Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Animal X

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

Article 'animal x (band) is about a music band from the country of romania. Please consider it is not a living person. It got me confused expression wikipedia:biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.. should it not tagg articles for living characters in the band?

Gudrun Schyman

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

I'm Swedish, and thus have a lot more sources availible than the average wikipedian with regards to the subject. Still, this was (is) a mess of such proportions that I don't think I can fix it. Maybe crowdsourcing it here can make it less headache-inducing. Good grief.

Zara Phillips

Resolved

 – User:Reaper Eternal Move Protected Zara Phillips (expires 22:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

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

As she is not changing her name upon marriage can someone revert this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zara_Tindall and possibly move protect it at least for now given the marriage has just happened so drive by page moves are likely. thanks RafikiSykes (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved it back to Phillips and requested temporary move protection. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Gilgamesh in the Outback

Gilgamesh in the Outback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Read what is currently there and compare it to what Robert Silverberg actually said in the source used: "During the heyday of the shared-world science-fiction anthologies, back in the mid-1980's, I was drawn into a project called Heroes in Hell, the general premise of which was (as far as I understood it) that everybody who had ever lived, and a good many mythical beings besides, had been resurrected in a quasi-afterlife in a place that was called, for the sake of convenience, Hell. The concept was never clearly explained to me - one of the problems with these shared-world deals - and so I never fully grasped what I was supposed to be doing. But the idea struck me as reminiscent of the great Philip Jose Farmer Riverworld concept of humanity's total resurrection in some strange place, which I had long admired, and here was my chance to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier. (Second paragraph is not germane - deals with character development) It was all so much fun that I went on to write a second Gilgamesh in Hell novella, featuring the likes of Pablo Picasso and Simon Magus, and then a third. I never read very many of the other Heroes in Hell stories, so I have no idea how well my stories integrated themselves with those of my putative collaborators in the series, but I was enjoying myself and the novellas (which were also being published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine) were popular among readers. "Gilgamesh in the Outback," in fact, won a Hugo for Best Novella in 1987, one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that. By then I realized that what I was doing was writing a novel in serialized form. The book that resulted in 1987, To the Land of the Living was not primarily an expansion but a compilation: I drew together my three Gilgamesh novellas, making slight revisions here and there in the interest of consistency, and added a brief epilogue that gave Gilgamesh's seemingly random wanderings in Hell some emotional significance and an ultimate epiphany. The only major change in the original three texts involved deleting all material that referred directly, or directly grew from, the work of the other writers in the Heroes in Hell series. This was done to avoid any clashes over copyright issues. Since I had, by and large, gone my own way as a contributor to the series, with only the most tangential links to what others had invented, it seemed wisest to eradicate from my book any aspect that some other writer might lay claim to, and I did." This is the actual citation that Wolfowitz is quoting from. The nuanced selective choices are trying to rewrite history and put both Morris and Silverberg in a bad light. He makes it sound like Morris, who is younger than Silverberg, tried to nefariously sucker him in to writing for the series. Silverberg was the President of SFWA back in the 1960s - he is by no mean naive or gullible. He knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote in the series and when he left the series. A more balanced account was written on the Heroes in Hell page, but Wolfowitz keeps removing it, even after we make the changes he cites for deletion. This needs arbitration by an unbiased higher authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.161.68 (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your post and concern for the accuracy of Wikipedia. What is the source of the quote you gave above? Wikipedia has clear guidelines for sources. WP:RS. If you can help us access the source you have cited above then we can see if it is being accurately represented in the article and make any needed corrections. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is the source you requested: Thomsen, Brian (2006). Novel Ideas - Fantasy. DAW. pp. 205-206. ISBN 9780756403096. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.161.68 (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a reliable source to me. DS (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that Hullaballo Wolfowitz referenced Brian Thomsen's "Novel Ideas" as a citation for his revision that Robert Silverberg's "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was "originally published in July 1986 Asimov's" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilgamesh_in_the_Outback&diff=449325690&oldid=444320250. It would be difficult for Hulaballoo Wolfowitz to challenge the Brian Thomsen citation given that HW also uses the same citation to assert "originally published" in the July 1986Asimov's. Dokzap (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

