Linking someone to neo-Nazism is a serious matter however you construct the allegation, BLP applies, strong sourcing isn't needed. This isn't a strong source - as far as I can see that is the only issue. --FormerIP (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the people commenting here disagree with you that there is a BLP violation. You are not able to distinguish between "Wagner's music is popular with neo-Nazis" and "Wagner's music is neo-Nazi". 'nuff said. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is one of the concerns which can be properly discussed here at WP:BLP/N. At some point he might conclude that Plaut's op-ed column tells more about Plaut than it does about Sand. Plaut's view appears to be a tiny-minority view. The relative importance of Plaut's thinking among all those who have publicly commented then becomes an issue for the editors to discuss. Plaut's opinion might belong in our article on Steven Plaut (since he does in fact think that a lot of Jews are anti-Semites, and this can form part of a balanced assessment of what Plaut thinks), but it probably doesn't belong in our article on Sand's book. I am uncertain what position Wikipedia should take if we have a flat statement like 'Joe Smith is an anti-Semite,' quoted from a published editorial by Joe Blow. But we don't have to decide that tricky issue here, if WP:UNDUE says that Plaut's comment is not important to the article anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

there can certainly be OTHER reasons not to include a particular viewpoint, including WP:UNDUE, or WP:Notability - but those are matters to be discussed on the article's talk page, and decided on the basis of editorial consensus. However, the editor who most recently removed the quote in question explicitly denies that he is doing so on the basis of these other reasons (which were raised by others), and says this is a matter of WP:BLP violation, which cannot be trumped by consensus. THAT is the matter I am trying to get the communities input on. You seem to be saying the quote can be used on Plaut's article, which is a clear indication that it is not a WP:BLP violation at all, as BLP applies on every page. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The person who is making that argument is trying to solve the problem of 'Joe Blow claims (in print) that Joe Smith is an anti-Semite.' My comment above is not addressing that. Anyone who sees the Plaut mention in Sands' book's article as an instance of unfounded allegation of anti-Semitism is welcome to continue that discussion, one in which I am not giving an opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am asking for your opinion on a matter of policy: Does saying "'Joe Blow claims (in print) that Joe Smith's work is popular with neo-Nazis.' violate our WP:BLP policy. You have stated that such a claim can be put into the wikipedia article about Joe Blow. To me, that suggests you agree that there is no BLP violation involved (for if there was, such a claim could not go into any wikipedia article)- is that a fair statement of your position? HupHollandHup (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are forcing me to have an opinion on the thing where I had no opinion, I would say that the Steven Plaut article could make some reference to the fact that he considers a lot of people to be anti-Semites. The wording would have to be carefully done, and perhaps specific people should not be mentioned at all unless there is widespread discussion of Plaut's charges about them (by people other than Plaut). EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not at all what I am asking you about. I am asking the following: Does saying "'Joe Blow claims (in print) that Joe Smith's work is popular with neo-Nazis.' violate our WP:BLP policy. If you have an opinion on that, I'd be happy to hear it. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If 'popular with neo-Nazis' is intended as a factual claim, then reliable sources about what material is popular with neo-Nazis could be introduced. If it's just a rhetorical flourish from Plaut, then it might be bundled in with his broad-brush allegations of anti-Semitism, on which I've already given my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's intended as Plaut's opinion of claims made in a book, attributed to him, not as a factual claim in Wikipedia's voice. Since you seem to agree that in such a case it can be included (bundled with other stuff on his article) - can we safely conclude that there's no BLP violation involved? HupHollandHup (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Something which is WP:UNDUE can still be a BLP violation, as you can check if you read WP:BLP: "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." No evidence was provided that Plaut represents a substantial current of opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that's just false. You made the same claim on the article's talk page, and I responded, that the fact that the OpEd got published by two separate 3rd party publications (The Jewish press, FrontPage magazine)indicates it is representative of at least a minority view point, and the section it appeared in the article had 5 other positive reviews, so no claim of "disproportionate space" can convincigly be made . HupHollandHup (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any support for your position HupHollandHup, we don't have to present extreme opinions about anything. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to look a little more carefully, starting at the top. Here, let me help you out:

Wolfview says "presented in a way that it's clear it's a direct quote from a notable source. If so I would think it's acceptable since it is a criticism of a public person's public work.". Johnuniq says "quotes from a well sourced review of a book are not an attack on the author (particularly when they say that the book is worthless and dishonest, not the author)." HupHollandHup (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think these editors may have been misled slightly, because you wrongly described the source as a "review", whereas it is an op-ed by someone who seems fixated on the idea that left-wing Jews are a bit like Nazis. --FormerIP (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks my "reading comprehension" is slow sometimes. I still don't see much or even any support for you addition, actually what is your desired addition, could you please post it here for me to look at please, all this seems a little vague. .. mentions of a notable book and a notable reviewer and so on, I have yet to see your actual desired addition. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The quote that was removed from the article was "According to Steven Plaut, an associate professor at the University of Haifa,

Recycling myths popularized by Neo-Nazi web sites, Sand’s book is a pseudo-analysis that claims that most Jews today are frauds, converts from the Khazar Turkic tribe, impersonators of Jews." Alternatively, we could use another, similar quote from Plaut, from a different article he wrote for the Jewish Press:

Sand recycles the mythology about Israeli Jews being converted Khazar interlopers in his book The Invention of the Jewish People, hailed as groundbreaking scholarship by neo-Nazis, jihadists, and anti-Semites of all stripes. Serious historians have dismissed it as pseudo-academic poppycock.

[26] HupHollandHup (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This article The_Invention_of_the_Jewish_People ? Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the "other reviews" section, which currently consists of 100% positive reviews. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you presenting a cite for the first quote or not? Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's from this Op-Ed:http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/42500 HupHollandHup (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

HHH says that the WP article consists of "100% positive reviews". He quotes from Plaut: Serious historians have dismissed it as pseudo-academic poppycock. Plaut gives one example of a serious historian to back up his statement, Anita Shapira. Anita Shapira's article is being used as a source in the WP article. I'd say that the fact that Plaut's sole example has been used contradicts what HHH claims and also removes the need to quote from the second Plaut article. Hailed as groundbreaking scholarship by neo-Nazis, jihadists, and anti-Semites of all stripes. Perhaps. Though, it would be interesting to know how many of the people listed here, who include Tom Segev, Eric Hobsbawm and, Plaut's own example of a serious historian who opposes Sand, Anita Shapira, Plaut would include in the categories given.     ←   ZScarpia   22:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE, read more carefully, and stop misrepresenting my claims. What I actually claim (and I'll bold the relevant part for you) is that 'the "other reviews" section, which currently consists of 100%positive reviews ". If the existence of Shapira's criticism (in another section) is a reason to exclude Plaut, can we use the existence of Segev's praise too exclude all other positive reviews? HupHollandHup (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have read more carefully. But I think that using the fact that all the opinions currently listed in the Other Reviews section sound positive is a pretty lame reason to give for squeezing in a quote from Plaut that does nothing of value except refer to Anita Shapira's work. If any of the other opinions did nothing useful except refer to somebody else's opinion which has already been described elsewhere in the article, I would say that they should be removed too.

