Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.82.13.51 (talk) at 10:49, 24 October 2010 (→‎Jona Lendering). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

    Additional notes:




    Details of Lester Coleman's imprisonment

    Hi! At Talk:Lester_Coleman#Inmate_Locator we are discussing whether to use Lester Coleman's Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate locator profile, which lists his name, age (not his date of birth), race, federal prison number, and official release date: BOP link - This is a primary source

    He is the only Lester Coleman listed, and the database covers all federal inmates since 1982. The entry certainly refers to the Lester Coleman we are discussing.

    • This page states: "Please note: It is possible that a record may exist for an individual who was in BOP custody but never served a sentence of incarceration (e.g., a person was detained pre-trial but criminal charges were dismissed, held as a material witness, held for civil contempt)." - So every type of person who entered the federal civilian prison system is covered.

    We know he was imprisoned in the federal system based off of a New York Times article ( New York Times article), and the article gave out what his sentence is - it does not say what his prison ID is, and I haven't found his prison ID or any other release date in any secondary source

    I argued for including this information since it supplements details about his incarceration already known from the New York Times article, based off of Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources - The other poster argued that I need a secondary source anyway.

    Any comments? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The NY Times article says he was released in 1997. The Rumor Mill and other unreliable sources say he was imprisoned in 1999 and sentenced to 8 months for writing bad checks. If WhisperToMe wants to use this information in the article, he needs to find reliable sources that show that the rumors are true and that the 2000 conviction was notable enough to be included in this biography of a living person. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes we need some more details, adding this - Lester Coleman served time in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) system. Coleman, BOP#47321-019, was released on December 7, 2000.[5] - makes no sense, why was he held? was he charged? was he guilty of anything? without any details the additions asks more questions than it answers. I know Lester claims he was held without charge around this time and alleged miss treatment, and was released without charge after months. But those details would all need reliably citing. Off2riorob (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The questions on why was he charged, why was he held, etc. are answered in the NYT article.
    As a matter of fact, before the sentence about him being held by the BOP, there is...
    "On September 11, 1997, Coleman stated to a New York Federal court that "...he lied when he claimed that a secret drug sting enabled terrorists to evade airport security in the bombing..." In a plea agreement, Coleman was sentenced to time served, which was five months, and six months' home confinement under electronic monitoring."
    The sentence about his BOP confinement came after that. Even if he served home confinement only and never set foot in an actual BOP prison facility, he was still under BOP supervision.
    I don't see the NY Times saying he was released in 1997. What the NYT specifically says is:
    "Mr. Coleman faced up to five years' imprisonment and a $250,000 fine on each of the five counts to which he pleaded guilty yesterday. In a plea agreement, however, the Government agreed to a sentence of time served, which was five months, and six months' home confinement under electronic monitoring, according to court documents." - So he pled guilty on September 11, 1997, and was given the sentence above.
    I did not consider any articles for Rumor Mill in anything that I proposed or did.
    Also to my knowledge each person has the same BOP number for life; I don't think the number changes if someone receives a new conviction.
    However the conviction date may not be relevant, if it has to do with a new conviction not covered in reliable sources.
    WhisperToMe (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, just found a source that is about more Lester Coleman charges!
    "COLEMAN SOUGHT IN PROBATION VIOLATION, TALK-SHOW HOST NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE KY." Lexington Herald-Leader. August 24, 2002. C1 City&Region.
    I may have to do a resource request to get the full article
    WhisperToMe (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there are also other stories on the Lexington Herald on the 2000 "check fraud" conviction. It is however totally unrelated to the 1997 conviction on perjury in the Pan Am 103 civil trial. (Coleman and his supporters naturally claim that all of this is part of a Government conspiracy to silence him.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The BOP record does not list all of his convictions - it just lists his ID# and his last release date. I think he has the same ID number for all of the instances of supervision under the Bureau of Prisons. AFAIK the BOP number is relevant to both his 1997 perjury conviction and his 2000 check fraud conviction. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Turns out his check fraud is a state charge, so it has nothing to do with his BOP ID. It turns out the feds took in Coleman, saying that he had a parole violation... WhisperToMe (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also:
    "CONSPIRACY THEORIES: Outlandish claims can hit close to home." Atlanta Journal-Constitution. April 30, 2000. C5.
    Some text inside: "... of the theory's primary author a man by the name of Lester Knox Coleman ... Coleman has since been convicted of federal charges of perjury and state ... "
    May need a resource request on that too.
    WhisperToMe (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Lester Coleman request for comment

    Despite it being posted on the BLP noticeboard, it has not attracted a lot of attention. Anyway there is proposed content at User:WhisperToMe/Coleman, relating to Lester Coleman, and there is a dispute over whether it is compliant with WP:BLP. One poster argues that it is "worthless conspiracy content" and another poster argues that it is not "worthless conspiracy content." The previous discussion is titled Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lester_Coleman. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Off2riorob said: "Basically, its a BLP not a he said she said and they thought POV write up. Keep it simple and keep it clean and clear, less in this case is more, your content belongs on some op ed titillation article not here on wikipedia, the lowering of standards in such a way allows the lowering of standards all across the project and although you are interested in this sort of thing, it should not be allowed on this project."
    Off2riorob, the only part that is (for now) a "he said she said" is where Michael Hurley said Coleman worked one job while an attorney said he worked another. Aside from this, I have found no reliable sources or primary sources from Coleman which contradict anything that other people say. The outcome of the court case, the statements of the alias, the Lebanese wife, etc. have not been challenged by other sources.
    As for the one thing that is a "he said she said." While WP:BLP prohibits "gossip," I don't see anywhere that states that BLP prohibits describing unclear legal conflicts and personality conflicts. Removing the conflict between Hurley and Coleman removes an essential element of Coleman's subject. We have to go in a he said she said routine and neutrally discuss the court case and its outcomes. See Wikipedia:BLP#Public_figures which says "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
    WhisperToMe (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I notified the only other participant in the previous noticeboard thread that there is an RFC now here WhisperToMe (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the material is usable, although I would beef it up with some of the other sources dug up lately. One thing puzzles me: If "Coleman was never called as a witness in the Pan Am trial, and he never submitted any affidavits, declarations, or dispositions," how could he be charged with perjury? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good question. I'll have to do some more digging and see how the perjury case came up. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I found the answer. According to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1997/09/12/1997-09-12_con_man_admits_flight_103_pe.html , his sworn statements were repeated on international news programs. It also says "His affidavit was used by Pan Am in its defense against a civil suit brought by the families of the bombing victims. " - So it seems like Pan Am ended up using it after all. The article that said he wasn't called was from 1992. The one from 1997 said he was called. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any other viewpoints about this matter? If the RFC closes without further discussion, I'll presume that the content is ready to be added. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I still object to the additions you wanted to make, for the same reasons. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want you can try to make a new argument, further clarifying your existing arguments and directly addressing the content that is currently in my subpage, and/or responding to Petri Krohn and others. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW especially since another user has stated his belief that the material is usable, if you want to make your opposition clear, you will have to pick at least one of the three options above. Otherwise it's not further discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been no edits to the page itself since 28 September 2010. However, users are encourage to engage in discussion at the article's talk page, instead of engaging in disruptive editing, and if needed, seek out WP:Dispute resolution processes, instead of back-and-forth edit-warring. -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the newest version of the text I find it well sourced and high quality. It should be integrated into the article.

    There is still one important BLP violation that must be addressed. The article as well as the proposed text now says that Coleman was sentenced for perjury in 1997. Reliable sources however state that the conviction was overturned by a court of appeal in 1999. Here are the two references:

    • Marcello Mega (June 13 1999). "Court clears Lockerbie claim agent". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 8.7.1999. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= and |archivedate= (help)
    • "Lockerbieattentatet avslöjat av agent". NEXUS Nya Tider (in Swedish). 2 (6). 1999.

    The first one is printed in the Scotland section of The Sunday Times. The second one is a reprint of the Times story in the Swedish language edition of Nexus magazine. The issue is complicated by the fact that according to the Times story the court placed reporting restrictions that prevented the US media from covering the story. Although one could question the poor quality archive of the Times article and the reliability of Nexus I think there is every reason to believe that the reporting is correct. In these circumstances we cannot have the conviction claim without the acquittal. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I added the information acquittal reporting as soon as I confirmed that the article was there. I said that it was reported as such, because with no other newspaper articles saying that it was overturned, I'm not certain whether Mega's statements are correct. I also started Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#How_to_find_a_record_of_a_sealed_conviction to get some more detail about how to find more information about this.
    At that thread the response was "A Google search for the author of that story, Marcello Mega, indicates that he has something of a fondness for fringe theories concerning the Lockerbie incident, as in this story." - I asked for further help on how to check the validity of Mega's statements.
    WhisperToMe (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The validity of Mega's statements is irrelevant. The information was published in The Sunday Times – on of the most reliable of sources – and we do not have other sources to contradict it. The only problem here is that The Times is updating their web site and the archive for the years 1985–2010 has gone off-line. (The scanned archive for 1785–1985 is working.) I would very much like to confirm the existence of the article from the on-line archive, but the fact that it is not usable does not allow us to make a more incriminating claim. (Its only a Javascript glitch, you need to refresh the search page before making a new search. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    As for Mega, we know that he has written for the The Sunday Times, there is even an sundaytimes.co.uk email address published on the web. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, perhaps I could contact him
    While newspapers can be "reliable sources" they are not infallible. If a piece of information is not widely reported, one has to be careful about how it is presented. Without any further research all we can say is that the newspaper reported that this was the case. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Newspaper_article_about_overturn_of_a_conviction - The user who responded said "It would be totally unacceptable to leave such information out of the article, but on the other hand if it was not widely reported that's suspicious. Without further research we can't do more than alert readers to the problem."
    WhisperToMe (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I found an article on the Lexington Herald-Leader.
    "EX-FEDERAL AGENT SENTENCED FOR CHECK FRAUD TERM IS PROBATED BUT DEFENDANT ALSO FACES U.S. PERJURY CONVICTION." Lexington Herald-Leader. April 11, 2000. - This says that his perjury conviction was still in effect, and "He will be transferred to federal custody because he is wanted for parole violations" - This also answers the question of why he was released in 2000.
    WhisperToMe (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As the ruling that overturned the perjury conviction was sealed, nobody is supposed to know if it was still in effect. This list posting from May14, 2000 gives some light on the situation: FBI VS KEY LOCKERBIE WITNESS -- NEW DAY IN COURT. The issue facing Coleman was not perjury, but that by talking about Lockerbie while pleading the fraudulent check case in Kentucky earlier in 2000, he had broken a gag order placed by the District Court. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is another posting that makes reference to the overruling ANOTHER TURN FOR LES COLEMAN. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Coleman entered a guilty plea. In the USA usually people who plea bargain don't appeal their convictions later. If a conviction gets overturned, one has to have appealed first.
    Based on what I have encountered so far, the idea that there was ever an overturning and that there was a sealing of the verdict is in question.
    The Lexington Herald article states in the title that his perjury conviction was the issue
    "Rumor Mill News" by itself isn't an RS, but I decided to look at it anyway to see if it reveals anything that I could find in reliable sources. It talks about Coleman making some statements in defense of his Pan Am testimony after he was indicted on state charges in Kentucky. Where did he directly make those statements?
    WhisperToMe (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is another source that repeats the claim of a sealed ruling overturning the conviction:
    It is not self published by Meyer on his web site, so I would argue that it is reliable per WP:RS.
    A quote:
    This case demonstrates how the major media is easily silenced in the western world. The truth is can be found in fragments of articles from reputable news organizations.
    The same seems to apply to anything related to Lester Coleman. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When I clicked the link from Carlton Meyer, it states "No input file specified." WhisperToMe (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    http://www.sandersresearch.com/index.html says "SRA publications and reports are available only to clients." does this mean that content is not publicly visible? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess accessing the content requires a subscription – if it is still available. In 2007 the subscription seems to have been free. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Newspaper_article_about_overturn_of_a_conviction has an inquiry from a user about the supposed overturning. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, with no further commentary from new users, I would like to add the information in my draft to the Lester Coleman article. I am confident that it satisfies BLP, that it is not rumor, and that it is not weakly sourced "conspiracy" content. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to restore Lex Coleman

    As this issue is now on the notice board this is the perfect time to make a formal request. The article on Coleman's university and journalism career was located at Lex Coleman and was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lex Coleman. It has later turned out that the deletion discussion was a sock circus worthy of Sesame Street or the Muppet Awards – with at least three socket masters directing the show. (As for the number of intelligence services, I have no idea.) The content is now at User:Off2riorob/Lex Coleman. It should be moved to Lex Coleman in preparation for a merge and redirected. In fact I already merged the sourced content in March 2009 and it is available in the Lester Coleman version history. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dominika Stará

    Dominika Stará (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This could be posted also on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or somewhere else, I'm not sure. A single purpose account, MichalMajkl (talk · contribs) keeps reposting [1], [2], [3], [4] unreferenced and promotional content in this BLP article. After various attempts to resolve the problem [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] I'm forced to ask for help here. I don't want to delete or destroy the article (the person in question seems to be notable per Wikipedia requirements), but this kind of editing/adding content is in my opinion unacceptable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed the unsourced info from the BLP page. Blocked the user. -- Cirt (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The user edits in the same manner from various IP's. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 03:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semiprotected the page due to the concerns about BLP disruption from IPs. -- Cirt (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    After the block expired, MichalMajkl (talk · contribs) reverted again without an explanation. MichalMajkl removed the only reliable source and restored the previous unreferenced and promotional version. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cleaned up the page again after the repeated BLP violations. Blocked the user for longer block this time, one week. -- Cirt (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Watson

    I believe that the intent seen here (in the edit summary), and here (on the talk page), is to attack the character of the subject. My opinion is that it is not helpful in improving a high visibility article on a controversial person. Request preventative guidance on BLP to avoid violations and/or drama. signed Dynamic IP currently editing as: 68.28.104.238 (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotected the article during this period of discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How does that make sense? The only editors that have edited the page in relation to the discussion are all autoconfirmed. The IP was looking for guidance on how to proceed with the discussion, not a technical measure that has no effect on the involved users for the most part. --Terrillja talk 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been chronic disruption at the page in the past per the logs, a small bit of recent vandalism, and also recent disruption back-and-forth from registered accounts, though that is okay now. Can't hurt to have a mid-level of protection on a WP:BLP page during an ongoing discussion at BLPN. -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I'm OK with this. The focus is on avoiding BLP issues on the article page, not my access to it. Additionally I am unable to notify BQ on his talk page of this discussion. 68.28.104.230 (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)The IP's point was that the BLP violations aren't on the article, they are on the talkpage, such as the link above where BQZip refers to the subject of the article as an idiot., before he went off about meatpuppetry and such. --Terrillja talk 19:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. The prot was not due to the substance of the report by the IP itself, but as a corollary to the existence of it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I have notified BQZip01 (talk · contribs) about this thread. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Cirt, thanks for the notification. I appreciate it.