Note that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz doesn't challenge the reliability or accuracy of the source. What he does challenge is the use of the source to support phony claims of "controversy" and related innuendo of impropriety regarding the story's author, as introduced into the Heroes in Hell article by an IP/SPA.[1] Since this source doesn't in any way support such claims, inserting them into an article is an obvious BLP violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please take note of the information contained on "The Hugo Awards" website, written and administered by the Hugo Awards organization itself (publication data from the website: "© 2011 World Science Fiction Society "World Science Fiction Society", "WSFS", "World Science Fiction Convention", "Worldcon", "NASFiC", "Hugo Award", the Hugo Award Logo, and the distinctive design of the Hugo Award Rocket are service marks of the World Science Fiction Society, an unincorporated literary society.") http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1997-hugo-awards-2/, reporting that Mr. Silverberg won the Novella Hugo in 1987 for "Gilgamesh in the Outback" as published in "Rebels in Hell" of the Heroes in Hell series. I believe, of everyone, the Hugo Awards organization itself would have access to the most accurate information regarding its own awards process. I also do not believe anyone would accuse the Hugo Awards organization itself of being "biased" or guilty of supporting "phony claims" or "innuendo of impropriety" based on their own records from 1987. 'See' [2] Hulcys930 (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stay on topic - does the nuanced use of quotations violate NPOV when compared to the original or not?98.218.161.68 (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Citing an accurate and neutral paraphrase of the Silverberg quote addresses the issue raised by Hullaballo Wolfowitz as to if "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was "originally published" (HW's phrase) in the Isaac Asimov's SF Magazine with a cover date of July 1986. I believe use of this term is erroneous because it suggests a rights publication sale that has not been cited. This is what I wrote on HW's Talk page and other places. I present it here for background. Note that a paraphrase with selective quotes to be accurate should not contradict the work's subsidiary rights issues. Here is my comment: By reverting "first serialized" to "originally published," as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Mr. Ollie have done on the Heroes in Hell series article, the Heroes in Hell anthology article, and Robert Silverberg's "Giglamesh in the Outback" articles, HW and Mr Ollie repeat the error of not citing the source for how it is known that the work is "originally published" and confuse a common English phrase with a precise term of art used in publishing contracts. "First serial" is accurate in describing a work that first appears in advance of book publication. Technically this is called a "subsidiary right." "An Introduction to Publishing Contracts" by Charles Petit, Sean Fodera, and the Science-fiction and fantasy writers of America explains the relationship of subsidiary rights to book publication. The authors write, "Subsidiary rights are ancillary to the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publisher ... Exercise of these rights before publication is known as first serial rights." , p. 14. Note the phrase "ancillary to the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publishers." To use the phrase "original publication" may be acceptable in common language when the book form is the actual first publication in any form, or when a magazine is the acquiring publisher. However, to use it to refer to a first serial for part of a work that later appears in book form is inaccurate and may confuse the bibliographic record. If there is a subsidiary rights first-serial publication, in my opinion using "original publication" is erroneous, because it implies this is the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publisher. While using the phrase "first serial" to refer to a single publication of a work that later appears in its intended book form may lack specific verifiability, its use is defensible if that work later appears as part of a whole book. It can be inferred that a publication that appears first in partial form and later in a book by the acquiring publisher is a first-serial right. As a Wikipedia project, I would propose an editor write an article describing traditional publishing terms such as "subsidiary rights," "first-serial rights," etc. It is clear that many editors who do not have specialized knowledge of publishing terms need some guidance. The colloquial use of "original publication" may not always be precise or accurate. Speaking to the specifics of this garbled edit by Hullaballo Wolfowitz and Mr Ollie in the latest revision of the Heroes in Hell anthology, and other revisins in related article, I propose deleting the term "original publication" in this article and others. As a noncontroversial compromise, describe other publications of the work without time quantifiers such as "first," etc. Merely state the date of the publication and its title. However, given this explanation here of subsidiary rights and first-serial rights, the use of the term "first serial" is more verifiable than "original publication," which in my opinion is not verifiable at all.Dokzap (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