Plaut writes: Sand recycles the mythology about Israeli Jews being converted Khazar interlopers in his book The Invention of the Jewish People, hailed as groundbreaking scholarship by neo-Nazis, jihadists, and anti-Semites of all stripes. Serious historians have dismissed it as pseudo-academic poppycock. Most of what Plaut writes is, being a distortion or misrepresentation, worthless. It would help, for a start, if Plaut wasn't so clumsy with tenses. Sand definitely doesn't say that Israeli Jews are converted Khazar interlopers (just as, referring to your first Plaut source, Ariel Toaff didn't claim to have evidence Jews use gentile blood in religious ritual). Anybody reading The Invention of the Jewish People will quickly also see that Sand doesn't even write that Israeli Jews are all descendants of Khazar converts. Nor does he write that all, or even just some, Israeli Jews do not have any ancient Hebrew ancestry. What he writes is that, for a long time, Judaism was a proselytising religion and therefore the probabilities are that modern Jews are descendants of many different peoples, including, for Eastern European Jews in particular, Jews who settled in Khazaria and Khazar converts to Judaism. In the case of Eastern European Jews, Sand discusses all the writing that was done on the subject of Khazaria from the early 19th century until the 1970s (when the idea of Jews having anything other than fairly pure Jewish ancestry suddenly became something that polite people didn't discuss). Then he lists anthropological, linguistic and demographic evidence which points towards modern Eastern European Jews having descended principally from Jews and converts to Judaism settled in the area occupied by the Khazar kingdom rather than from Western European Jews who migrated eastwards. Sand writes, "There is a good deal of irony in the fact that people who adopted the religion of Moses had been living between the Volga and the Don rivers before the arrival there of Russians and Ukrainians, just as Judaizers had been living in Gaul before it was invaded by Frankish tribes. So, too, in North Africa, where Punics converted to Judaism before the arrival of the Arabs, and in the Iberian Peninsula, where a Judaic culture flourished and struck root before the Christian Reconquista." It's possible that The Invention of the Jewish People was hailed as groundbreaking scholarship by neo-Nazis, jihadists, and anti-Semites of all stripes. Perhaps, if Plaut had been in a more neutral frame of mind, he might have mentioned facts such as that Simon Schama, who is definitely not a neo-Nazi, jihadist or anti-Semite, had commented that such apparently provocative parts of it presented accepted truisms, not revolutionary illuminations, and relentlessly beat "on doors that have long been open." Also, rather than claiming that "serious historians have dismissed it as pseudo-academic poppycock" - mentioning one - he might have listed other serious historians who wrote about the book appreciatively.     ←   ZScarpia   01:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

International Cultic Studies Association

I'm not sure if this might be a problem, BLP-wise. This is a highly controversial organization, which has faced some legal issues. The article contains a long list (several lists in fact) of its officers and employees, a lot of them don't seem to be notable -- at least they are redlinks on WP. I think that being listed in the article might cause problems for some people, and anyway I don't see that listing that information contributes much to the article. Wolfview (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Strongly dispute that this would "cause problems for some people" to be listed at the article. The organization is well respected, and includes a wide swathe of academics from varying points of view. -- Cirt (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Cirt. The listings presented are sourced, and are groups of people that would have no reasonable expectation of privacy where their membership in an organization like this is concerned. As members of a board of directors or advisory board, it's reasonable for them to presume that their membership would be public knowledge, and indeed the source for this information is the group itself. In this case, such a self-published source is perfectly acceptable. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 11:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I still think it's kind of odd for an article on an organization to consist mostly of lists of people involved.Wolfview (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have trimmed the not wikipedia noteworthy leaving the ones notable enough for article, a link to the company website is more that enough for the others. Off2riorob (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a major improvement.Wolfview (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Christian and Nick Candy

High-profile London property developers Christian and Nick Candy could do with some sorting out - I've left some comments on the Talk page. Le Deluge (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed unsourced and poorly sourced info. Tagged as refimproveblp. -- Cirt (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Derren Nesbitt

This biography has recently been significantly expanded by an anon user who claims to be this person. I suspect he probably is, but we have no confirmation of this, and he makes some unsourced claims about his ex-wife (who is still alive). Any suggestions? PatGallacher (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed poorly sourced info. Moved all unsourced info to talk page. Tagged article with issues. -- Cirt (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If it is negative info about a living person, then moving it to the talk pages may not be sufficeint.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Zana Muhsen

"Nadia was finally returned to the UK around 2004, and currently lives in Birmingham with her husband and children. She has spurned media attention and has asked her family to avoid giving public statements to the public and press."

This is not being confirmed by any other sources. Therefore it needs a proper reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.230.210 (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• So, as a first stop, ask the editor who put it in to supply one. Then look for one yourself. And if nothing comes of either of those, remove the content. You know how to edit the relevant user talk and article pages. You've edited this page. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Coreyyeroc

• Coreyyeroc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Have attempted to warn this user about WP:BLP violation at article, Oksana Grigorieva, unfortunately the user keeps up the inappropriate behavior pattern after multiple posts to User talk:Coreyyeroc.

1. Coreyyeroc (talk · contribs), at article, Oksana Grigorieva, removes info sourced to WP:RS secondary source, The Times, claiming he has done WP:OR that is better than this secondary source [27]
2. Coreyyeroc (talk · contribs) removes WP:RS source, Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television published by Thomson Gale - replaces it with less WP:RS source, Daily Mail [28]
3. Coreyyeroc (talk · contribs) does this, again, prior to resolving dispute over the sources on the talk page, [29]
4. Coreyyeroc (talk · contribs) adds this source, yet again, despite having been told previously on the talk page it is inappropriate to link to message board internet forums as the source for the link, he used a link to some message board, "debrief.commanderbond.net" [30]

---

• Requesting uninvolved administrator to give block, and/or warning, to Coreyyeroc (talk · contribs), regarding above WP:BLP issues. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Cirt asked me to take a look at this, so largely uninvolved...

On review, it looks like Coreyyeroc has a somewhat unclear impression of what to do when sources don't entirely agree, under Wikipedia policy.