    I didn't "go off about meatpuppetry and such". I made a single comment that a sudden influx of IPs seemed suspicious. I also explicitly stated it wasn't conclusive. I stand by it, but that doesn't mean it is anything other than a coincidence either.

    As for Terillja's claims, he is taking my comments WAY out line. I made a general comment that if ANYONE makes a comment that is demonstrably false, it isn't a "self-serving" comment, but rather self-disservice. The person can be an idiot that posts such information, but that is their responsibility, no ours. This opinion applies to ANYONE who makes claims that are demonstrably false, not just Mr. Watson.

    Now even if I DID say something about him specifically, it would be clearly commentary about the subject by a Wikipedian, not something claimed as factual/slander (Wikipedians can have opinions). I'm sure I've done plenty of idiotic things.

    I also see no effort to get rid of WP:IDIOT, though I'm pretty sure that refers to living people.

    In any case, I see no BLP violation(s).

    To the meat of the discussion (pun intended...oh, just smile a little people :-) ), there has never been an WP:SPS violation involved, so it is a red herring in the first place. I didn't add the contentious information in the first place (the material being claimed as an SPS violation).

    Lastly, the basics of how to rewrite this have already been agreed upon by multiple users and all that remains is the exact way we're going to do it. — BQZip01 — talk 21:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ...and here's a little evidence that my comments about meatpuppetry/harassment have some merit: [10][11] — BQZip01 — talk 23:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet another IP had joined the discussion...— BQZip01 — talk 15:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Request this "discussion" be closed. Nearly 10 days and not a peep from anyone. Moreover, I request that the talk page be semi-protected as well. 5 IPs "suddenly" showing up and accusing me of impropriety with exactly ZERO evidence to back up said claims does not help a discussion in any way. FWIW, this is a recurring pattern of behavior with the same user that is the subject of indef semi-protection on my talk page; i.e., this is intentional harassment by IPs (whom I believe are actually the same user...please note the numerous IPs from Virginia...again). — BQZip01 — talk 14:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rinat Akhmetov

    Rinat Akhmetov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I've just fully protected this article after coming across a dispute between IPs and established editors over the inclusion or otherwise of material which claims the subject is connected to organised crime. I'd appreciate more eyes on it to figure out of the claims belong in the article and whether the protection is necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. I added a bit of the disputed information and requested the help on this article. 1 piece was from a previous established editor who was being reverted, my additions to the lead and the "organized crime" section were supported by news, journal, and government reports. All of these references were being reverted and called "libel". I guess it would be helpful to get a fresh set of eyes on the article to clear this up. Thanks. --Львівське (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Nobody seems to want to discuss this, can an admin please undo this lock down? HJ Mitchell seems to have ignored the issue, basic wiki-etiquette, and rewarded the vandals, which is just ass-backwards by admin standards. Little help?--Львівське (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    David Miscavige

    I removed an entire WP:COATRACK paragraph about Tom Cruise and Mark Rathbun that didn't mention Miscavige once. Article may still need a look over. --JN466 03:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It deals directly with the subject of the article. It is direct context for issues pertaining to all three individuals. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cirt has reverted the edit, reintroducing the paragraph. --JN466 03:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The paragraph reads:

    • The nature of what was discussed in the confessional sessions by Cruise was not revealed.[45][46][47] Rathbun ceased the filming of Cruise in 2002, because he felt it was unethical.[41] Rathbun left the organization in 2004, and since then has given counselling to former members of Scientology.[40][42] In a post on his blog, Rathbun wrote a statement addressed to Cruise, "Wake up, Tom. It is not too late. Though, time is getting very, very short."[39][40] As of May 9, 2010, representatives for Cruise had not yet responded to the statements made by Rathbun.[40][42][43] --JN466 03:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I have now removed the paragraph myself. Removed the entire paragraph, save for one sentence. See diff link. Noted as well, at Talk:David Miscavige, as we appear to be having identical simultaneous threads in both locations. Perhaps this can be marked as resolved, as there is now no objection to the material removed by Jayen466 (talk · contribs) from the article page. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While we're here, it would be useful for outside eyes to look through the article to make sure it's fully BLP-compliant. Miscavige is probably not one of our most popular BLP subjects, but we should still take care that we have a decent article on him. --JN466 04:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So ... any comment on my agreement, and specifically this edit in attempt to go along with sentiment expressed by Jayen466 and remove the paragraph he had questioned? -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I removed yet more sourced info still, from that same subsection raised above in the initial complaint by Jayen466 (talk · contribs), see diff link. Also, after that, I did some additional research in secondary sources, and added a bit more info to the article, standardized references present in the article did some copyediting, formatted paragraphs, and added some additional material which reflects positively on the subject of the BLP article, see diff link. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks to have improved quite a bit since this was originally posted but I'm not the one to ask for a full review of any article ;) so it would be nice if someone with more experience on that gave it a once or twice over to see what they thought. James (T C) 04:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Jamesofur (talk · contribs), for your comment about my recent efforts to improve the quality of the article. Most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the compliment about my Featured Article-contributions to Wikipedia. It is most appreciated. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it all has to go, I see an allegation about a Living person that is near impossible to substantate one way or the other thus i think its a BLP to include it. I think these two paragraphs would be more appropriate at Rathburns article that he made these allegations against Miscavage. Right now these allegations are not even mentioned at his. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rathbun was for many years the second-in-command of Scientology, directly under David Miscavige. Per WP:WELLKNOWN, If the Vice President of the United States made similar statements, subsequently reported in multiple secondary sources, about the President of the United States, it would most certainly be mentioned in both articles. -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not the allegations that bother me, its the undue wight in BLP both sets of allegations seem to be given more weight than arguably is due. I am not arguing it be removed but substantially Trimmed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. I trimmed down the size of the sect. I removed a chunk of sourced info from the paragraphs. It is now significantly smaller in size. See diff link. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanx that looks alot better :-) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome. Thank you for being diligent about checking back in this thread, and responding to me. I appreciate that. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done some work on the article; a number of things were mentioned twice in different places, but I think it is not in too bad shape now. Thanks. --JN466 23:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Jayen466 (talk · contribs), for acknowledging my efforts to improve the quality of the BLP page. Much appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do appreciate your efforts, both here and elsewhere; it's good to see these articles becoming more mature and balanced. It reflects well on Wikipedia if we can have a decent, BLP-compliant article on someone like Miscavige. Let's hope we can manage the same for global warming sceptics ... if you have time and inclination, perhaps you could keep an eye on the Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley BLP talk page. Different topic, but similarly hard to write neutrally. Cheers, --JN466 02:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is most appreciated that you have said I have contributed to making these articles more mature and balanced. Thank you for acknowledging my efforts. -- Cirt (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryan Leaf‎

    There's an alligation from Sports Illustrated that Leaf did something, but it's just an alligation, on one story. I keep reverting citing WP:BLP, but I keep getting reverted back. Can some one chime in please. Secret account 22:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Now of course the mainstream media (mostly blogs) is using the one source as a story. So it's still an BLP violation Secret account 22:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the sentence, as BLP policy says to do when the material is negative and poorly cited. A dozen poor citations (repeating an allegation) do not add up to one good citation. Wolfview (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well you got reverted, I reverted back, i need more eyes, I'll think he's willing to violate 3RR for that material anyways. Secret account 02:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-protected it. Users should discuss on talk page, and possibly engage in WP:Dispute resolution, perhaps such as WP:RFC. -- Cirt (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for protecting it, Leaf is a target of a bunch of BLP violations, being considered one of the worst football players ever to play in the league, it needs to be watchlisted by all you guys. Secret account 01:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Buddhist sex abuse cases

    Buddhist sex abuse cases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - After reverting an addition of a name of a living person to this article based on doubtful reasoning and subsequently the name being re-added, I am concerned about the basis of the whole article. There is an assumption that someone who is alleged to have had sex with a "novice" or "student" or "disciple" (without unambiguous definitions of these terms) is fair game to be listed in this article as a "sex abuse case". Some of the names listed have had no legal proceedings taken against them, others have been reported as having reached out of court settlements without the case being proven. There are obvious issues with the name of the article, the selection criteria for names being added and confusion about how well such cases need to be sourced. Fæ (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    G10'ed; thanks for bringing this here. Problems with this article are not limited to the inclusion of names--it is inherently POV to presume that Wikipedia editors can decide what is or is not an abusive relationship. In the case of analogues (e.g., Roman Catholic priest abuse) there have been clear criminal and civil cases. Skimming through the article, I saw nothing of the sort. If there's going to be an article on this topic, let us start again carefully. Jclemens (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello both of you, I was also involved there, and if you could restore the talk page, you'd see that I had suggested to changed the POV of the page entirely. (I did not create the page). The POV should be neutral, for example, limit itself to relaying information that these are budhdist masters who think that it is ok to sleep with their students. The reader can then decide if that is ok or not. ALL INFORMATION CITED should be referable to published books on major pushishing houses (which my info was). What do you think, would it be ok then, to simply report that these teachers have sexual conduct with their students, and admit to it, not calling it abuse or anything of the sort? 82.143.250.221 (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If some reliable secondary source has written about the topic then WP could have an article on it. Just collecting information about people who are Buddhist, religious teachers, involved in a sexual relationship, and the other person in the relationship is one of their students would be considered original research. Wolfview (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. The Nydahl, Eido Roshi, Brad Warner and Dainin Kataghiri cases were all sourced with major newspaper colums or published books. 87.61.175.179 (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said I did not start the Page, but I think the information is worthwhile. I propose an article called: Buddhist Teacher/Student Romances or something along those lines. Then go into these sections:

    - What did Buddha say? - What is the tradition within the particular orders (Zen/Tibetan/Etc.) - Document what different teachers say about it. - (For example, Ole Nydahl acknowledged that he sleeps with students but adds that its ok.) - This way the article will be purely neutral and documentary. It should aim to document the controversies and let readers decide for themselves. 87.61.175.179 (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It sounds like you might have the makings of a sourced article on Buddhist teachers who violate the religion's own teachings on sex. That's hardly sex abuse, and the funny thing about religions is that people are essentially allowed to make up the rules as they go--if they differ too much from another sect, no big deal, they'll just be catalogued as a different sub-sect. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok then. Is there any possibility of you emailing me the content of the now deleted page at coreheim |a| gmail.com and creating such an article for me? I'll re-write it in the manner stated, and you can see if approve of it or not. 82.143.250.221 (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    as I said, I was not the original author of the article, that was user:ripoche. I would not use the word abuse in an article such as this. 82.143.250.221 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The anon IP (82.143.250.221 and 82.143.250.138) has continued to add original research to the Brad Warner article in spite of continued warnings not to do so. The editor has failed to provide any reliable secondary sources to indicate the notability of specific content in the author's book. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Subject of article prefers a different romanization

    Hi,

    there is an ongoing discussion over at Talk:Ganhuyag Chuluun Hutagt. A user who says he is the subject of the article says he prefers a slightly different romanization and a somewhat non-standard order of his names. He also gave some evidence about what rendering of his name Mr. Ganhuyag prefers. I have moved the article to the name that the user wanted for now, but I wonder if there is some guideline for cases like this, and if not, if there should be. Yaan (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If no one objects and there's a redirect from the "more standard" Romanization, I don't see why it would be a big deal. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that would be normal practice, to refer to someone by the name they use. Wolfview (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, with redirect(s) from a legal name to a preferred, common, or professional name as appropriate. C.f. Gordon Sumner Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, our practice is to use the name by which they are commonly known, if there is such a name, regardless of the subject's preferences. Among other things, we use Western name order unless the subject is otherwise known under a different order.--Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The "commonly known" version is ambivalent both in english and in Mongolian (iow. both version appear similarly often). The subject now seems to have entered the discussion himself (probably alarmed by staff/friends who mistook Wikipedia for an advertizing avenue) claiming that he prefers the unusual version himself. Such a preference does indeed seem to exist (reflected eg. in the subject's blog). I had renamed the article to the standard form as of WP:MON, but if the evidence for self-perference and/or commonality satisfies the more general common practise, I won't object to the non-standard form. The COI issues need to be dealt with seperately. --Latebird (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything in the Mongolian naming guidelines to support your claim we use the 'Western' name order in fact quite the opposite. It's definitely not a wikipedia wide policy for all people. While for Japanese (and I think Hungarian) it is the norm to use the given name family name in English sources for whatever strange reason, a practice we therefore follow and reflect in the MOS. It's not usually the norm for many Chinese not living in countries which follow that order, and this includes Chinese in places like HK, Malaysia and Singapore with significant English speaking populations so wikipedia follows that norm, which is again reflected in the MOS. The same for Koreans and Vietnamese. (The norms BTW are mostly explained in the article you linked to although it doesn't tell us what the MOS says of course). Nil Einne (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that English name order does not seem very relevant here, in fact the Mongolian government has been, in the past, somewhat unsure about what part of a Mongolian name constitutes a "family" itself. Probably one of Mr. Ganhuyag's older passports had "Ganhuyag" as family name, while his current one most likely has "Chuluun". Yaan (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is best to consider the subject's preferred spelling a Nom de plume. There are no western style family names in Mongolia, and he is creatively deploying the normally purely symbolical clan name (historical of self-styled) in its place. Actually, the chosen form most closely resembles the Russian tradition with first name, patronym, and familyname. --Latebird (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Rider

    Just some advice, please. Anonymous IP editor User:131.251.236.218 recently added a large swath of defamatory material to the Steve Rider article (diff). Although they then rapidly removed the material I am concerned that it still remains in the article's history. What would be the best way to handle this? Leave it be? Just a warning? Sysop to delete from the history? Just looking for some input from those with more experience. Thanks! Pyrope 18:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted the revisions. Semi-protected the page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that! Pyrope 14:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass killings under Communist regimes

    Currently has an interesting issue. Does [12] which deals with a living person (Rummel) reach a level of synthesis regarding him entailing WP:BLP concerns? The edit at issue is:

    Linking communist ideology to mass killings became a recurring theme in Cold War anti-communists propaganda.[1] Some scholars, most notably R. J. Rummel have expressed similar views. with the edit summary Cold War anti-communists propaganda.

    Does this assert that R.J. Rummel (alive, as I understand it) purveys "anti-communist propaganda" (which I take to be a pejorative claim)? Is this "contentious"? Is placing the claim one which requires a specific RS source? Does the second sentence stand on its own and not complete a SYNTHesis regarding Rummel? Would BLP require a specific source stating the "similar views" bit? Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If Rummel does in fact deal with the topic, that could probably be phrased better, but not a big deal. On the other hand, anything with an ASIN without an ISBN is somewhat suspect as a reliable source. Saying Rummel says the same thing as anti-communists do isn't a major BLP issue per se, but still needs to be cited. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And the implicit claim that only anti-communist propagandists linked communist regimes to mass killings? Collect (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how that follows in the text. The edit summary, yes, but that's a summary. Jclemens (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Collect means this anti-communists propaganda.[1] Some scholars, most notably R. J. Rummel have expressed similar views it obviously implies rummel puts out anti-communists propaganda mark (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to people who actually can parse that logically it doesn't. All it says is that some scholars, including Rummel, "have expressed similar views". Big deal. Feminists and fundamentalists express similar views on human trafficking. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Scott Crookes

    Deleted clear BLP violations in the interim. Collect (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And deleted the article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Salted it. -- Cirt (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dodgy redirect to Peter Mandelson

    Resolved
     – deleted by Admin Frank - Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I found this redirect at Rfd. In brief: Darth Mandelson redirects to Peter Mandelson, the British politician. It's not getting the swift attention that it should, so I brought it here. To be headmasterly about it - some people might think it's funny, but it's really not appropriate. I would appreciate some admin action to delete the page.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirects are not articles, they are purely search aids. As such they are value free - see WP:RNEUTRAL. The question of BLP applies to the underlying target since, by their nature, redirects as such cannot be sourced. If such nicknames are in the target then it is essential that they are reliably sourced. If such sourcing is inadequate then the term should be removed and the redirect with them. If the sourcing meets BLP standards then both the term in the target and the redirect remain. In this case I can find no reliable sources, and the nickname does not appear in the target, so the redirect should be deleted in due course. This redirect has been around for over 5 months, and the RFD ends in two days when it will undoubtedly be deleted, so there is no merit in short-circuiting the process, that allows time for others to find sources. I would add that the status of the subject has a bearing. We rightly treat marginally notable people differently from, for example, front-line politicians who court publicity. In the case of Mandelson, he has cheerfully embraced the nicknames 'Prince of Darkness' and 'The Dark Lord' (see here for example). In my view 'Darth Mandelson', though puerile, is no worse than either of those. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, WP:RNEUTRAL allows non-neutral redirects if they are likely search terms. Darth Mandelson is clearly not, nor would "prince of darkness" be. It's nothing like, for example Milk snatcher, which redirects to Margaret Thatcher's time as education secretary. Think of the fits that would be caused by a redirect to George W. Bush from chimp (a very well attested epithet). It's not up to us to speculate how thick someone's skin happens to be. How long it's been in place is neither here nor there. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that it is not a likely search term, and that it should be deleted, because it is not sourced in the target. That doesn't justify speedy deletion which is where I take issue. Actually, 'milk snatcher' is whole load more offensive and damaging, FWIW. The 'chimp' attribution is rightly not a redirect both because there is a different prime use for this term and, also, since it does not appear in the target. 'Prince of Darkness' is not a redirect because it is a disambiguated term (it has also been applied, in reliable sources, to Mike Jackson amongst others), otherwise it would be fine. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Although POV, "milk snatcher" is not infrequently used as a shorthand in academic accounts of British social policy for that particular episode (it was a very common chant). It's a good example of when a redirect may not be neutral, as it's a plausible search. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; and it makes my point, that offensive redirects are, when properly sourced, in order. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Silvio Pollio

    Having looked at this article in response to a request for protection, I have grave doubts about whether it ought to exist. It seems to be primarily an attack piece. Looie496 (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    With regards to Looie496 posting this discussion here:
    I am not the creator of the article in question, and have no conflict of interest or stake in the article. I chose a random article from wikipedia to learn about editing and contributing to Wikipedia, citing, etc. I also read the wikipedia articles on verifiability and blp.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
    The request for protection arose from myself and multiple users warning an editor about vandalism, and having to revert multiple changes, page blanking, and destruction of references.
    A simple google search brought up the information and references for the article on Silvio Polio from major Canadian Newspapers and film festivals. I feel the article meets both those guidelines as the information posted is from legitimate news sources, and would be valuable to the community and any interested in filmmaking, festivals, crime, fundraising, etc., and of particular interest to the Hollywood and filmmaking community at large.
    The article is balanced as it includes the subject's artistic creations, collaborations with other actors referenced on wikipedia, and his recent film festival appearances, the fact that the subject produced a film, etc.
    The fact that the article subject has funded a movie in the past via the proceeds of crime, and his movies are related to crime and film making makes it relevant. The assault charge, and all crimes referenced in the article is verified by major media news sources, and obviously relevant to both public interest and the subject's film making.
    In closing, wikipedia contains encyclopaedic information, both good and bad. Would you suggest articles about Osama Bin Laden, or perhaps more relevant in this case Al Capone be deleted or not exist because it contains mostly information that would read like an attack piece?? Unfortunately their contribution to the public record and history has not been a positive one. That does not mean it should be deleted.
    The article is fair, referenced and cited, and meets all wikipedia Verifiability and Biographies of living persons criteria in my opinion. Bluebadger1 (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - perhaps this could be appropriately discussed on the talk page for the article in question, as other editors have stated opinions as well, and this would be helpful for others who have helped to stop vandalism to the page. Bluebadger1 (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Update @ Talk:Silvio_Pollio user:Momo san has banned/blocked some socking master sock for vandalism etc. "User:Bluebadge iza hater is a sockpuppet to User:Jose Carlton." Suggested watching User:Mrsilvio and 24.84.160.17 as that was the first account and first ip to page blank and vandalize. Might be socks too? Bluebadger1 (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected the page. Tagged it with {{RefimproveBLP}}. Agree with the assessment, there are some issues, could use some cleanup. Could also use some discussion from engaged users, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As mentioned on your talk page: I was wondering why you added the refimproveBLP tag to the page. 3 different major canadian newspapers, plus a couple smaller locals are referenced. Meets wp:v wouldn't you say? I even found the court and govt. documents via google search, but thought I read somewhere those should not be used? However: Policy shortcut: WP:WELLKNOWN clearly states = "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. So I don't see anything contentious about the article currently. So could the refimprove BLP tag be removed? I think marking a verified article with something that says "potentially libellous" and needs improvement discredits the work being done by the editors. ;) Or could you clarify for me what would need to be improved? Cleanup??? It is pretty lean, well referenced, and all the extraneous, not referenced/cited awards and self-promotion (against blp self published) was removed. Thanks. Bluebadger1 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the refs could stand to be formatted properly. More refs could be added from other secondary sources, to make sure we are giving this the proper context, breadth, and scope. -- Cirt (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See additional talk at Talk:Silvio_Pollio. User:Mrsilvio has claimed to be Mr. Pollio himself. Feels wikipedia is a place for his personally written biography. I suspect the person in question is running multiple accounts, but he stated he was present when the "changes" were made to the account. (vandalism his employee did to the page, edit warring, blocked for socking also) Talk:Silvio_Pollio Advised Conflict of interest guidelines, BLP Self Publishing, and other info provided by multiple users. Suggest IP check/monitoring [User:Mrsilvio]] for socking? His stated "employee" Jose Carlton was banned for sock puppetry and user name violations. User also advised of conflict of interest at Talk:Silvio_Pollio. Will advise about WP:V as well.Bluebadger1 (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD discussion semi-protected

    There's a limit when it comes to AFD discussion, and this discussion has just gone beyond it, with a succession of legal threats and BLP violations from single-purpose accounts registered just today. I've semi-protected the AFD discussion and am about to look into redacting some of the more egregious irrelevant commentary. BLP regulars are invited to give some sensible, policy-based, opinions about the article and the sources, in the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I also invite BLP regulars to participate in the related AFD discussions of Frozen North Productions (AfD discussion) and Flip's Twisted World (AfD discussion) as well, because at the moment most of the opinions in those two AFD discussions have been given by partisans in the external dispute. More non-partisan participation is needed. Uncle G (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    AJede(Kaloosh)

    This was (possibly accidentally) mis-placed biographical content purported to be about one "Gerald William Makokola Nkhoma Junior", written by Keokemashoeshoe (talk · contribs).

    I've blanked it. Uncle G (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarah Linda

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

    Is this relevant for a Wikipedia insertion - is this just not pure advertising - there is nothing notable about this person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.183.166 (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is referenced somewhat, seems fair and certainly not to extravagant. This seems to apply from wp:blp
    "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—
    it is not unduly self-serving;
    it does not involve claims about third parties;
    it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
    there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
    the article is not based primarily on such sources."
    Therefore, I would let it stand. Bluebadger1 (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes needed

    Resolved

    TJ Lavin is currently in critical condition due to a BMX accident. Although he may not be the most notable individual, he has some pop culture notability and his article is being hit by several IPs at the moment, some of which are intent on prematurely reporting his death. As I'm logging out for the night I'm hoping that a few BLP-minded individuals could pop this article on to their watchlist to make sure info added is sourced. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 04:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    will do Bluebadger1 (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected the page. Tagged it with {{refimproveBLP}}. Tagged with {{Current}}. -- Cirt (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shereen Ratnagar

    Shereen Ratnagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The subject of this biographical entry is a senior university professor, now retired from a premier institution in Delhi, India (Jawaharlal Nehru University). Being a much-published archaeologist, she was invited to act as an expert witness in the court case concerning the destruction of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya, a highly sensitive and public case that has exposed deeply polarised national politics and opinion in India (Ayodhya debate). This biographical entry appears to have been written by detractors opposed to Ratnagar's views, who are attempting to use Wikipedia to attack her in public. The entry contains no attempt to profile her professional contributions as a scholar or to provide any biographical information about her life, work and achievements in the fields of history and archaeology. It contains sarcastic, derogatory language, and almost all references are merely to newspaper articles written in the context of the court case, usually in highly-charged emotional language.// DomLaguna (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected the page. Tagged it with {{refimproveBLP}}. Removed some unsourced controversial info. -- Cirt (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the first time an article on someone involved with that controversy has appeared here. We probably should keep an eye out for people involved Nil Einne (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Great ANC Race of 8C03

    Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Great ANC Race of 8C03

    Could someone please check over this draft article; there are BLP concerns, so I'd like others opinions. Feel free to edit it, of course, and if acceptable just move it to a live article. Thanks v much.  Chzz  ►  07:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I see your point. The article itself about the "great anc race" is somewhat misleading, and not a notable instance on its own. It might be assumed the article was created to raise the issue of the use of "dumb ni@@er". However, the incident being on youtube, and in the papers makes it somewhat historical and newsworthy, but for that issue alone, and perhaps related specifically to the biographies of the "politicians" at hand - But the whole "great race" thing is hyperbolic. Is it worth an article? I don't know. Is there evidence to support the info about the racial slurs? Absolutely if there is a youtube video of someone making a racial slur. That would be pretty incontestable and unequivocal evidence if not edited, altered, or taken out of context. A good quote I read here earlier today was " A dozen poor citations (repeating an allegation) do not add up to one good citation." but it can't be libelous if true... So I would call it a good citation.Bluebadger1 (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed article is total rubbish and belongs on a blog. Whether intended or not, its only interest is to highlight that someone was caught in a youtube video saying something nasty. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is not even close to policy compliant, the creator has this on their userpage , which has already been discussed and resolved as I can see. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dc archivist is the wiki personality of a freelance reporter covering the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area. This account is managed by one entity. Please understand that research is conducted by several persons and then edited and published to Wikipedia by one person. Dc archivist..

    Jim Devine

    Jim Devine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I am concerned about several things in this article, not least of which is WP:UNDUE but in this note I am focussed more narrowly on the subject of what may be innappropriate synthesis. We say "Devine claimed to have heard 'nothing' about a possible prosecution despite it being widely reported over a number of months that his case had been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and that he was 'astonished and devastated' by the impending prosecution." But the source linked after that sentence, which is here does not contain the word 'nothing' nor the words 'astonished and devastated'.

    My concern is that, above and beyond the charges outlined in the article, which are up to a court of law, someone is POV pushing to convict him of giving contradictory statements to the press. This could be false, i.e. things are sometimes reported out of order, etc. Or it could be true and nevertheless inappropriate synthesis. In order to include a skeptical report on him claiming to not know something, even though he must have, we need to have some third party reliable source commenting on that issue - we can't just make it up ourselves.