Will initiate a discussion on the article talk page and their talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The user is aware of the relevant Wikipedia policies, which were provided at the user's talk page. The user has been editing BLP pages on Wikipedia since December 2009. Respectfully, I do not think this is an issue of Coreyyeroc (talk · contribs) having an "unclear" idea, rather of ignoring relevant site policy. -- Cirt (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Carrot, stick, block button... in that order... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good, no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadeq Saba

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

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

92.3.248.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A vicious and unreferenced accusation was made on 12 September 2010 (UTC) about Sadeq Saba, the subject of one of the two articles involved in this post. It was repeated by the same IP user today, 14 September 2010 (UTC). I came across in the course of investigating some unrelated vandalism. I have no previous involvement, although I did edit the article a short while ago; a summary of my edits occurs on its talk page.

I'm requesting a short block on the IP, who was also responsible for this attack on a different BLP subject, Bernard Lewis, and semi-protection for Sadeq Saba, at least, since the attack was so egregious. Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Alex Garcia (chef)

Resolved

 – tweaked and cited, thanks to all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I need to go offline shortly, so I'm hoping someone can take a look at the Alex Garcia article. It previously contained information, sourced to the New York Times, that he had been involved in a money laundering scheme. An IP has recently surfaced that removed the negative information wholesale from the article. I restored it (twice) and pointed the IP to the article talk page to discuss any changes he thought were required (as opposed to the repeated blanking of sourced info without explanation or edit summary). Now a new account (User:LC28) has been created to remove the material and add a chunk of unsourced promotional info. Could a couple BLP gurus take a look at the article and decide if the less than glowing (but sourced) material should be restored? Regardless of the outcome, the article still needs to be pruned back substantially with regard to promotional tone. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• ( Admins, please feel free to top post re this comment. ) Ponyo, I'm not an admin, but I've taken multiple steps in response to this post, including reverting to the last version you saved. Besides that, I posted a lengthy comment to the article's talk page, and also commented on the talk page for user LC28 (talk · contribs). Admin action may still be called for, but I did want to disclose my actions to everyone involved. If user LC28 or any other user does choose to contact me via e-mail regarding this article (see my offer of assistance at Talk:Alex_Garcia_(chef)) I will be happy to forward copies of all such communications to any user who expresses an interest. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ponyo was asking for a BLP guru, not an administrator. Everyone can and should put the BLP policy into practice, using whatever tools that they have. You absolutely should not feel that you are prevented from helping just because you don't have page deletion and protection abilities. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• That guy doesn't look notable to me and the article is not really much of a biography, looks like an AFD waiting to happen, just looking for a decent deletion rational..Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex Garcia (chef) .. - Off2riorob (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm also very uncomfortable that we have a source for some very serious charges, but no source for whether he was convicted and if so, what of, or his "sentence" was. Given that he was (apparently) given probation, he obviously wasn't convicted of anything very serious. Until the outcome of the trial can be sourced I'd say the information needs to stay out of the article, as it gives undue weight to unproven allegations. --Slp1 (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I was just looking around for citations and I found close to nothing, mostly mirrors of our awful stub being propagated across the WWW. Yes, probation is a minor involvement and a year of weekends, might be prison on the weekends some countries do that to allow people to keep their lives intact, but its uncited anyways...The trouble is the press make a big story out of little to sell papers and that is their job done, drug ring, huge money numbers and massive cocaine deals and then their job is done the titillation and sales are completed, they never seem to report that the guy was let off or in the end it was a mistake, they don't give a damn about reporting that. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It may not be much of an article at the moment, but I contest the idea that he's not notable: he's a celebrity chef on the Food Network, he was convicted of a crime notable enough to be mentioned in the Times, and he's got a published book. He may not be a superstar, but he's notable. It's unfortunate that he's currently notable mostly for money laundering, but there it is.

I was able to find a source for the outcome of the trial, which gives a different outcome than the article had originally stated. I've updated the article accordingly. (I searched Google News with the "Archives" option and a search string of "Chef Alex Garcia convicted money laundering".) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm back online now and will take another look at the article; I'll see if I can add some sources for the positive material to balance out the conviction info. Thanks to everyone who jumped in whilst I slept! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well done to MacWhiz for finding a source for the outcome. I'd looked but failed too. How expanding the article and about adding this too? I presume it is the same guy but that would need checking --Slp1 (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it is the same guy, unfortunately.Slp1 (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Molly Windman entry: name incorrect

Name on entry for [Windman] is incorrect. Person goes only by "Molly" and "mememolly" for public purposes and does not disclose her given last name (which is not, in fact, "Windman"). She has never confirmed any last name in her videos or sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrearosen (talk • contribs) 14:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Molly Windman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Off2riorob (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources say it's Windman so I'm not sure what you want doing? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, there were no reliable claims in the article when I got there, claims also that the name windman has been mirrored from here. Personally I saw it as a form of outing likely added by someone who made it up or thought they knew her, when the article was created in that name there were no cites for that name in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

that's interesting, in the time since this query was raised and since I checked the RS I found (maybe 40 minutes), it's been changed (the reliable source not the article) to remove her surname. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, interesting. Anyways, she has kept whatever her name is private and it adds nothing but titillating outing , and we have the added issue that it actually may originate from here in the first place. Meme Molly is plenty enough for me in this case, especially as she is an internet personality and that is her notable name. Clearly if she stats that is her name in a cite then that is fine but not right now.Off2riorob (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob is right to remove her name from the page. After all, it meets WP:NCCN to name the article after what people know her as. Since it's debatable if her last name is even Windman, obviously people don't commonly know her as Windman. I dispute that it's a BLP issue to discuss the name Windman, though. tedder (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Opps, I've just added it to the article based upon a Huffington Post article I came across. HP is a reliable source right? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Situationally. — e. ripley\^talk 16:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Nawang Gombu

This BLP looks to be unreferenced, except for one reference to an "online bio" that's nowhere near a source for the claims of the article. Before I do a copy-edit on it, I thought I'd check here for opinions on how much of the article is justified in remaining... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

trimmed to a stub by User:Active Banana - needs improving if anyone is interested in mountaineering. Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

sorry, should have reported back myself! Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 22:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Duane Dickey

• Duane Dickey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - While sourced, the only information on this person is negative. I question whether a person of questionable notability should have a biographical article consist soley of a misdeed. Kablammo (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I did a google news and book search and his name is only coming up in relation to the banning - maybe a BLP1E redirect to drugs in cycling or something? Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 17:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I proposed the article for deletion.Wolfview (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Crater

• Andrew Crater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - same as above. Kablammo (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont have time to add it to the article, but this guy [31] has set some records and stuff. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 18:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Inés Sainz

Inés Sainz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Appears to be involved in some minor and very recent scandal, but may actually be notable outside of that. Current article could likely do with some trimming of phrases like "The Hottest Sports Reporter in Mexico" for a start. Can someone with an interest in Mexican sports take a look? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

How'd I know this one would show up here when I saw the fluff piece on GMA this morning? Sadly, give it a few days, and I'm sure there will be all sorts of well-sourced links with biographical information about this reporter... most of which will be quoted not so much violating WP:BLP as WP:RECENT. Sigh. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The google news had like 4 hits for her in 2009 and 2900+ in the past month. I could not find much yet about her actual career prior to the incident. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Gary A. Olson

This appears to be a vanity article. Most of the edits come from a URL corresponding to his office.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.168.101.182 (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Cuomo

Mojofan1945 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists [32] [33] on restoring a controversies section to Andrew Cuomo. I removed it because such sections aren't included on BLPs since they violate WP:NPOV (see also WP:CRIT). Thoughts? ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 17:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Without addressing the contention that controversies sections aren't allowed on BLPs—I can't say I'm familiar enough to say one way or the other on that issue—I can say that these edits to this article are highly non-NPOV, and in some cases seem to be WP:SYN as well. There's also no context for them, which makes them prejudicial. I don't think they belong in the article. I could potentially see where some of them might qualify for inclusion if they were written with more and better sources, more context, and a better indication of the current status of the claim... and even then almost certainly not as part of a "Criticism" heading. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BLP explicitly allows controversial information: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." It does go on to say that section titles should be neutral, so the word "controversy" is a bad section. Furthermore, I agree with Macwhiz that this particular section is full of NPOV info; the Village Voice part, for instance, violates WP:UNDUE (one journalist's opinion is not relevant to this article), and several parts of that section aren't even "controversies" (like the last two paragraphs). Some (not much) of that info could be moved to the rest of the article, under suitable subheadings, but not much of it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, can you check that my re-write of it [34] is inline with the various policies. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 22:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Biography of Raymond Harris Brown - Jazz musician

Ray's middle name is not Harris, it is Harry. I have fixed the body of the biography page but the title needs to be adjusted accordingly

Thanks

Roger Brown Brother of Raymond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbrown3815 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A supporting WP:RS for this would be nice, anyone? Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• - Raymond Harris Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Off2riorob (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

We are still looking at this, a user is checking, if anyone has any citations or information that would be appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Ray's brother for correcting this. The below 6 citations confirm (or jibe) that the title should read: Raymond Harry Brown. The Title has been moved (and the request for moving of edit history is forthcoming).Eurodog 10:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

1. ASCAP Biographical Dictionary, 4th ed. ("Raymond Harry Brown"), compiled for the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers by Jaques Cattell Press, published 1980 by R.R. Bowker Co., New York
2. Biographical Dictionary of Jazz ("Raymond H. Brown"), Charles Eugene Claghorn, Prentice-Hall (1982)
3. Leonard Feather & Ira Gitler, The Encyclopedia of Jazz in the Seventies ("Raymond H. Brown") (1976)
4. William Harold Rehrig (1939- ), The Heritage Encyclopedia of Band Music: Composers and Their Music, two volumes, Integrity Press, Westerville, OH (1991)
5. Ithaca College alumni records ("Raymond H. Brown")
6. U.S. Copyright records ("Raymond Harry Brown")

This has become a little more complicate as a user has done a cut and paste move of Raymond Harris Brown to Raymond Harry Brown. I have undone the cut and added the appropriate template to Raymond Harry Brown. I will also file a fix request at the holding pen. – ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Bradley Manning

Bradley Manning is the U.S. army soldier accused of leaking documents to Wikileaks, possibly including the so-called Afghan War Diary. Manning was arrested as a result of chat logs forwarded by Adrian Lamo to the U.S. government. In the past few months, some fairly reliable sources ([35] and [36], for instance), have argued that these chat logs, in addition to various statements made on Manning's Facebook account, strongly indicate that Manning is secretly transgendered. Now, usually we only identify aspects of a person's sexual identity if the person has self-identified; for example, in Manning's case, based on reliable reports of his/her having a boyfriend, s/he is identified as being gay. Manning has never explicitly claimed to be transgendered; currently, Manning is being held with no access to the media, so he can't possibly comment on the issue (and, of course, if convicted of something, could easily be held out of the media indefinitely). The question is, would we be violating WP:BLP to state that these other reliable sources have drawn the conclusion that, as a whole, Manning's statements and the chat logs imply it possible or likely that s/he is transgender? While I lean towards keeping the info out, I tend to be a strict interpreter of BLP policy, while others on the talk page are concerned that not including "likely" information could be equally harmful. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Gawker a particularly reliable source, personally; that's the same media group that obtained the iPhone 4 through highly suspect means before its release, which speaks poorly of their journalistic ethics. The other article is unsubstantiated gossip, referring to unidentified "reports" to offer mere speculation. I wouldn't consider either source sufficient to make a claim about this person's sexual orientation.

But furthermore, I see absolutely no relevance to the claim. It looks to me like those who claim relevance on the chat page mainly do so out of a broad generalization that the sexual orientation of any U.S. soldier who doesn't have a conventional heterosexual lifestyle is automatically relevant, and doubly so in a case of wrongdoing. I don't buy that. Likewise, I don't accept that "the media has speculated about this widely" to be justification for its inclusion. The media is notorious for speculating wildly—and, usually, incorrectly—about a vast number of things, especially when they have no real information. Speculation is not encyclopedic, and it may well amount to fringe theories.