    As far as WP:UNDUE, this looks to me like a fairly tricky case. As a member of the UK parliament, there are no grounds for deletion in my view under BLP1E. Nevertheless, it is also quite likely that the only material press coverage of some otherwise obscure parliamentarians will be from a scandal like this. And it is, in fact, a legitimate scandal of legitimate public interest. Our best hope, then, may be to work hard to flesh out the biography with as much other information as possible. But that's a longer job that will take several of us rolling up our sleeves, so for today, I am just calling attention to the narrow issue which I outlined above.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tagged top of page with {{RefimproveBLP}}. Semi-protected the page during this BLP report process. Others may wish to also consider trimming/moving some poorly-sourced-content to the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Daily Mail source does contain 'astonished and devastated' but it's in one of non-searchable images in the article here. Having said that, using the Daily Mail as a source for quotes for the BLP of a British Labour politician seems like an inherently bad idea. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with you about the Daily Mail. But, as you can see below, this was also reported in The Herald, and it is also in the BBC[13], the Daily Telegraph[14], The Independent[15] and many more reputable and reliable sources. RolandR (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, and that's probably the case for many of the other 11,000+ Daily Mail citations too. Oh well, baby steps. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems more a case of sloppy citing, rather than a grievous BLP violation. Devine himself does not appear to have claimed to have "heard nothing" about a possible prosecution. Rather, that statement was made by another MP accused alongside Devine, Elliot Morley[16]. Devine did, however, say that he was "astonished and devastated"[17]. There seems nothing here that cannot be corrected by simple editing of the article. RolandR (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The infamous Jeffrey Sachs

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

    The introduction of his page;"Sachs became infamous for implementing economic shock therapy throughout the developing world and in Eastern Europe, and subsequently for his work on the challenges of economic development, environmental sustainability, poverty alleviation, debt cancellation, and globalization." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs seems way too opinionated and should be revised thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.113.181 (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "infamous" in the lede is not good, but Sachs is a very controversial figure. Before his image makeover as Friend of Bono, he was one of the faces of shock therapy - and thus earning a very poor reputation amongst social and economic researchers of the Eastern European transition from communism. Basically, his reforms are generally judged to have caused lots of unnecessary poverty. There's lots of sourced criticism about Sachs. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The ip is right. "Controversial"... well, ok (though it depends on who, among social and economic researchers in Eastern Europe you ask). "Infamous" - no.radek (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not recommending the use of the word infamous, just pointing out that the article in general is not odd for containing a certain amount of criticism of Sachs' activities. Anders Aslund and neo-liberal economists like him aside, Washington Consensus shock therapy policies did not get a good press wherever they were implemented. Sachs was one of the WC's most prominent exponents. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that's fine, some (well sourced) criticisms most certainly belongs in the article, and in a very general way should be mentioned in the lead (as in "controversial"). I rewrote it so it's hopefully non-POV and respects BLP standards but at the same time makes the reader aware that there is some controversy. I think we're in agreement here.radek (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My first edit summary was a little misleading - it gave the impression I supported the lede as it was. Sorry. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Chicago Area Controversies" in Oom Yung Doe article

    Resolved
     – minor removal - Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The article about Oom Yung Doe (a martial arts school) includes the accurate fact that in 1989, a Chicago news station ran a series of reports including very serious accusations against the school. Some of the more tangible claims were that members of the school engaged in "violence, threats, and coercion against students of Oom Yung Doe, violence against students and instructors of competing schools, blatant financial fraud, and murder." No criminal charges connected to most of these claims were ever filed, and certainly no truth to any of the accusations was ever demonstrated (only charges related to the financial-fraud accusations were filed, but that case never went to trial, and years later some instructors were found guilty in a separate tax-fraud-related trial -- those events are described separately in the article, and I believe those parts should stay). I actually wrote most of the section describing this news report, but now that I've read more of the BLP policy I believe that it's effectively gossip and doesn't belong in the article (in the absence of some sort of reliably-sourced demonstration that there was anything at all behind the accusations of violence and murder).

    I asked about this on BLP/N some weeks ago, but it was in a previously-resolved issue near the top of the page and I think it slipped through the cracks (no one responded). I'm affiliated with the school, and I want to be careful about creating the appearance of COI by removing reliably-sourced information, but I now believe that by BLP policy the "Chicago Area Controversies" section should be removed. Can some other editors weigh in on validity of removing this section?

    Thanks. Subverdor (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • - Removed, it is covered in a section above anyways, apart from the extreme accusations that didn't come to anything at all. I don't think we need all those [non-primary source needed]. templates really. If the school is talking about when trainings it gives then we can accept those simple claims about itself, anything about others should not be primary cited though, as per ..WP:SPS. I also removed this comment as uncited and it seemed clear and covered without it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't think we need all those either. I objected to them some time back, but they had enough support that I didn't feel like fighting about it (and they don't really degrade the article; they just make it funny-looking in spots). I think the issue is that some editors are uncomfortable using the school's internal sources for anything, even fairly innocuous information, because the school's internal sources include some claims about the training (and the founder of the school) that are extremely hard to believe.
    The other section you removed can easily be cited; all of the information there is already contained in cited statements somewhere else in the article. I also think it's fine to remove, though, for exactly that reason :-). Subverdor (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    John Eleuthère du Pont

    Hi, the head of security at the du Pont estate, whoever that was at the time of Schultz's murder, gets pov treatment in the current Wikipedia version. I don't know if he is still living. Thanks for yoour attention. Rich (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. I have had a bit of a look and he only gets a couple of mentions and is not named. Could you be a bit more specific .. do you mean the comment that the security agent did nothing and could have saved him? that is from here .. http://www.mainlinetoday.com/Main-Line-Today/February-2007/In-Memory-of-a-Murder/

    Copied from the mainlinetoday article Then there’s the involvement of Patrick Goodale, an ex-Marine, du Pont security consultant and prosecution eyewitness, who stood armed beside du Pont as he fired three shots. The defense said he fueled du Pont’s paranoia. (Now living in Virginia, Goodale declined comment.) Former estate employee Charles King Sr. still blames Goodale.

    The article was mostly expanded by a single purpose account with some claim of contact to the subject as his first edit summary was Dr. John duPont requested that I change his place of birth and the accounts name was behalfJohndupont.. the article could use a copy edit and a look at the quality and formatting the references but I didn't see any major issue, if you could provide a little more detail of your issues with the content, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • What worries me are thes sentences:

    Newtown Township supervisor John S. Custer Jr. said, “at the time of the murder, John didn’t know what he was doing.”[6] Charles King, Sr., a duPont stable hand and manager for 30 years, claimed he knew duPont well throughout his life. King's son Charles “Chuckie” King Jr. said he considered duPont his friend during his childhood. Charles King Sr. still blames the duPont security consultant, for influencing what happened. He even had a chance to save Dave's life as he sat in the passenger seat of duPont's car while duPont fired 3 bullets into Dave's arm, chest, and back using hollow point bullets. King said “I don’t think John could shoot someone unless he was pushed to or was on drugs”. “After that guy starting hanging around him, my son always said Johnny changed.” Thanks, Rich Peterson24.7.28.186 (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a bit the opinions of involved people and accusatory, although at least it is well attributed, if you have a little knowledge about the issue, why not trim the accusatory stuff out of it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I don't know much at all about it.24.7.28.186 (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pictures in infoboxes

    An editor keeps adding/re-adding pictures of living people to an infobox on the Maghrebi Jews page. However, there are no sources indicating that these people are actually "Maghrebi Jews", an unusual term that exists primarily on Wikipedia and its mirrors, though it is also found in some books. These people do not designate themselves as "Maghrebi Jews", nor do reliable sources designate them as such. In fact, as far as I can tell, most of them were not even born in the Maghreb. This seems an obvious BLP violation to me, but I was interested in other views. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Likely not a BLP violation if the the individuals were not actually identified as specific people. Individuals appear to be named (serves me right for not looking at the direct page instead of a diff). Assuredly the names ought be removed unless there is specific sourcing for the ascription of "Maghrebi" to each person. OTOH, I find such use of pictures in infoboxes to be generally useless at best. Collect (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as you've noted, the people are all actually identified by name, with links to their Wikipedia articles. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree and IMHO this is the same as lists and categories (which are mentioned in BLP) and stuff. We should use care in identifying people as X ethnic group and really in a case like this where this isn't any possibility of explaination of the applicability of the term to the specific person we should rely on self identification. At the very least without a source in the Maghrebi Jews article nor any discussion in the article on the person, they can be removed on sight. BTW even without a name in the article, particularly if the person is either fairly famous or easily identifiable from the image page (which they surely would be if they are notable) it would seem a BLP violation even if not as severe. To use an example, putting a picture of a living person in the paedophile article even without naming the person would be a very serious issue. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW I hope my comment isn't taken the wrong way, the only reason I mentioned paedophile is it occured to me as something which should be obvious would be a serious problem. Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it wasn't taken the wrong way. However, he continues to re-add them. He has been warned multiple times; should I just block him, then? Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's being overly cautious, but I suggest another admin should do that. I will watch and revert any similar addition if you want to leave it for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jim Swire

    This article is a bit of a mess - among other things, it seems to be more about the Lockerbie bombing than about Swire, although the reason we have the article is his involvement with it after his daughter was killed by it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Natalie Babbitt attends shit college?

    Resolved
     – Vandalism reverted. Netalarmtalk 23:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Could somebody please read-over, review and rewrite some of the key statements in Mrs. Babbitt's page? There are quite a few points worth contesting.

    Vandalism. Has been reverted. Jarkeld (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Insane Clown Posse

    User:Dylan Flaherty is trying to add a bit about the albums of the band Insane Clown Posse being an evangelized metaphor for Christianity, even though multiple sources, and the members of the band itself explicitly state that their lyrics are not overtly religious, and that they are not very religious themselves.

    Dylan is basing his edits on a recent article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/oct/09/insane-clown-posse-christians-god

    Statements made by the author of the article are contradicted by member Violent J on his Twitter account: http://twitter.com/bigviolentj/status/27571693759

    The themes of the band's lyrics are discussed here: Dark Carnival (Insane Clown Posse), which is sourced to the band's biography, multiple interviews with the band, and the band's website. The only source to explicitly mention an interpretation of Christian content within the band's work is the Guardian article, which is contradicted by the writers of the lyrics quoted out of context.

    The BLP issue here is that while the material here has a source, it is contentious, and it relates to the religious views of a living person who has directly contradicted the claims made by Dylan.

    Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk • contribs) 04:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like a content dispute to me. If RS'es differ on a matter, list all the RS viewpoints and let the reader come to their own conclusion. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At this time, any mention of the Guardian article has been expunged. I have tried to discuss this with the ICP fans, and have changed the wording to be more clear and accurate, but there has been no sign of cooperation. I am certainly willing to include any denials by the band, but the claim itself is entirely notable. The real BLP issue is that this reliably-sourced statement is being censored. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Such disputed weakly claimed content is better removed. If the simple claims are denied by the band and you have a single op ed guardian article, there is no excuse to keep it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As explained on the article discussion page, none of what you said has any basis in reality. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The individuals whom the claims are being made about have directly contradicted the claims. How is Jonson a better authority on the religion of another person than the person himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully support including their denial alongside the journalist's conclusions, which come directly from what they freely admitted in an interview. I am not trying to suppress anything or force my version of the facts onto Wikipedia. I ask that you do the same, even though you are a fan. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Best left out per the contradictory info, BLP, and WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of those times where we need to teach the controversy. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an extremely poor choice of words. I hope they were meant to be ironic. Regardless, NPOV and UNDUE applies, especially in the light of such irony. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As a Christian who rejects Creationism, I am entirely aware of the irony. To be quite frank, this is the most interesting thing that has happened to ICP in years. It's extremely notable, and since it's both well-sourced (their own words!) and given no more than a sentence, I cannot agree with your conclusion. But let's take this discussion back where it belongs, please. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this comment another contributor seems to sum up much of the positions of those who oppose inclusion of this material, stating: "The individuals whom the claims are being made about have directly contradicted the claims. How is Jonson a better authority on the religion of another person than the person himself?"

      It seems to me that this position seriously lapses from both WP:VER and WP:NPOV. It is not our job to pick sides. It is not our job to decide who is a more credible authority. Compliance with the policy on writing from the neutral point of view requires us to present both sides. Compliance with the policy on verifiability requires us to refrain from picking one position as the "truth".

      There are lots of topics I contribute to where all the WP:RS have taken positions at odds with my own personal point of view. I don't have a choice. I can't insert my personal position. I shouldn't choose to leave out the positions of all those WP:RS, no matter how convinced I am they are mistaken. And I shouldn't try to remove neutrally written, properly referenced, material. Our articles should neutrally present the positions of all relevant WP:RS.

      Penultimately, I will remind our correspondent that subjects are sometimes not reliable sources of information about themselves. They lie, or they have misconceptions about themselves.

      I agree with JClemons in this. Geo Swan (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's still a BLP problem, "Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." It's a single reference contradicted by multiple others. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your input, Geo. I think the consensus on the talk page is coming around to what to say as opposed to whether to say anything about this. I'm hoping we can hash out the details and come up with something that follows Wikipedia policy. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The user in question has made very little attempts to contribute to the discussion on the talk page, and has continuously made personal attacks. He has admitted to a conflict of interest in this matter, and has a history of edit wars. The matter of the article itself is that the author states his opinion that the group is Christian, though not once do the members say so themselves. Numerous others articles, both by the group themselves and independent sources dispute this claim. I do believe that this article should be mentioned in the "Lyrics and music" section, and have made two suggestions: "The Guardian contributor Jon Ronson suggests that the group's lyrics contain messages of evangelicalist Christianity.[2]" or "The Guardian contributor Jon Ronson claims that the group's lyrics contain evangelicalist messages.[2]." Both have been shot down by Dylan Flaherty, who has also just continued to vandalize the Insane Clown Posse page by ignoring all discussions and writing what he pleases.Juggalobrink (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, just keep it out completely, a single strongly disputed opinionated editorial by someone that is not regarded as an authority on the band at all. Off2riorob (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Disclaimer: I've come here by way of this. I don't necessarily support removing it entirely, but this is a joke: The Dark Carnival has been revealed as a metaphor for God, so the lessons are about repenting so as to avoid eternal damnation.[icp 1] If this is mentioned it should make clear which source this view comes from, and should make clear that this is not a widely-held view. ICP aren't reliable sources for anything other than their views, but thus far Jon Ronson's claims aren't held—so far as I can see—by many more sources than the Guardian (my request to Dylan Flaherty for sources met with only this (indirectly: I had to go through the talkpage with a fine-tooth-comb to find it)). Either of Juggalobrink's seem more than satisfactory to me: either The Guardian contributor Jon Ronson suggests that the group's lyrics contain messages of evangelicalist Christianity.[icp 1] or The Guardian contributor Jon Ronson claims that the group's lyrics contain evangelicalist messages.[icp 1]. TFOWR 10:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. I'd just like to point out that the discussion here is hopelessly out of touch. Please see the talk page to get a more honest idea of what's going on, including additional references and an actual consensus for neutral changes. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Refs

    1. ^ a b c Jon Ronson (2010-10-09). "Insane Clown Posse: And God created controversy". Retrieved 15 October 2010.

    David Wu

    David Wu is a U.S. politician. According to this news report, in 1976 Wu's then girlfriend broke up with him; later, Wu was questioned by Stanford campus police after the ex-girlfriend said he tried to force her to have sex with him. No action was taken; no formal complaint was laid. Now, the article has a level-3 heading Allegations of Sexual Abuse, followed by text making it sound as if something happened in 2004 (what happened was that a newspaper wrote about the 1976 incident, although that is not apparent in the current article). Am I being overly sensitive, or is this a BLP UNDUE problem? Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't believe the article makes "it sound as if something happened in 2004". The article reads "Three weeks prior to the 2004 elections, The Oregonian published an article reporting that Wu had been accused of sexually assaulting an ex-girlfriend while attending Stanford." In the paragraph prior to this sentence, the article makes it clear that Wu attended "Stanford University in 1977", not 2004. Furthermore, how is the newspaper writing about the incident "not apparent"? The fact that "The Oregonian published an article reporting" the incident is stated very explicitly. (Lenschulwitz (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    Its WP:UNDUEWEIGHT with a Dose of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Chong Sik-yu

    Resolved
     – Superp (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Chong Sik-yu article for four years has claimed this person is a Chinese political activist, without any ref. Removing what I consider contentious material left no content, except his name. I would appreciate some advice. Superp (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My usual response to such things is to delete them with an edit summary of "long-standing unsourced BLP, I will restore this on request if anyone is willing to source it". Either do that, or source it yourself. Leaving articles with nothing more than "X is a person" isn't so good.--Scott Mac 13:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, in this case I deleted it under A7. Even before your stubbing, there's no assertion of notability. Being a "contact person" for a dissonant group - and an unsourced claim of a radio interview doesn't cut it. She may be notable, but there's no evidence in the article.--Scott Mac 13:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Premakeerthi de Alwis

    Premakeerthi de Alwis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - See the talk page. The subject was killed in 1989 but one editor wishes to add a possible explanation for the murder, accusing a living person. Please comment on the sourcing and whether this should be included. Also, if inappropriate, should the intended text be kept on the talk page? // Bigger digger (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This was previously listed, but didn't quite make sense (moved by Bigger digger (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC) ):[reply]

    Dear friend, this issue is actual and few of persons who want to avoid this issue. The user User:Ramya20 only contribute to Wikipedia delete this issue . I have a doubt on this user sock puppet of Hudson samarasinhe . This issue is promoting by Wife of premakeerthi who Nirmala De alwis on her book ‘’Premakeethini’’ which publish on 2010. Author is User:Bigger digger is mention that this book cannot find out in Google searching . It is correct because it takes few more month on appear ISBN web sites . But no one can refuse this issue. There is already published on a blog translation [18] Wikipedia we have a possibility to translate context of articles. I request to assist solve this problem to administrator in Wikipedia .--Wipeouting (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry what? You want to accuse a living person of involvement in murder from a blog? Okay looking more closely the source is some book? I think we can accept the book exists, the blog is unneeded. This is somewhat irrelevant though since if no info from a reliable secondary source (whether in Sinhala, Tamil, English or whatever) can be found which even mentions the book, it's questionable if it's an acceptable source particularly to accuse a living person of murder, even if the info is coming from the wife of the person killed. Even worse if it's self published. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Disambiguation tag for criminal?

    We have several articles on individuals named Russell Williams; the Russell Williams who was a Colonel in the Canadian Air Force has today pleaded guilty to all charges (murders, kidnappings, sexual assaults, etc). The court hearing isn't finished yet - they're going through a... "finding of fact", I guess it might be called? And then there'll be the victim-impact statements and the sentencing... anyway, it'll be safer to leave the category tags for "Canadian sex offenders" and "Canadian serial killers" off until he's actually sentenced.

    But what I'm also concerned about is the article name. At the time he was arrested, and at the time he committed these crimes, he was a Colonel in the RCAF, and thus the article was named Russell Williams (Colonel). But the RCAF has stated that he will be stripped of all rank, kicked out of the Forces, etc., as soon as the conviction goes through... which means he will no longer be a Colonel.

    But should we have Russell Williams (murderer)? Russell Williams (killer)? DS (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (Former Col RFAF, Convicted of....) ??? Bluebadger1 (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The purpose of a disambiguation is to help the reader tell apart. Thus it should be the most pertinent label that people might use. If I speak of Russell Williams and you say "which one?", and I say "Oh, the one that ...xyz", then the xyz is what we should use (unless it breaches BLP). Having said that, we should err on the side of not using negative differentials unless it indisputable that the negative is the pertinent fact. We should also keep them as short as possible - so no, not "former colonel"
    In this case, there's nothing wrong with using "colonel", even if he isn't technically. If that designation is going to help the reader use it - we don't have to respect USAF technicalities in a title (the article will inform the reader as to that). However, I can see the argument for moving the title on the grounds that he's better know for his crimes than his rank.--Scott Mac 19:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    USAF? :-P Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was moved at 15:23 earlier today, to David Russell Williams. –xenotalk 20:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And although the page now no longer needs disambiguation, here is some links for review: articles (not including redirects) with (criminal), (murderer), (serial killer), as disambiguation [only one has (killer)] –xenotalk 20:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but the thing is, no one calls him that. We should go with the most commonly used name, yes? "Al Capone" instead of "Alfonse", for instance? DS (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have thought that a title without a (disambiguation) is preferred when possible, but there doesn't appear to be much relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding an article title. –xenotalk 20:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From Wikipedia:NCP#Disambiguating: "If disambiguation can be achieved more naturally by using different name forms (as described previously on this page), then this is done. See, for example, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. However, if no other disambiguation technique comes naturally, then tags in parentheses are the usual technique.". Seems to support the David Russell Williams, no? –xenotalk 20:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that with Xeno's move is the best option overall. IMHO much better to use his accurate full name, even if not the most common way he's adressed, then to trip all overselves trying to agree on a flawed paranthetical. (And I say flawed because every choice I've heard has a pro-con. So whichever we chose is flawed in it's own way.)--Cube lurker (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    On a related note: Is "convicted criminal" or similar tag an appropriate category to add (once proven and convicted of course, verifiable etc. ? I noted for example Al Capone has some similar category tags. Bluebadger1 (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well Al Capone isn't a BLP AFAIK :-P But more to the point, the categories are fine if properly sourced particularly when a big part of the notability comes from the criminal acts although care should be taken to use the right cats (was an issue at Roman Polanski). (The bigger problems are how to handle people who are widely believe to have committed a crime, but never convicted perhaps because they die beforehand, clearly we can't call them convicted but can we call them other things?)Nil Einne (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree. 1) The current title isn't appropriate, as it is not in wide use & would not identify him to an inquiring reader. None of the three largest Canadian media outlets (CBC, the Globe & Mail, the Toronto Star) have ever referred to him as "David Russell Williams." A searcher would not know who that is. It doesn't effectively disambiguate anything. This isn't a case like Mark David Chapman; he is never referred to in the press by his full name. When the press refers to him, it is usually as "Col. Russell Williams," but since he is no longer a Colonel (as of his conviction), that isn't an appropriate article title. 2) "(Murderer)" is the appropriate tag. Williams's notoriety stems entirely from his crimes, and that is how the article should distinguish him from others with his name. He has confessed, pleaded guilty, and been convicted. The current proceedings are a sentencing; his guilt has been stipulated by the defence, and all the facts being read into the record have been agreed to by both sides. I don't see any flaws in "Russell Williams (murderer)." I'd like to rename the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.199.205 (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Toronto Star did use the full name [19]. WP:NCP#Disambiguating suggests using a more 'natural' disambiguation technique when possible. The advice is even more relevant for BLP subjects. As his full legal name disambiguates precisely, naturally, concisely, there is no need to use a bracketed disambiguator. However, you are free to file a WP:RM at the talk page of the article. –xenotalk 13:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a case could probably also be made to consider the subject the primary topic. –xenotalk 13:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the reply, Xeno. Searching for "David Russell Williams" in the Globe archive gets one hit, out of 28,900 uses of "Russell Williams". On the CBC, the full name also gets one hit out of 590 uses. In the Star, it's 4 out of 33. Importantly, none of the hits for the full name (in any of the 3 sources) are from headlines, where usage coalesces around one name by which all sources refer to him. Looking at the Google Trends for his name in the last month, there are virtually no hits for "David Russell Williams" and oodles for "Russell Williams". (Since Trends tells me these are overwhelmingly Canadian searches, I don't think the "Russell Williams" searchers in the last month were looking for someone else with the same name.) I'd also note that nearly all the uses of his full name are in biographies, listing his full birth name & place of birth-- rather than in natural reference in a piece about the crimes. I'm a new user and I'm not sure how to request a move, but I'll try!193.157.199.205 (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I just took a look at the pageview stats and the subject is far-and-away the primary topic by several orders of magnitude, so I've turned it into the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. –xenotalk 13:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Keith Olbermann catch phrases

    I am Currently hashing out sourcing at Keith Olbermann catch phrases which the editor is trying to save from deletion so far the Author has found Sourcing to Verify he uses "Catch phrases" as every anchor man/Tv Personality does. However currently all the quotes are so poorly sourced and off Color I am unsure if its BLP risk to include them.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks messy. Could someone provide more detail on the quality of the sources? Maybe list a few of the very best ones? --Ronz (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthew Yusuf Smith

    I've pruned a lot of stuff sourced primarily to comments on this guys blog. [20] It's not so bad no but perhaps another eye or two would help. The subject of the article has previously tagged it for notability reasons but it looks like the person or the blog at least is notable. Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to wonder whether he is notable at all. His blog is notable as the recipient of various awards, but how does that make him notable? Wouldn't there be a better article about the blog, with a paragraph about him. Most of the information about him is sourced to his own blog anyway and the reliable sources take note of the blog, not him. Bigger digger (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be right, I original thought he's probably notable because of the blog but then reconsidered actually it may just be the blog that is notable hence the clarification above. However this would suggest an AFD isn't necessary but a move discussion followed by an appropriate re-focusing of the article after the move if it's carried out. Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin J. Tracey

    A couple of different editors are making the exact same edits to Kevin J. Tracey, removing sourced edits, removing formatting, and replacing it with unsourced claims. I've reverted several times now and issued a couple of BLP warnings, so the original editor stopped editing and another editor, not a new account, came in to make the same edits. 216.93.213.191 (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Larry Di Ianni

    Recurrent political candidate in Hamilton, Ontario, and has faced campaign charges. One fellow that I just talked to feels that the paragraph reading "On July 10, 2006 Di Ianni, along with two other unsuccessful candidates..." is too weak and weasel-worded. He suggested Di Ianni's team may have whitewashed it. If someone uninvolved can take a look, and see if the wording seems purposely weak. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Virginia Lamp Thomas

    WP:UNDUE WEIGHT being added to WP:BLP by IP. Please see [21] and [22]. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a front-page story in the New York Times and a lead story in US broadcast news media. It's hardly unreasonable to see it as noteworthy. We should be careful, however, to exclude references to the police/FBI response, since that can be read as carrying connotations beyond its very limited purpose of authenticating the caller's identity. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP added back more WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, see [23]. An entire subsection for one phone call? That is too much. -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's ridiculous that you bring this here before you even questioned it on the talk page. I believe it should be included. I started a thread on the talk page yesterday about it because I wasn't sure exactly how to proceed, but I think the section is appropriate as it is. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a WP:BLP page and an WP:UNDUE WEIGHT issue, and is most certainly appropriate to be reported here. The info should not have its own independent subsection, I moved it into a subsection, Personal life - where it still takes up way too much space on the page [24]. I then trimmed out the blockquotes and excessive quoting [25] - the same can be done by paraphrasing and explaining what occurred. -- Cirt (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Such issues can happily be reported here. The addition is pure titilation and coatracking, and is actually still undue, it is not even the type of NPOV thing we should be reporting in our Biographies of living people, its trashy partisan twaddle. So she called a woman that appears to have accused her husband (without conviction), fair play to her but it is not biographically noteworthy in her life, even if the New york times and the Washington post has both released it. I think its coatracking and should all be removed. The first few words are about her and then off it goes on its coatracking, tedious democratic partisan addition, with nothing more in mind that repeating the quite worthless allegations against her husband. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ed Miliband

    Resolved

    This is being hashed out on the article talk page, no need to fork it here now.--Scott Mac 10:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]