Absent a concrete, clear, specific, documented link between his (supposed) sexual orientation and/or gender identification and his reason for notability (his alleged crime), this gossip has no place in a BLP. Including it would be non-NPOV and would tend to victimize the subject—whom, I note, has yet to be convicted of a crime. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Double-checking

Am I reading the Wendy Murphy article correctly? Does the article essentially consist of calling her a liar? Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a candidate for an A7 speedy delete to me...? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

She has plenty of independent coverage in reliable sources, (confirmed via a quick GNews search). so definitely not an A7 candidate. My concern was more that, save for the opening sentence, the stub was essentially calling her out as a liar. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a two-sentence article, and one of them calls her a liar... seems WP:UNDUE. If the article is then down to one sentence, it might make more sense for it not to exist until someone writes a better one... or that was my line of thought. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody can think of some new content to add. The links that are provided to her own commentary suggest she considers herself to have a 'pundit' license that allows her to make broad-brush assertions. (Sam Adams of Salon quotes her as saying 'You have to appreciate my role as a pundit is to draw inferences and make arguments on behalf of the side which I'm assigned,' she said in 2007.) It is true that Sam Adams called her a liar, which I guess he can do, but we are not saying that in Wikipedia's voice. Someone might expand the article by working in a link to Murphy's 2007 book 'And justice for some', and might search to see if she ever responded to the charge by Sam Adams. She does have a personal blog, which is linked in our article, but it has not been updated since 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Missler

An editor believes that there are BLP issues in this article - see the discussion I've moved from my talk page at Talk:Chuck Missler. As it is partially about an edit of mine (the sentence about his ties to the Patriot Movement and Christian Zionism, and I also reverted a deletion by the complainant, I thought I should bring it here for others to review. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I quite like his position as regards this edit. Off2riorob (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing the sourced statement " although he is described as neither racist nor anti-Semitic.<"? Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Haines

This current candidate for mayor of a Canadian city (who has previously failed to a bid to be a provincial rep), seems to have an enthuaistic supporter.

This article has no citations, is extravagent (discussing his family's ancestory), doesn't really have specifics (which MPs has he helped? what's the company he was CEO of?), and it really needs someone without any knowledge of him and his campaign to look at its notability, etc. I'd do it, but I'm a registered voter in said city, and not a fan of him, so it mightn't be an NPOV cleanup. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I deleted some copyvio from his campaign site and took it to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Haines Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Support the AFD - fails WP:POLITICIAN. – ukexpat (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Catfish (film)

• Catfish (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This film, which opens today, calls itself a documentary. The filmmakers are asking the press to not disclose the last name of the family the documentary features. However, the last name appears in the film's article as it is from reliable sources the plot summary cites. Given that one of the family's members is eight years old, does BLP behoove us to remove the last name from the article despite 1) doing so potentially violating WP:SPOILERS and WP:CENSORED and 2) as stated, the information easily being available via the cites? PS - The article has been under attack in the past by those attempting to delete spoilers (not the last name) in violation of WP:SPOILERS, and it's possible the filmmakers' request is part of such an effort (see the above-linked interview). // YLee (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting situation, some say documentary some say false. Anyways, as I understand we are presently allowing spoilers, aside from that as regards personal details about the (possibly handicapped)eight years old girl, imo we could be a bit restrictive about those personally identifying details at least for a few weeks to see how it unfolds it the public realm. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Consistent addition of unsourced material

• LoveActresses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I'm having a really hard time convincing this new editor that WP:BLP and WP:V are Wikipedia policies that need to be read and understood when editing biography articles. Since creating an account a couple of weeks ago LoveActresses has been adding tons of unsourced personal information to BLPs and seems intent on adding whether the actress appeared nude or semi-nude in any of the scenes. My discussions with the editor on both of our talk pages, complete with a plea to read and understand WP:BLP and WP:RS, has completely fallen on deaf ears as they just created Dahlia Salem with no references and it was chock full of trivia. Can anyone help me review this editor's contributions to weed out the unsourced nudity info (which is trivial anyway), and personal information and perhaps impress upon the editor that BLP policy is something that needs to be adhered to? Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking an Administrator to help me with this. All the biographies of actors I've seen have sometimes big paragraphs without any sourcing that are never deleted. Also, I've seen somewhere at least one Administrator accepting IMDb.com despite the reservations towards it. A plural group of Administrators would be useful to assure unbiasness. LoveActresses (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Plus, the above user has removed Tatiana von Fürstenberg from the categories of Jewish and German Americans, when her parents' biographies are very clear about that. I won't say I'm allways right and Ponyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is allways wrong, but some assistant is needed. Thank you. LoveActresses (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Knowingly, most information of actors comes from IMDb, despite its flaws. LoveActresses (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

One last request: can we both please not revert any of eachothers edits before an Administrator's saying? Thank you. LoveActresses (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• - We presently do not use IMDb for any biographical personal details. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

When and if that will change? Perhaps if the Board of Trustees of Wikipedia or whoever should talk to whoever runs IMDb.com in order to solve this issue. LoveActresses (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We are very careful, even conservative, with our policy on the biographies of living persons (BLPs). All such articles should be referenced, and in particular anything that might be at all controversial, rather positive or negative, needs sourcing. We do have a very large problem in that there are many thousands of BLPs that don't meet our standards, but they should not be used as examples of how to edit.

And people should not be added to ethnic categories unless their religion is clearly relevant. I'm not sure it should matter, but I am an Administrator. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity and religion are different things. There are categories for ethnicity regardless of religion where many people are included. It makes no sense. I've seen some pages where their origin is mentioned anyway. Perhaps it would be convenient if an Administrator could respond to Ponyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s removals seeing each case for itself, and each content for itself. LoveActresses (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think is important for articles to note if an actress has been partially nude in a film? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's significant as part of their acting career, and as part as "how far they go" as actresses. About the sourcing, however, the films themselves work as a source, there is no need of one. How can anyone doubt a film that exists and just delete the information? Certainly they don't want me to source the claims with those abusive internet screenshots?... LoveActresses (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, should IMDb.com data about height be considered unreliable? Who would lie about height? If I can reintroduce some of these deleted elements, how can I do it without someone cry "Incident!" and make my work go to waste? LoveActresses (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is not reliable source and should not be used. Also if you try and reintroduce the partial nude elements, please provide reliable sources that talk about why it is an important part of that actress's career or it is likely they will removed on sight as WP:UNDUE. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