    I have gone over 3RR in removing the claim that the Leader of the UK Opposition is Jewish, based on two Jewish news sources. I believe that my action is justified in terms of enforcing BLP as I believe a sensitive claim like this needs mainstream sources (which don't seem to exist). I won't continue to revert this for today, but thought I'd bring it here for other opinions instead. --John (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh dear -- once again we see the idea that "Jewish news sources" are not sufficiently mainstream... One of them is Haaretz. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Jewish chronicle and Harrez, say he is jewish, well they would wouldn't they. That is their game so to speak. Actually Ed Miliband is so far away from Jewish as your obsessive desire to label his as the Jewish prime minister is clearly with BLP issues. He was brought up in a secular house by Marxist non believing parents and Ed Miliband has also said he does not believe in god and he was born in Britain , is British, he speaks only English . to claim simply, he is a Jew is totally undue, even if the Jewish chronicle says it. The only thing jewish about him is some of the blood in history in his veins, if that is Jewish then you can kiss jewish goodbye. Off2riorob (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to be fair, if he was brought up in a secular house by Marxist father and his mother is a member of a pro-Palestinian organization then many highly accomplished journalists at Haaretz are probably loving him. Jokes aside, Bus stop adding religion = Jewish in the infobox without a source is totally unacceptable and blockable if he keeps it up especially given that it is explicitly contradicted by sources. Haaretz, is certainly a reliable source in general but I guess self declarations/quotes work best in BLPs. I added a cite next to the infobox entry for religion = none from the existing Telegraph interview. Is he Jewish ? Of course. "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense." Sean.hoyland - talk 15:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the religion entry was removed altogether from the infobox. I guess that works too. He is an atheist, that much is crystal clear but I guess it is also clear from his statements that it isn't relevant to his public life. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sean.hoyland -- thank you for that source -- it would seem to me that we have the self-identification issue sorted out (and with a "non-Jewish source", no less -- ugh...). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All that asserts is exactly hat I have been saying, he is not Jewish as regards religion, upbringing or life, all that is Jewish about him is some of the blood that historically flows in his veins. It does not support the blind labeling that you desire to add. That he's the Jewish prime minister' .Off2riorob (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're going to have to lay off the "blood" nonsense. You simply have no idea how offensive and disreputable this is. I'll add that I must have misread recent newspaper articles, where to my great regret David Cameron was elected as prime minister... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He is clearly Jewish in some senses, but not in every sense as the term would be understood by most readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait what someone added religion=Jewish to the infobox? Weren't we just discussing whether or not we should put it atheist or leave it blank? Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    John, I provided two UK news sources that verified both his Jewish ethnicity and atheism in the talk page. Could you please review them and then comment there. The reason I haven't added them to the article yet was because of this ongoing discussion, but I did expect them to be at least read.--Topperfalkon (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Topper, you are an atheist and you announce that you are that is fine but please allow the subjects of our articles the same pleasure as you had, self identification is important in BLP articles, Ed Milliband has never ever said he is an Atheist or that he affiliates with that group at all or that he is even interested in Atheism.. If Ed Milliband had said, I am an Atheist and proud of it - You wouldn't need to add it as I would have added it before you.Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the links Rob. Reliable sources refer to him as an atheist, with his own self-identification backing that up. Bearing in mind that he is British, which is a Christian country, so therefore like many Britons proclaiming the non-belief in 'God' is equivalent to proclaiming atheism, unless clarified by proclaiming support for an alternative deity (or in his case simply proclaiming he is Jewish and omitting the 'I don't believe in God' statement). This seems to be the analysis performed by aforementioned reliable sources, so we should probably take their word for it!--Topperfalkon (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I said on the other discussion, we have already his quoted comments in the body of the article, and suggested, do you want to add that because he has said that he doesn't believe in God that the press have called him an atheist. Seems a bit un-encyclopedic thing to report if you ask me. You know the media, they all rush to publish and especially all print a single story, the press don't care, they want headlines and sales and titillation, at wikipedia we have the chance and policy in BLP to not have to do that. In BLP articles we like the strongest claims, and self declaration is the best, I don't believe in a God is a long way from affiliating yourself with any group, please I tire of this worthless POV discussion. You are an Atheist and you think that you want to add that other people are also atheists even when they don't actually say so, I personally do not believe in a God either but I would object to being called an Atheist and do not consider myself one either, please take a step back from your personal held beliefs and allow the living subject the same respect. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose if we are to work on the very strict basis that "I don't believe in God" not equal "I am atheist" (a distinction that I, like Topper and the press disagree with) then we can't put "religion = none" in the infobox either because not believing in "God" isn't the same as "religion = none". So, if that is the case, it's probably better for the religion attribute to be absent. Not sure how you provide WP:V compliance for the absence of an attribute but it probably doesn't matter. I'm an atheist but I'm not affiliating myself with any group. It just means I'm not a member of a set of theists hence the 'a'. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, its putting words in his mouth that he simply hasn't said. He may well have a set of spiritual beliefs that has no God but some degree of some kind of faith, it is for that exact reason that the religion = none in the infobox is undue. Your self declaration is one of Atheism that is totally clear, but my comment about God is not, it is that opportunity we should give to Miliband. Thanks. It is this point that is unclear that is the problem and I think it is right to be unclear, as article discussions seem a better solution, it is only on these high profile cases where it becomes an issue. I would like to see the label atheist only added with a self declaration as in I am an Atheist there is no way you are going to get wikipedia consensus that says, if someone says they don't believe in God it is correct to add him to all the atheist category and to add atheist to the infobox and refer to him as a atheist. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bear in mind that being an atheist is not such a big deal in the UK. It certainly doesn't have a Capital Letter at the front. Over here it just means you don't believe in god. As was pointed out above - it's a-theist. It's not a group in itself. Fainites barleyscribs 21:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That really is the simple question, in a BLP is the community consensus to allow people that have said, I don't believe in God to be labeled in the infobox and added to the atheist categories? Our cat atheists says there ..
    This category contains Atheists, who have expressed being an atheist, and of whom it is known how they define their atheism.
    It doesn't say, anyone who doesn't believe in god can be added here. I don't think there is community consensus for this, it seems split to me, perhaps slightly more editors have commented in opposition than support. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a complicated issue because one can be both Jewish and an atheist. However, there doesn't seem to be any question that Haaretz is in general a reliable source. I'm a bit confused as to why one would think it wouldn't be. It is a major newspaper. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think anyone is debating whether it's possible to be Jewish and atheist. People are suggesting someone shouldn't be labelled as religion=Jewish when they say they don't believein god and that they are not Jewish in a religious sense but one user does not agree. Nil Einne (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be the editor who supposedly raised the issue of the "reliability" of Haaretz. But I didn't do that. I made the point that the newspaper uses the word "Jewish" in a way which would have a clear meaning to most of its own readership, but which would not necessarily convey the same meaning to a wider non-Jewish audience. That is, its use of the word "Jewish" may convey, to many WP readers, implications as to a person's own religious beliefs, which the newspaper itself did not mean to convey - and, on that basis, WP should strive to clarify the meaning of the word in context. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jerome Edward Listecki

    Could someone please take a look at this article? The Criticism section takes up over half the article, and even though there are sources for the allegations, the entire article seems unduly "slanted." Another editor attached WP:POV and WP:AD tags, so it would be good to have the article reviewed by outside editors and any issues cleared up. Thanks. MarconiCheese (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    flea's biography

    stop with the police shoot outs language. it never happened. this from flea's mother. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.144.192 (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Porter - subject complaining about bio (copied from ANI)

    See this diff. User:NoteMyVote claims to be the subject of the article and has blanked the page and replaced it with his own comments about the accuracy of the content, including a possible legal threat (claiming that the content is 'potentially libelous'). Would appreciate some help resolving this, as I am unsure of the best course of action. Thanks. --KorruskiTalk 10:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at it. Whatever is going on here, well done for not immediately reverting! You are not a WP:DOLT.--Scott Mac 10:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored the article minus the material that the user seems to dispute, and left a note asking him to alert us to issues on the talk page. I suggest we need some sensitive people to review and improve this article. Please watchlist. Am copying this thread to the WP:BLPNB--Scott Mac 10:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sara Chaudhry

    She is not a notable figure neither does she have source and link available to verify of her being notable figure to be published on Wikipedia. Her page states that she is a fashion designer. There is no link or verifiable source available to establish the fact. Her page states that she worked for 2 Tv shows mentioned in Filmography, Television serials section. Both the links do not show any details even the pages have not been completed, hence no creditability can not be established, moreover working/acting in 2 shows do not make one notable for Wikipedia.

    As per my information she is a very small scale model privately operated and her works to date do not qualify her of being notable enough to be on the Wikipedia profile. I believe there has to be a proven track record in any field to establish some one regarded for his or her work for such public profiling. Please take a look and I suggest this page should be removed.

    --Paluploader (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Noticeboards, source criticism and claims of BLP issues

    Over the last few days User:Ronz has been issuing BLP warnings to a number of editors, Ludwigs2, Hans Adler, The Founders Intent, BruceGrubb, and now myself Griswaldo. More recently he has taken it upon himself to delete user contributions to both the FT/N and RS/N claiming BLP violations, and subsequently edit warring in order to keep the information out. What all of these complaints have in common are criticism of Stephen Barrett as a source at the entry for Weston Price. At both noticeboard's Barrett's reliability was being discussed when Ronz claims editors started violating BLP, and he, at least most recently, had to take it upon himself to scrub the talk pages of these so called violations. Can someone look into the most recent claim especially, where Ronz removed User:BruceGrubb's talk page comments. I would like some input on whether or not that was a BLP violation. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The specifically applicable language on the application of BLP to talk pages (and outside article space generally) reads "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate." The italicized (by me) policy language gives editors, quite appropriately, more leeway in discussing problematic content in good faith in the process of working out disputed content issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, and reason alone for me to be even less aggressive in enforcing BLP in such circumstances. Still, citing these specific detractors (refactor per 19:41, 22 Oct below) goes over the line with BLP, not to mention the irony when done at RSN. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We haven't had one of these in some time. As a change, it's not really about the Stephen Barrett article itself, but Weston Price and a reference written by Barrett that is being used in the Price article. Basically, editors have been disparaging Barrett as part of their arguments against the use of the reference.
    First, I noticed this pair of comments/edits from The Founders Intent (talk · contribs) on October 7: warning discussion discussion. These problems continued, but not in such a problematic way [26].
    In the past few days, there have been similar problems from other editors, as noted above by Griswaldo. I warned editors, noted the problem within the discussion itself, and discussed it briefly.
    On 21 Oct, BruceGrubb (talk · contribs) attacked Barrett directly, referencing attacks by Barrett's detractors at RSN, which was duplicated in part four hours later at FSN.
    I removed both [27] [28], and warned BruceGrubb. When Griswaldo restored them, I removed them and discussed the matter with him. Now we're here. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c)The removals in question are - here, same removed again, and again, and I restored it a final time here. This is part of a discussion of Barrett's qualifications as a source on a talk page, not the introduction of questionable material into article space. BLP is designed to protect living persons from defamation; it is decidedly not designed to prevent inquiries into a source's credentials so that editors can use a source without proper verification. --Ludwigs2 16:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And Ludwig thinks this is something to edit-war over [29] [30]. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Ronz says after his fifth revert on the page... --Ludwigs2 16:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Related BLP dispute here. Related ArbCom here --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • - Looks like an long term dispute that hasn't been solved yet. As I see it after a fair look, Ronz, you seem overly sensetive about this person, I see you are a major contributor to his article Stephen Barrett. I support the BLP applies all over the place but a degree of discussion does have to take place as regards to his reliably for source usage. I support the position that on a talkpage you should attempt to comment only as to claims you can cite, but I think it is also true that thoughts come out and as long as they are not clear violations that are like a vandal edit they should not require removal. The best is to explain your problems with the content and ask a user to either cite it or remove it, this repeated removal of other users content when it is only perhaps a little opinionated in a discussion related to sourcing is a bit much. I am not seeing such extreme BLP vios as to need multiple removals (small ones perhaps if you were being overly sensitive). I suggest, you all as experienced contributors, ease up a bit, and it there is a touch less opining from the one side and Ronz eases up on the undue sensitivity it will be a good way to move forward. Perhaps other users can have a good look at the removals and comment also. Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that others have noted this same "sensitivity" when it comes to Barrett. I think this issue ought to air out a bit here so that we don't have repeated issues due to "sensitivity". Ronz, I'm asking this in good faith and will accept your answer as true, but do you have a COI of any kind when it comes to Barrett? I ask because it is not usual that someone is this sensitive regarding one individual. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Griswaldo - Sorry, I don't see that line of questioning as being in good faith.
    • "As I see it after a fair look, Ronz, you seem overly sensetive about this person," Only sensitive to the repeated attacks made against him in violation of BLP, as I do with BLP problems against anyone else. When editors cite detractors, they've gone over the line. When they repeat information from detractors without citing those detractors, the editor should be notified that it is a potential BLP problem, but the information doesn't need immediate removal if part of a discussion related to making content choices. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ronz, we have a policy on conflicts of interest which strongly recommends that editors be open about them -- see WP:COI. I wont push this, but I don't think it was unreasonable to ask for clarification on this given that others have noted this specific sensitivity in the past. I personally find your activity in this area, regarding Barrett and criticism of him as a source, to be disruptive and I'd like to understand why you're so pushy about it.Griswaldo (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I don't find your line of comments to be in good faith.
    If you're not going to push it, don't bring it up. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I wanted to post some or one of the removal to discuss here, but if you have repeatedly removed from other locations does that mean you would object to me posting it here to look for the actual violations, can we do that? I could ask a completelty uninvolved administrator if the content is such a violation as to be a BLP violation removal revert exclusion, that is what we need to answer, as if it is not then it should not be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Three threads on three noticeboards about this one issue should indicate to the Administrators that the real problem can likely be identified by looking at a common denominator. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 17:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't get it. It is not a "disagreement" with Barrett but that every claim aobut Price can be shown to be in error if not out right wrong. If the online reports regarding the Stephen Barrett, M.D. vs. Tedd Koren, D.C. and Koren Publications, Inc., King Bio Pharmaceuticals cases are totally factual in their details Barrett has serious credibility problems--possibly enough to discredit him as a WP:RS. The Quackbuster, Stephen Barrett, MD, loses appeal and leaves home town article claims that at the time of writing Barrett had not won a single lawsuit that went to trial. Furthermore how on earth do you lose a case regarding saying homeopathy is quackery? That should have been a slam dunk for an actual expert.


    @ Off2riorob: I posted diffs of the contested passage in my 16:02, 22 October 2010 post, above. I'd post a diff about my having posted the diffs, but I'm worried about the philosophical (not to mention the quantum dynamical) ramifications of that.
    @ Founders intent: the context here is that Barrett and QuackWatch are commonly used as 'opposition' voices on fringe and pseudoscience articles, and skepticism-oriented editors are worried that any lessening of the authoritative status of the two will have repercussions across a wide range of pages. That's a non-issue from my perspective - if Barrett actually has been over-represented on a number of pages then all those pages ought to be revised (per NPOV) to place him in proper balance - but I can see how that might encourage some editors to go to fairly extensive ends to maintain that status. --Ludwigs2 18:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point is well taken, and of course none of us need reminding that WP doesn't play favorites. My point is a bit different than yours but somewhat related. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 18:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "if Barrett actually has been over-represented on a number of pages" Actually, the reverse has happened. The ArbCom above has been used as an excuse to remove the vast majority of citations to Quackwatch. It got so bad that the ArbCom was amended to help resolve the problem here. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The "When editors cite detractors, they've gone over the line." claim floored me. By this logic we can't say anything bad about Jack T. Chick anywhere on wikipedia even if it is coming from a peer reviewed publication like Religion and American Culture because Chick is still amount the living and the counterpoint is by a "detractor". The same goes for John T. Reed regarding Robert Kiyosaki. Heck it could be applied to any "detractor" of any living person. Does with make any degree of sense? Is this even sane?!? I seriously doubt that kind of insanity is what WP:BLP had in mind but that would be the logical end of such an argument--we can't say anything bad no matter how well sourced about a living person because if they are saying something bad they are a detractor.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the misunderstanding. This is not my meaning, nor intent. There's consensus that these specific detractors fail both WP:RS and BLP. I shouldn't be generalizing. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh so you are saying the word of Earnest A. Hooton of Harvard University which in part states "A quantity of excellent evidence has been amassed which indicates that dental caries is, to a great extent, connected with malnutrition and with deficient diets." is not reliable because it conflictd with Barrett's current claim of "he ignored the fact that malnourished people don't usually get many cavities." even though it appears as the forward in Price's own book published by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers and that Price's statement in a 1923 book called Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic ("since 1870 the average length of life has been increased by fifteen years, that marked reduction has occurred during this period in infant mortality and in mortality due to tuberculosis, typhoid, smallpox and many other diseases.") which is cited in said book published by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers is also not reliable because it conflicts with Barrett's claim of "While extolling their health, he ignored their short life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality, endemic diseases, and malnutrition." This was covered in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F and the majority felt as I did that as far as a biography on Weston Price was concerned Barrett did NOT meet WP:RS requirements and since the it was asked if the source was valid it required a consensus to show it did meet WP:RS.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not saying that. How about we stick to what editors are actually claiming? --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankfully we are sticking to the topic at hand. Okay how about if you kindly produce the evidence of this that "these specific detractors fail both WP:RS and BLP"? Let's see why these sources are not worthy? I think we all need to see why these source fail BLP. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 21:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See the Arbcomm as a start, already linked twice. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The first link is to a user thought to be in legal conflict with Barrett coupled with him making implied legal threats against editors of wikipedia--a major no-no. It looks like the activity stopped before anything actually was done (of if there was something done the link isn't there)
    The second link says Motion 1) "The use of Quackwatch as a source is not banned; however, all editors are reminded of the instruction in the policy page on Neutral point of view that they should "give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner", that Quackwatch is a site "whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct", and is therefore explicitly not giving a balanced presentation."--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, this is off topic. --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I was referring to. --Ronz (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That says "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist and is part of WP:SPS that was brought by me in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F: I should point out that WP:SPS is quite explicit regarding the use of such self-published sources as Barrett: In some circumstances, self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"(sic). (next paragraph) The biggest problem is the lack of reference to all of Barrett's nutritional claims regarding Price's research. If there is one thing I still remember from my research days is that is better to overcite claim then to undercite but in this section there is nothing. So where are these claims coming from?
    User:The Founders Intent has already asked for proof that the references meet the "widely acknowledged as extremist" criteria and so far we have seen nothing.
    Also Barrett's logic process at times make you go "huh?" when you do further research. For example, take his otherwise good Take his Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine" which says under "Questionable Standards" that "Today some states restrict the practice of acupuncture to physicians or others operating under their direct supervision. In about 20 states, people who lack medical training can perform acupuncture without medical supervision. The FDA now classifies acupuncture needles as Class II medical devices and requires labeling for one-time use by practitioners who are legally authorized to use them [17]. Acupuncture is not covered under Medicare." Ok, but "Some of the items and services that Medicare doesn’t cover include the following: Long-term care See pages 110–112., Routine dental care, Dentures, Cosmetic surgery, Acupuncture, Hearing aids, exams for fitting hearing aids. To find out if Medicare covers a service you need, visit www.medicare.gov/coverage. Call 1-800-MEDICARE (1-800-633-4227) for general coverage information. TTY users should call 1-877-486-2048." Medicare and you. This statement in the context of the paragraph is a Non sequitur (logic) because last time I checked Routine dental care, Dentures, Hearing aids, and exams for fitting hearing aids were about as mainstream medicine as you could get and yet Medicare doesn't cover those either. Why is that sentence even there in a section on Questionable Standards?!?
    Finally the Barrett_v._Rosenthal ruling linked to above was handed down March 27, 2007 while Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Stephen_Barrett (May 29, 2007), Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_9#copied_from_Ronz.27_talk_page (April 10, 2007, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive19#Stephen_Barrett (June 12, 2007) all came AFTER it. These clearly show that such sources can be and have been provided on the talk pages to establish points without violating WP:BLP--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly off topic. I guess that's an improvement. Once again, this is the BLP Noticeboard. Please keep your comments concise and on topic. --Ronz (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That was not a helpful comment. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 14:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A simple search of the Stephen_Barrett talk page will provide plenty more proof. --Ronz (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You got to love the implication that an archive of this noticeboard (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive19#Stephen_Barrett) is not on topic...for this noticeboard.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sources can be discussed. The sources were found to fail RS and BLP.
    So, why are these sources that fail RS and BLP being used to make ad-hominem attacks on Barrett? This violates BLP in multiple ways, multiple times. The sources are improper, and used for multiple attacks. Why do editors think it's proper to keep such violations in a discussion? The discussions on the Quackwatch reference are huge, so the claim that discussion is being prevented is absolutely absurd. --Ronz (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While we are at it let's talk about Ronz's WP:OR and WP:BATTLE claim when I asked "If Weston Price's theories regarding nutrition and tooth decay where wrong then where are the papers refuting those theories?" then. What sources outside focal infection does Barrett use to show his claims regarding Price's research are not just his personal opinion? Also why is Ronz also going after User talk:The Founders Intent, User_talk:Griswaldo, and User_talk:Hans_Adler when they disagree with him regarding Barrett? I am starting to see a pattern here and it is not one I should be seeing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the BLP Noticeboard. Please stick to the topic at hand. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So anything goes when discussing sources?

    The sources fail BLP, their use fails BLP. Editors aren't justifying their use, nor their behavior. Because they were attacking Barrett in a discussion about him as a source, we ignore BLP? That's the only conclusion I can make from the discussion so far. Hopefully the editors involved have a better explanation. Perhaps one is coming? --Ronz (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not the intent, to show that anything goes. The intent is to be able to have an uncensored discussion about a source for an article. That this source happens to be living should be of little concern, as long as we don't become inflammatory. But we must be allowed to have open discussions just like for any other source. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 14:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have uncensored discussions about living people, BLP applies, please keep the comments a bit cleaner and so as not to appear derogatory or demeaning the living subject. Basically if you can't WP:RS it, then don't say it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that was a bit strong. I didn't mean a discussion that lacked all control, and I think that was clear. I think we should be able to have a fair discussion about a source to make sure it meets reliability criteria. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 15:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here, Ronz, is that you have decided that anything which doesn't present Barrett as a model of scientific good sense and propriety must by definition be a personal attack. That's hardly the case. nothing being said about Barrett in these discussion constitues an unwarrented personal attack (no one is calling him names, no one is implying he's broken the law or violated the conventions of normal human decency). All we are discussing is whether Barrett lives up to the expectations of objectivity and scientific rigor that we would that we need to consider to determine whether or not he is a reliable source. What is it precisely that you consider so offensive about the passage you keep trying to delete? --Ludwigs2 03:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. Please follow WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, and keep to the topic of BLP please. --Ronz (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you have not specified what in particular in this passage constitutes a BLP violation, so I don't see why this should be removed. let's take it point by point:
    1. "If the online reports regarding the (...) cases are totally factual in their details Barrett has serious credibility problems--possibly enough to discredit him as a WP:RS." - reasonable discussion to evaluate a source, yes?
    2. "The Quackbuster, Stephen Barrett, MD, loses appeal and leaves home town article claims that at the time of writing Barrett had not won a single lawsuit that went to trial." - a sourced claim about Barrett; if the source is good there is no BLP issue, if it isn't, then there's a sourcing issue but not a BLP issue.
    3. "Furthermore how on earth do you lose a case regarding saying homeopathy is quackery? That should have been a slam dunk for an actual expert." - snide, yes; BLP violation, doubtful. the very issue under debate is whether Barrett is an expert, so an editor calling Barrett's expertise into question is hardly unexpected.
    So, where is the BLP issue here? Am I misunderstanding something? because I don't see one. --Ludwigs2 04:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You probably didn't notice it amidst everything else [31]

    Of course, I did write (16:07, 22 Oct), where it's extremely hard to miss, "On 21 Oct, BruceGrubb (talk · contribs) attacked Barrett directly, referencing attacks by Barrett's detractors at RSN, which was duplicated in part four hours later at FSN." And (17:02, 22 Oct), "Still, citing these specific detractors ... goes over the line with BLP, not to mention the irony when done at RSN." And (14:19, 23 Oct) "they were attacking Barrett." --Ronz (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually did miss the first comment, and I think I saw at least some of the others, but dismissed them as bombast. Sorry. However, I will point out that you've got a bit of a snowball clause issue here. These sources (which may or may not be reliable for talk page discussions on this particular topic) are pointing to a court case which is certainly reliable and a matter of public record. Bruce (or any of us) could - with sufficient effort - recover the pertinent judgement that Barrett was not qualified as an expert, which would be a perfectly legitimate source to use on wikipedia even in article space (just as a court case is used on the Intelligent Design article to specify that ID is pseudoscience). I don't think you doubt that the court case occurred, I don't think you doubt the the judgement was as given, I don't think you doubt that we could retrieve better sources for the same material, and do I think we both agree that better sources would be required if we were going to use this court case in an article. But this is a talk page, and requiring other editors to jump through hoops to get to a forgone result that isn't even going to appear in mainspace is a good bit on the dark side of wp:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Or do you believe that this court case didn't occur?
    I mean, frankly, if a judge saw fit to dismiss Barrett's libel case, I can't see that we are in any moral or legal danger by discussing the same issue. You might have cause to throw these sources out as unreliable (if this were mainspace), but I still don't see how you have a BLP issue here
    Ronz, Ludwigs2 like The Founders Intent, is asking for proof. As I have pointed out before Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Stephen_Barrett (May 29, 2007), Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_9#copied_from_Ronz.27_talk_page (April 10, 2007, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive19#Stephen_Barrett (June 12, 2007) all use similar links. All we have seen to date is rhetoric with WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK and claims of being off topic. User:Off2riorob thinks you are being oversensitive; Hans Adler implied Barrett didn't reevaluate Price's studies by modern standards with no sources what so ever and you are not even touching his comments (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F), Ludwigs2 doesn't see BLP issues, The Founder Intent doesn't see any, Griswaldo doesn't see any; nobody seems to see this but you.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom request for clarification

    likely to be denied

    I've gone ahead and requested a clarification from ArbCom on the problem of skeptical sources under the Pseudoscience decision. you can see the request and add comments [[32]]. I've only listed myself and ScienceApoligist as participants, since the main discussion on the other thread was between he and I, but you can feel free to cast yourself as a participant or not as you choose. --Ludwigs2 22:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh joy, another place for us to keep track of this on (whimpers)--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    lol - I live to serve. or do I lerv to sieve? hmmm... --Ludwigs2 00:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't there another noticeboard we could start a thread on? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 01:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In all seriousness that is not a good idea per Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering which it could be argued this subject may already have problems regarding.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, should have made it clear that it was meant in humorous sarcasm. It's been place on too many boards for my liking. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 14:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of potential BLP-violating material in discussion related to making content choices

    I've gone ahead and removed it once again. If editors aren't even going to justify themselves, I'm for erring on the side of caution. --Ronz (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And I've put it back. see my note above. --Ludwigs2 03:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No justification, again. --Ronz (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Cunninghamhead Estate

    The talk page (and the article until I protected it) have been being used to discuss a property owner and his actions towards his property. RL means I can't keep as close an eye on this as I'd like for a few days, so if anyone could add this to their watch list temporarily I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Added. - Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'm off and on this week. Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Suneeta Marshall

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

    Poorly sourced and written article. No dates, reliable source/links or proofs of her works and accomplishments provided establish credibility and notability.

    In the personal life section statements like "she is really pretty" gives an impression that the article has been written by a fan only to praise the individual which should be avoided.