<edit conflict>If you would simply take the time to read the policies I have directed you to (in edit summaries, on your talk page, and in depth on my talk page), everthing would be illuminated.. I have repeated, ad nauseum, that IMDB is not a reliable source for personal information. Period. This is not my personal opinion, this is Wikipedia policy on verifiability and sourcing. I've requested repeatedly that you read WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V - it is important that these policies are read and understood if you are going to continue to edit biography articles. Most importantly, do not restore or continue to add unsourced information to the biography articles - it will be removed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• User:LoveActresses, you are getting very good advice and likely help from these users as regards policy and guidelines, the best way forward would be for you to accept it and read some of the links and there will be no need for any reverting. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ponyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed sourced information on Brenda Bakke's article. He/she has also removed a big chunck of Ely Pouget's Biography and Career. Is also constantly removing the categories on Tatiana von Fürstenberg's article when her parents' article specifically states that her father is German and her mother is Jewish. Can an Administrator please put a hold on this? Thank you. LoveActresses (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, without looking at the edits, User:Ponyo is imo understanding of policy and guidelines, the adding of ethnicity and other similar cats is quite controversial and should not be done lightly or if there is no content in the article that supports it. May I suggest you read this Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality - Off2riorob (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it and it's ununderstandable. People have their own ethnicity no matter if "its important for the description of the article", they, we just do. LoveActresses (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, user Ponyo removed a picture that sourced a fact on [[Claire Stansfield}}'s article saying "a blog is not a source". A blog is not a source, but what about a picture? Is the picture less real because it appears on a blog? It's as good a place as any other. LoveActresses (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A picture is unable to source any fact at all as blogs are also pretty much not welcome here as WP:RS. Perhaps you would benefit from the assistance that WP:ADOPTION brings in regards to these issues. IMO the first step you would do well to take is a backwards one and to listen to the advice being offered to you. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"An image is worth a thousand words." This is ideological blindness. LoveActresses (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We have policies and guidlines, if you don't agree with them I suggest you go to the relevant talkpage and discuss that there, untill you manage to change them you should comply with them, personal attacks mentioning Nazis is one of the fastest ways to get your editing privileges restricted, please as I suggested, take a step back. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor is now engaging in personal attacks on my talkpage and seems to have a bad case of I DIDN'T HEAR THAT. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The permutations for how to present policies and guidelines to LoveActresses have all but been exhausted, and this is definitely a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The fact that he/she's throwing around words like "difimation"(sic) and "nazis" on your talk page certainly does not bode well either. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine, sorry about that, I exceeded myself when he threatened me of blocking just because I didn't agree with his way of dealing with things and his subjective interpretation. LoveActresses (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not Cameron Scott's "subjective interpretation", it is Wikipedia policy. He was not threatening you with a block, he was giving you fair warning that if you continue on the path you have chosen you will likely be blocked for disruptive editing. You have had multiple experienced editors, admins and noticeboard specialists advise you that your interpretations are wrong - it is time to cease and desist and either read and comply with our editing guidelines here, or, as I suggested on your talk page, find an environment that is more suitable to your editing style. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This has hopefully been resolved but while the discussion is long so I may have missed it and there's been plenty of good advice, it's mostly focussed on this specific dispute. But I don't think you really understand how wikipedia works LoveActressess. Administrators are taken to be trusted and experienced wikipedians with a good understanding of policy, so you should usually take their advice on board and they words generally carry weight. But there are plenty of wikipedians with similar experience and trust who aren't admins, and it would be a big mistake for you to ignore these people simply because they are not admins. The only thing admins do have over other wikipedians is a set of tools, which they may use in accordance with policy and the consensus of the community primarily as a means to protect wikipedia, for example when there are disputes. But admins don't rule over disputes. Also the chance the WMF or Jimbo Wales or whatever is going to rule on IMDB being a reliable source is close to zero. This is something left up to the community Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Pat Burns

• Pat Burns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — This is just a heads-up: a number of major media outlets reported earlier today that Burns was dead, which apparently he is not. This has caused predictable turmoil on Twitter and in the history of our article. Complicating matters is that he's not in good shape, and more unofficial news of this sort could easily appear. At the moment the article seems stable, so I haven't protected it, but watchers over the next few days at least would be much appreciated. Chick Bowen 04:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have selttled down now, we have this statement from the subject .. Pat Burns: "They want to kill me before I'm dead!". IMO when such twitter and blog o sphere outbreaks occur, semi protection of the BLP should be an early consideration. Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Quincy Jones III

Is anyone keeping an eye on this article? Every now and then there is a large expansion made and it becomes decidedly unwiki, promotional, tabloidesque, etc. Would be great if someone would watch it. Sorry I can't for personal reasons. This has now taken place again in the last few days. I do not question these contributors' good faith, but there may be some lack of knowledge about how to write Wikitext and what should go in and what should not. As it looks today it is not a credit to English WP, nor to Mr. Jones who I think deserves better, i.e. a good WP article. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This message copied from the article talk page.  Chzz  ►  18:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I stubbed it - it's completely unsourced. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff; omelets/eggs, etc. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Off-topic aside: Yar!

Joaquín Guzmán Loera

Not dealing much in the criminal sphere, it seems like calling someone's occupation a "drug lord" would require specific reliable sources? Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Forbes isn't a good enough source? He's listed with that occupation as one of the richest people on earth with about $1B in wealth. There are tons of sources, from the DEA to Mexican government verifying this too. He's the largest, most successful trafficker on the planet.jlcoving (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Seal (musician)

Some dubious / disputed facts and references on this one; see recent discussions on the talk page. It could do with some attention.  Chzz  ►  02:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

((morgan griffith))

Morgan Griffith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Morgan Griffith's campaign, based in Christiansburg, Virginia, continues to remove accurate, well-sourced information about Morgan Griffith, effectively transforming this wikipedia article into a free campaign advertisement as the information they remove is unflattering and they leave only what a reasonable person would presume to be positive information // mike543210

The information you added was contentious and uncited. It was properly removed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And he's been blocked for edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Christine O'Donnell

This diff includes claims that she is "promiscuous" and that "she engages in "witchcraft". I reverted an IP once but they reverted me back on the "promiscuous" claim. The witchcraft-related edit was added later by someone else. Are negative edits of this kind allowed under BLP? I know, of course, the WP:RS stuff etc. but I find these claims very negative. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Negative claims which are relevant to the subject's notability are obviously allowed, if well sourced and bearing in mind WP:UNDUE. For example, I'm pretty sure all 3 of the recent US presidents articles mention how they dabbled in drugs (well from looking in Bush's case how he has never confirmed or denied anything). The Clinton article must have a whole section dedicated to the Lewinsky scandal. One guide would be how well covered the details are in reliable secondary sources.

The promiscious thing is presented in the context of how she says she has realised what it's like to life 'without principle', which appears to be part of her campaign so is likely okay although perhaps could be worded differently. The witchcraft thing is a bit odd and out of place at least based on current sourcing. (Notably it's clear from the current source it's something that has recently re-arisen as an attack on her and while that doesn't mean it doesn't belong, it does mean we should take care in deciding whether it merits inclusion.) The article itself does seem a little negative to me, but I admit my personal beliefs are generally quite far from what hers appear to be, so what seems negative to me may perhaps not be quite so bad to others.

(As a case in point, the promiscious and witchcraft thing sound somewhat negative the way they are worded but otherwise would not have much of a negative impact my view of her, barring how they may disagree with how she presents herself. The fact that she doesn't 'believe' in evolution for example far more negatively impacts my view of her, let alone her views on abortion.)

Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis. I tend to agree with you on both counts, even though I am not familiar with the subject matter at all. It seems however to be a very politically charged article. As soon as I reverted an IP on BLP grounds, they were screaming something about tea-time on the article talkpage. I didn't even know what they were talking about until I guessed. Anyway the reference to promiscuity is from a rather obscure source (a small town newspaper) and could be improved by citing a better source but I understand your analysis based on the larger picture of her political reform. The witchcraft mention seems to me to be exceptional and on the WP:UNDUE side but I am not an expert on the subject of that article; nevertheless it seems like quite strong an accusation for a BLP. I may read a bit more on it just to evaluate this strong claim but I am not particularly interested in this type of political article. It just concerns me that in the 21st century women can still be portrayed as Jezebels, WP:RS or not. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That O'Donnell "dabbled in witchcraft" is difficult to dispute; she said just that on national television, and that has now been reported by the Associated Press. However, nothing in the cited article links that activity to coming "to a turning point", so I don't think it's appropriate to be in the article at that location. The context is misleading. It might be better if it were mentioned in the proper context, as taken from the cited source. It would have to be brief to avoid WP:UNDUE. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Context is important. If she actually declared this herself we should take care to put it in the appropriate context and not magnify it. Your suggestions make sense. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The comment from the Bill Maher's Politically incorrect show from 2009 that she dabbled in witchcraft is meaningless and is only being added to attack her as Mathers is attacking her with it. You might as well also add when she was ten she had an imaginary friend. It is a minuscule issue in her life and really apart from making her look silly has no informative value in the article at all. Basically it is the same for she was promiscuous when she was a student, there is nothing notable about that at all and its addition is an undue negative portrayal, as in.. she a nympho devil worshiper vote democrat. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact itself is meaningless. However, in the context of her political career, it might merit inclusion as an example of media coverage concerning her. Of course, any such thing is a veritable BLP minefield, but I wouldn't reject the possibility that it could be done out of hand. Considering the statement as a bare fact, though, I agree with you. But, for this particular candidate, if we reject all the things the press comes up with about her that seem... silly... I fear we'll wind up with a biased article by omission. The scale of the media reaction to this candidate seems arguably noteworthy in and of itself at this point. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well.... in 2010 in the run up to the election the democrat press attacked her by asserting she was a nympho witch. It is simple attack type partisan electioneering and its unworthy of us to also do it. I couldn't find the witch claim in the article, it may have already been removed. Although this is a minor case as regards the issue, Jimmy said it well recently in a discussion about the way political BLP articles are edited in the run up to elections. " Editors seeking to write hatchet jobs on political opponents should be firmly opposed."--User:Jimbo Wales diff - Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that these labels seem politically motivated. What I find amazing nevertheless is that the centuries-old stereotype of a woman-as-Jezebel would be resurrected with such vigour in the 21st century. It is simply unbelievable. At least to me. Also thank you Rob for mentioning Jimbo's reaction. It is good to know. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard E. Spear

I've been asked by the article creator to look at the biography now at User:Atspear/Richard E. Spear, and I've done a bit of cleanup of it. But the notability isn't as clearcut as I like (perhaps due to my lack of familiarity with the guidelines), so I'd appreciate another opinion - and if someone else thinks the bio is okay in articlespace, I'd appreciate it even more if it were moved there by someone else. (More info: the author is the spouse of the subject of the bio; I've helped her a bit on Wikipedia editing, but otherwise there is no relationship involving me.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Eek!

This entire page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam C. Winfield is completely out of control. I would suggest that an admin delete it and start it over with a prominent notice to source all allegations. The man may be innocent for chrissakes. (I don't know about the article, but at least the statements there are sourced, I guess). Herostratus (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I don't think deletion discussion pages are covered by WP:RS. You don't have to source your opinions about whether or not an article gets deleted. If there are any particularly slanderous statements, it may be appropriate to redact them (although editing other people's comments is not recommended except in extreme circumstances). SnottyWong ^express 23:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ronnie Martin

Is this source acceptable for use? Seems to be a private e-mail that was made public (not sure by who) from a BLP (Ronnie Martin). The source also contains an address, and was used in different articles. 1 2 3 4 5. I started to remove the sourcing from the articles, but then stopped once I realized it was a BLP making claims about themselves. However, that still leaves the question as to who made the information public and the address within the e-mail. I'm not 100% sure what to do with this, so bringing this here for help Akerans (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, the message is from a public mailing list. The artist posted to the public list and the reference sited is the public archive of the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tr707 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No that source is not what we are looking for to support anything in a BLP. We are looking for high quality independent publications which that is clearly not. That cite doesn't seem to be in the article now, actually, the guy doesn't look notable enough for his own article on wikipedia and would be better mergesd back into Joy electric or wherever is the best location for him. Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the link from anywhere I found it. Basically there is multiple articles about this group person and also not notable albums, I would delete the lot of them as not notable and perhaps condense to a single article. Whole lot looks like promotional fluff to me. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Mohammad Salim Al-Awa

Mohammad Salim Al-Awa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This Wikipedia article does not adhere in any way to the standards of Biography articles. The article does not present any background information or relevant data about the person discussed. It seems that the article was created by someone with the aim of defaming the person being biographed.

Citations like

These allegations have caused a mass of protests of muslim extremists against copts including calls to boycot coptic businesses and products. are not accompanied by any sources and seem extremely subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.229.9 (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Live_(band)#Hiatus_and_break-up

This section is sourced to court records. Is that okay in terms of BLP? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the primary cite http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/C_PDF?CatID=591886&CID=601267-2010&FName=0 and the content it supported, its valueless. We want independent reliable reports of things, that makes them clearly notable and then we report on those reports. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Brett Ratner

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

I work at Rubenstein, and we represent Mr. Ratner. The 'Early Life' section of the entry has been under scrutiny for over two years. Many editors have argued that it does not belong on the page, citing its irrelevance and non-NPOV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brett_Ratner#Rush_Hour_3). To mitigate any conflict of interest and to avoid a potential edit war, I am writing to the Noticeboard, asking that you look into the situation, and remove the content, if warranted. //Brycetom (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No it has no place in a WP:BLP and User:Cameron Scott has imo correctly removed it as undue in this edit. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit ...Meh... on the issue itself. I'll buy into the undue aspect for the purposes of our article...but the director chose to put a scene in based on his personal experiences...and then decided to tell a reporter that the scene was based on his personal experiences. Has something been retracted that we haven't been made aware of? "It happens to a lot of people"...sure it does. --Onorem♠Dil 18:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Multiple wp:blp vios in Pyrros Dimas

The article has been recently hit for unexplained reasons: twice it was moved to Pirro Dhima (changed his initial Greek name form to Albanian) without any explaination in the talkpage. During the last move, User:Sulmues gave the edit summary: [[37]] More results in google books.