    Association with very big brands like Dior and Gucci are mentioned in her profile career to which there is no verifiable source is provided. Any one can have claims unless verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paluploader (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please have a look as I think this person does not qualify for Wikipedia profile, unless a credibility and notability can be established.

    --Paluploader (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    George Smitherman

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

    I'd appreciate any review of the actions I've taken with this article and 129.100.104.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 129.100.104.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Smitherman is one of the main candidates in the election for mayor of Toronto taking place this month, and some users appear to be intent on adding a separate section about a "scandal" which is already covered, reasonably and per WP:NPOV policy in my view, in the section on "Provincial politics". Thanks in advance. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say your correct to remove it, when I read the cites it is all claims and that while he was in charge someone else did this. Its not really about Silverman and was added in a POV way to attack him during the election. If the same user comes back I would semi protect until after the election. Wikipedia is not a political tool for partisan additions, special care is needed during elections to protect living people from partisan political additions and attacks. Off2riorob (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    title and content of an article related to Aristotelis Goumas

    Editors are cautioned not to poke the editors involved here, lest they find themselves subject to the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia sanctions. Let's have a calm civil discussion of this as an ordinary BLP matter. Uncle G (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Athenean, who some weeks ago received a warning for topic ban on Albanian-Greek topics User talk:Athenean#AE, again started an article titled Murder of Aristotelis Goumas about the death of a Greek person who was killed in an incident by some Albanians. There is an official ongoing investigation and a pending trial that will decide whether this was a traffic collission or something else but this user tries to defame the people involved as murderers, which is totally unacceptable against the BLP rules. The article was moved to the neutral Death of Aristotelis Goumas but he decided to continue the defamation campaign [33]. The whole purpose of the article seems to be to label some Albanians as murderers although no one has been sentenced as murderer and in fact the trial hasn't even begun. Admins your intervention seems to be the only way to stop this defamation campaign, targeting and labeling people who haven't been sentenced about anything as murderers.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • You have not notified Athenean about this request, as you are required to do (see this page's edit notice). Please do so at once.  Sandstein  18:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard exists for this, you know. Uncle G (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. I'm not convinced this is an issue of misconduct that immediately calls for admin intervention/sanctions. There is a BLP-related content issue, which should be hacked out in the relevant venues. That said, I'm far from happy about seeing the usual ethnic factions lining up to instrumentalize this case for their on-wiki agendas (this goes for both the authors of the article and its detractors), but now the article is here we'll probably have to live with it. Small content suggestion: would "killing of" be acceptable? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)I agree with the deletion, since it had the problem of the title(Death vs. Murder and all the assumptions and conclusions that derive from those) Kushtrim123 noted and mainly the fact that it fails WP:EFFECT and WP:INDEPTH, traffic collissions happen every day and those which have many victims are definitely reported more by the media than this one, but we can't write articles on every such event. It's just an event like all other events that the media cover and then it is completely forgotten. Regarding reverse situations there are many more confirmed even reported by the Helsinki Com.[35], but I think Albanian editors don't write similar articles mainly because they understand that such articles Death/Murder/Killing of X (of Y ethnicity) serve only the aggravation of ethnic tensions and aren't encyclopedic but just create new ethnic battlegrounds.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't wholesale deletion rather drastic? I am perfectly willing to make any edits necessary to alleviate the BLP problems. I don't have too much experience with BLP issues, but I am all ears. I should note though, that every statement in there is sourced verbatim from reliable sources. It's not like I made anything up or changed the wording. The event itself is notable: It was covered by all major news outlets in Greece when it happened. If it supposedly fails WP:EFFECT and WP:INDEPTH, that should be addressed via an AfD, not like this. Athenean (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Zjarri: isn't this a violation of your interaction ban with Athenean? could you be kind enough and remove your comments? Agree with Fut. in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent)Thanks Uncle G and no my comment isn't a violation of any kind. Interactions bans are about reverts, comments on talkpages and userpages and comments about users not comments about articles.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Before discussion proceeds further, I'd just like to remind both of the above editors to tread very lightly here. AN/I discussions are prone to becoming either heated or trailing off into two-parties. BLP/N really was the better place for this, not least because it has a lengthier period before automatic archival, allowing for more measured discussion. (It also has, of course, the attention of people who focus upon BLP issues.) Don't let the nature of discussion here set off the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia alarms. In fact, if everyone agrees, I'm happy to move this over to BLP/N, where everyone can talk about "death of X" versus "killing of X" versus "murder of X" — a subject that BLP regulars have dealt with on occasion before — as well as the finer points of the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy with respect to such events. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Right. We're now here at BLP/N. For those unable to see the deleted edits, the initial dispute here, that occurred both with the content of the article and the title of the article, was the appropriate terminology and title to use for such an article. Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    When I wrote the article, I just followed what the sources said. It did not occur to me that there might be BLP issues, as I do not have a whole lot of experience with BLP and current events-related articles. I am however, perfectly willing to follow all and any advice and concerns from the community. The way I see it, this event is notable, as it received coverage by all the major media in Greece, and even some outside (e.g. Balkan Chronicle). If there are notability concerns, those can be discussed at an AfD, but wholesale deletion seems a bit drastic at this point. Athenean (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • The issue is one of the connotations of the word "murder". This is a regular, and to some extent quite ordinary (inasmuch as it can be ordinary at all), BLP issue. To call something murder is to imply murderers, which of course living people are not until they have been convicted of that crime. But, in tension opposing this, is of course the fact that something can be declared a murder and investigated as such — i.e. it's definitely a murder by someone but no-one has been convicted of it, yet. We have the much same issue with "X crime family" articles and "Y Z (criminal)" disambiguators. It's not in the spirit of the BLP policy to portray people as guilty of a crime when they haven't (yet) been convicted. Uncle G (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. Now that the situation has been properly explained to me (i.e. not brusquely moving the article without explanation), I have no objections to "Death of Aristotelis Goumas". Athenean (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because there is coverage in the news does not mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia WP:NOTNEWS. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I'm skeptical about the notability too, NOTNEWS-wise. It's a very recent case and may remain just sad news of the day. I also agree with Uncle G that "murder" is too specific in the absence of an actual conviction of that specific crime. If we need to have the article, "killing of" would work for me (apparently all sources agree it was a violent act rather than, say, an accident.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec)Regarding notability, wouldn't the appropriate venue be an AfD? I think Black Kite's deletion was a bit hasty, particularly considering his rationale ("probably a sock of a banned user"). Personally, I think it will have a lasting impact and will continue to be mentioned in relation to the Greek minority in Albania, particularly if a guilty verdict comes in. Athenean (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • My initial thinking on this is that once we have agreement on the title, we can, with Black Kite's agreement, undelete the article, move it to the agreed-upon title without a redirect, and then have a regular AFD discussion, looking at the degree and type of sourcing. But let's nail down the title, first. You're now happy with "death of". Future Perfect at Sunrise likes "killing of". Presumably ZjarriRrethues likes "death of", too, since it's the title that xe chose. ☺ I suggest that the two of you work on convincing Future Perfect at Sunrise (or xe work on convincing the two of you ☺). Uncle G (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (unindent)Uncle G. thanks for notifying me about the move of the discussion and you'll have my full input by tomorrow. Btw although in Greek sources he is mentioned as Aristotelis Goumas, his citizenship was Albanian so his name was Aristotel Guma. Of course that is correct if he was an Albanian citizen, but if he had Greek citizenship his Greek name should be used and technically that means he wasn't member of the minority, but that's not the most important issue. Unfortunately the vast majority of the few sources available are articles published in those 2-4 days after the event and mainly repeat each other like all media, so if this gets restored we only have those to use(which is a NOTNEWS case). However, if we set a precedent by restoring this one then we'll have to allow all other similar articles that more or less fail the event notability criteria--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The specific incident has affected the diplomatic relations between the two countries, also we have some 7k hits in google and articles in us media [[36]].Alexikoua (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent)7k hits on google mean nothing because on wikipedia we don't use google hits to decide whether a subject is notable or not and even if we did so that would be an argument against notability since most events covered by the media can get much more than 7k hits.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, at least you don't disagree that it affected, it still affects, diplomatic relations, which is more than enough. Not to mention that it was reported by reliable international media.Alexikoua (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent)I understand that you want the article to be restored but please don't make or deductions about its inexistent effect on diplomatic relations(diplomatic relations are affected by economic and political interests not such issues).--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Florencia Daud

    Resolved
     – semi protected

    Florencia Daud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - two ip addressess have added this [37] statement to the article three times. The source given is a forum that I do not feel is a reliable source, especially not for the statement being added. I've already reverted the edit twice and left an explanation on the talk page so I left the statement alone and came here for a third opinion. (I haven't had any experience dealing with BLP issues before.) I would appreciate it if some one could check out the source and my comment on the talk page and see if they also feel that this violates the BLP policy. --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 23:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It was added again, the forum cite is not WP:RS and I have requested some semi protection on the WP:RFPP noticeboard. On a side note, how is the article so poor after existing for so long? Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to ask Courcelles about this but I saw that he had a note on his talk page saying he was busy so I thought I'd ask here. I saw he went through and deleted the edits from the history, but I copied the information the talk page when I was explaining why I removed it. Should that be deleted as well or is it ok since it's on a talk page? --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 02:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sent to AfD -- I find no sources that support any claim to notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Joshua Gardner

    Joshua Gardner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I nearly nominated this for deletion under WP:BLP1E but thought that before I do so, I would get feedback here. I found this article after reading the talk page of Duke of Cleveland - I had forgotten about this whole incident.

    The basic argument for deletion is BLP1E, but it is also worth noting that there is a Wikipedia connection, which gives me additional concerns about a self-centered bias. If there had been no Wikipedia connection, would we have written an article?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • With three previous AfDs all resulting in keep, I believe that a further AfD would be a waste of time. Yes, I know that standards of notability and whatnot can change, but really the prospects here seem quite dim. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reading those is an interesting tour through Wikipedia history. I notice that none of the previous nominations explicitly cited WP:BLP1E - I wonder when that particular acronym became popular, and the ideas around it fully absorbed. At least some of the 'keep' votes are clearly for invalid reasons: to punish the guy for misusing Wikipedia or to warn other would-be frauds. Those would be responded to effectively today, and discounted in the closing. Additionally, the transient nature of the event becomes ever more clear with the passage of time.

        The guy is still in jail, contrary to what the article suggests, which helps show how poorly maintained such obscure articles may be. Until he gets out of jail, which is now slated for August of next year, the BLP issues are perhaps minimal. But at that time, this guy is going to get out of jail, a convicted felon at age 28, and very possibly intent on setting his life straight. At that point, I think there will be grave and serious reasons to consider whether this article might be causing harm. (Or to be fair to those whose views differ radically from mine, to consider as well whether this article might at that point be a further public service to warn people away from him. I don't think that's true, but it is debatable by reasonable people.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        • The problem with articles like this is that they are "interesting" - so we tend to drop any notions of objective notability and go for human interest. It's two and a half years since the last AfD, which had such low interest it is hard to justify it as "settled consensus", so I'd say it is worth another pop with a well-written nomination. Jimbo, IMO you should nominate this. We might as well have this discussion in a formal debate on AfD.--Scott Mac 09:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was around May 2007 that the idea was being expressed by multiple people.

          The question to ask here is whether this is information about the person's life and works or information about the school. It seems to me that a lot of this is about activities that occurred at the school and the detective work done by the schoolchildren. There's one of those badly named "Controversies" sections ("Controversies" and "Criticism" are such unimaginative section titles.) in Stillwater Area High School where we could merge, and that doesn't require AFD or administrator tools. Perhaps future children at the same school reading about their school on Wikipedia in years to come will see how resourceful their forebears were, and be inspired. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

          • I like the merge option. Let's wait a bit longer to get more opinions on this. (In my view, the article on the high school is unconvincing regarding notability. But that's a question for a different day.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I like the idea of merging to Duke of Cleveland, as that is where the encyclopedicity is really. It can be nominated at the pages to be merged page, where precious few people will see it. Ultimately AfD and Merge should be merged...but I don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hmm, I think it has absolutely nothing to do with the Duke of Cleveland, though. It's a name he picked more or less randomly, I am sure, and in any event, I doubt very much whether the rather serious folk who edit the history of the Peerages articles will be pleased for one second to see this kind of non-notable cruft turn up. This will end up being a back-door deletion if we go that route, which I'm not opposed to since I think it should be speedied under CSD G13 "Give me a break". (Haha, yes I just made that one up!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jennifer Lerner

    I removed some coatracky stuff that was recently added to the article by newly created account Humbert1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See my note on the talk page. It has been restored by that editor. Opinions on this, please. --TS 22:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Welcomed users that had edited the page. Removed the material that violates WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in a WP:BLP. Semi-protected the page. Posted a warning to talk page of user Humbert1 (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jona Lendering

    An IP seems to have launched a campaign against this author, and I'm particularly concerned about potentially libellous material sourced to blogs that he's added twice to this article, eg [38]. I see the IP is justifying this at Talk:Cyrus Cylinder Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I wanted to give the IP a warning, but the only template is for "Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons" - what about badly sourced? Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IP is at 3RR now. I note that in November 2009 there were obvious meat or sock puppets editing the article's talk page pushing the petition that this IP is using as a source. The IP is pretty clearly not a new editor. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No, that is not at all what is happening, Doug, and I don't appreciate you making false accusations. I made appropriate justification on Lendering's discussion page. Those undoing my edits, on the other hand, have not. There is no "campaign" and there are enough sources that support the idea that Lendering has had accusations of racism made against him (which he himself admits and is used as a source!!!!) More than one source has been utilized. Please read the discussion board and edits more carefully before you move further. 75.82.13.51 (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ Vashi, Victor. Red Primer for Children and Diplomats (1st ed.). Viewpoint Books. ASIN: B0007EEE3I.
    2. ^ a b Jon Ronson (2010-10-09). "Insane Clown Posse: And God created controversy". Retrieved 15 October 2010.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=392575832"