However, this is completely wrong since the previous name has (in English bibliography):

"Pyros Dimas" 176 hits, while the current:

"Pirro Dhíma" 2 hits.

We have a 1:88 ratio that favours Pyrros Dimas, not to mention google search in general. Also his official site is here [[38]] (Quite obvious which name form he preferrs)

For the record, the article has been several times brought to wp:blp/noticeboard in past due to edit warring.Alexikoua (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

When User:Sulmues' was asked for explanations for this move he just answered with sarcasm [[39]] (mentioned editor is under wp:ae ban due to excessive wp:npa violations).Alexikoua (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Stephene Moore

Hi all. I'm fairly new to this so apologies in advance for any mistakes. I'm having an ongoing dispute with User:InaMaka regarding his/her edits and edit summaries to Stephene Moore. I don't want to infuse this with too much of my own bias except to say I think there are some pretty clear WP:NPOV issues going on here, which have been discussed unsuccessfully here [40], here [41] and here [42] as well as tangentially in a Wikiquette alert here [43]. Any guidance a more experienced editor could provide would be profoundly appreciated. Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To anyone that wants to assist this brand new editor, Arbor832466, please review each and every edit to the Stephene Moore article. I think you will find that each and every that I did in the last two days follows the rules of Wikipedia to the T. I removed about 75% of the puffery that was in the article. If you review the article and if you compare the article to Ms. Moore's biography on the website for her Congressional campaign or her bio on the website for the Kansas Democrats (you can review her Kansas Democratic party bio here) you will see that her article on Wikipedia was merely a direct cut and paste of that article--which of course violates copyright, but it was also stuffed full of puffery and redundancies. I tried to tone down the rah! rah! go team wording in the article as much as possible, but I am not sure if I was fully successful. Also, there are real questions about whether should be an article about her at all based upon what is in the article. Based upon what is in the article currently I raised the valid question of whether she meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia. She has never held elected office. It is basic point in bio notability that a mere candidate does not qualify. No BLP issues in the Stephene Moore article, but there are serious notability issues, copyright issues, and puffery issues. The article was written like an advertisement! Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I totally agree that the Stephene Moore article needs some work. The edit summaries [44] and commentary InaMaka left on my talk page [45] are what I was trying to bring up here. The appropriate place for a notability discussion is Talk:Stephene Moore. Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• - Political candidates are not notable for that reason alone, sent to AFD for discussion, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephene_Moore - Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it, that anything I look at in Wikipedia, always leads to the Koch family and their money? Is it only the US campaign season? Anyway, looks like Stephene Moore is targeted by a Koch smear campaign, so the article may need special attention. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, there is no sign of that, she is a not notable 57-year-old nurse with no political experience and she is unworthy of a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The article seems to contain citations to independent coverage by Congressional Quarterly, the Associated Press, Politico, and local news outlets. That's a pretty strong case for notability. While we're here, I'm a little curious about this edit summary... MastCell ^Talk 21:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I sent the Bio to AFD for discussion there has been additional mentions added, all of which does not make her any more notable at all, she is a candidate for an election, apart from that she is a nurse. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

She has been the primary subject of articles in Congressional Quarterly [46] [47], Politico [48], the Lawrence Journal World [49], the Associated Press [50] [51], and the Kansas City Star [52] [53]. Hope that helps clear this up. Arbor832466 (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A few write up won't remove the fact that she is not noteworthy, her BLP was created in the last couple of months and if she loses she will be a nurse that fails to win a election, suit yourselves, I am in the UK and she is not noteworthy unless she wins, which as I have seen from the odds and percentages....at worst she will be a one event no notable, we can delete it later. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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

I need help! I only joined Wikipedia to address a concern about an article and don't know my way around or how to fix misinformation. In an article about the living musician Lee Michaels, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Michaels) there are factual errors without citations that affect me personally and negatively and are potentially harmful to our family business. (If it is of any help Lee Michaels is my father and I know for a fact the statements are false).

In short the claim is as follows, "For many years, Michaels owned a chain of restaurants, named "Killer Shrimp", around Southern California. Apparently, after a trip to New Orleans, Michaels invented a dish that his friends liked enough to urge him to open a restaurant. As of 2008, the last two Killer Shrimp locations have closed and there are apparently no plans to reopen." The problem is this, there are plans to reopen Killer Shrimp. We are actively seeking a new location and plan to reopen as soon as we find a suitable location. I do not wish to promote Killer Shrimp on Wikipedia, however I'm not real happy about the claim that we have no plans to reopen as this is 1) false, 2) un-sourced, and 3) has the potential to make people think the brand is dead... it's not. I don't understand all the Wikipedia policies but something about the qualifier "apparently" just sits wrong with me and to make matters worse there is nothing apparent about the statement. Please see www.killershrimp.com , apparently Killer Shrimp is re-opening in summer 2010.

Also on the talk page there is a strange unsubstantiated post making wild claims without any sources. It's pretty bad stuff and I'm at a loss as to how to proceed. I posted a rebuttal but would be happier if both the original talk page poster's rant and my rebuttal were removed. Any help with this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You VasDeff (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A note that Summer 2010 has passed. Has it reopened? I removed the speculation that there are no plans to reopen. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! And yes I'm well aware that summer 2010 is over, we are working hard to sign a lease and reopen, it's harder than you might think to find the right space, but we are on our game and will re-open soon. Thanks for the quick action I had no idea things moved so quickly around here. Can I remove the hearing loss bit myself? there is no citation and it's false information, as well as grammatically confusing, I'm no English major but wow that was a glaring. Cheers, VasDeff (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Vipin_Gopal

1. This article seem to violate the notability guidelines. The only notability seems to have been being quoted in a couple of articles.

2. Includes unsubstantiated claims. Especially the one about coining the phrase "God's Own Country" without any evidence. This has been removed, but, from looking at the article history this will soon be reinstated by the a user named biriyani. My earlier edit removing this claim was undone by this user stating "Person has not done his/her research before concluding if this substantiated or not.". According this user, it is the reader's responsibility to do the reserach regarding these claims!

Note that these pages either point to the articles/web pages created by the Mr. Vipin Gopal himself or to dead links. For e.g. the scanned image of an article "Internetil Mananchira Squarum Malayalavum" seems to be on a web site which holds nothing else, and probably created only to host that image!

Kaalikkuttan (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Instinto Asesino

This article, which has no sources, lists people without articles as murderers and pedophiles, et al. I have other work presently so hope someone can offer ways to address these issues. Cat clean (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)