Paul Krugman

[3] has been strenuously objected to as an edit on that BLP. In point of fact, however, I think more eyes would benefit this article where even tepid criticism of the person seems to run afoul of WP:BLP as a matter of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the two sources that appear to be opinion pieces. It a rather blatant mistake to include cites to opinion pieces, in the lede no less where the specific material is not developed in the body of the article, to source that a person's critics claim that a liberal bias impugns their credibility. The editors who are edit warring over this are old hands here who should know better as a matter of style, reliable sourcing, consensus, BLP, etc. Nevertheless, the third source, an article in the Economist is a factual piece that sums up from a third party perspective that Krugman has critics, the critics complain about his political partisanship (which is somewhat different than merely being liberal or having liberal views), that he does in fact appear to be partisan in his writings, and that it is a significant aspect of his public persona, hence biographically important. The claim it makes is discussed in the body of the article at some length. If we accept that source as reliable, I don't see the BLP issue, though there can always be differences among editors about weight and relevance. And as a MOS issue, we don't need a citation in the lede if it's cited in the body (though in some extraordinary contentious cases it can help avoid dispute). - Wikidemon (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems that since almost every BLP about contentious figures have at least one word indicating such in the lede, that omitting it entirely from the lede is hagiographic entirely (noting the huge amount of criticism currently mentioned in the article <g>). Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Also, those that are continually removing it are all but absent from any discussion. It appears to be a clear case of simply not liking it. The critism in the lede is a fair summary of his work. Arzel (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Also strongly agree. Strongly opinionated op-ed writers, there is always a ton of criticism, so you need to make sure that the criticism comes from RS, which tends to be nil. And I pretty much agree with that for a BLP, it is an article about the person not a place to rehash his views. But, in order to state what he does, you have to say he is a *liberal op-ed columnist*. If the article is otherwise good NPOV, how is the reader supposed to figure out what the person does?Jarhed (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If the critical opinion pieces and criticism was developed in the body of the article, would that make the material appropriate to include in the lead? CRETOG8(t/c) 15:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This person is a celebrity opinion journalist with a huge following, of course there is going to be criticism. Strict BLP policy should apply, in that all such criticism must come from reliable secondary sources and not other opinion sources. In other words, for this person's BLP, almost all personal criticism is going to be invalid because no reliable secondary sources are available other than other opinion pieces which, according to BLP policy, are invalid for BLP facts especially negative ones. If everyone followed this rule, BLPs would be much more accurate and easier for editors to work on.Jarhed (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that I might just not fully grok WP:BLP, because that's a surprise to me. Where does the policy say that a critical piece (say, an attributed editorial in a respected newspaper) isn't an acceptable source for there being criticism? CRETOG8(t/c) 17:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the very strict WP:BLP guidelines, this has to do with notability. That is, the notability of the criticism to the subject of the article, which should not be confused with the inherent notability of whomever stated the opinion. It is not notable to an encyclopedic understanding of an individual that some random pundit criticized them unless that criticism turns into a much larger issue for them that gets reported on by second-party reliable sources. If the only criteria for including criticism was that it was printed in a "respected newspaper" then every single political figure's bio would be nothing but a coat rack of criticism (and the more famous they are, the more criticism there would be). --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Complete absence of edit warring at Sarah Palin article

Shades of Conan-Doyle's dog in the night here. An editor has recently added a section to the Palin bio regarding the content of Joe McGinniss's new biography of her - including references to an alleged affair with her husband's business partner, and to claimed use of cocaine and marijuana in her earlier life. Though this is sourced to the Daily Mail, a little Googling shows that other, more reliable sources are reporting the story (as allegations by McGinniss, rather than as necessarily factual), see [4] or [5] (and [6] for the allegations of a 1987 sexual liason with Glen Rice, also from McGinniss's book). The odd thing is the complete silence at the article talk page etc. I find it difficult to believe that nobody is watching the article, so what is going on? Have the Palinistas all abandoned her? In any case, I think a few more (neutral, or at least uninvolved) eyes on the article may be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The wiki has lost a lot of editing, and SP doesn't attract as much attention as Rick Perry and others, now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still editing Wikipedia pretty much every day, and (disclosure) I'm not all that fond of Sarah Palin personally. However, I think that any contentious claims about her need to be referenced to high-quality reliable souces. Perhaps the warriors have lost interest a bit because she isn't a declared presidential candidate, but we still have an obligation to maintain BLP standards here. Do you have a specific recommendation, Andy, or is this just a sociological observation? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

My only recommendation was that uninvolved editors should keep an eye on the article. The McGinniss book seems to be attracting a significant amount of attention in the mainstream media (see L.A. Times review for example[7]), and we will clearly have to tread carefully to find a balance regarding how this is reported. (And BTW, for the record, I'm no Palin fan myself - though I suspect that is fairly obvious). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I am no fan of SP, or of editing US electoral politics articles in general, but no amount of overwhelming RS consensus is going to convince me to include that she might have had sex with some dude, a decade and a half before she became notable. That is the very thing that WP:SENSATION wants us to avoid. The other stuff, however, needs to be better sourced. In fact, I am not sure if it should be included at all. We are not a gossip rag, no matter what the subject. --Cerejota (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about Joe McGinniss's new book per Cerejota's impeccable reasoning and have placed the article on my watch list per Andy's request. The Los Angeles Times review Andy linked casts real doubt on whether this book, or reporting on it, can be considered a reliable source for the SP article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I watch it every day, but I hate to edit without discussion on talk (and even more loathe to revert). I agree with Cullen's recent removal of this section, as it certainly is pure sensationalism. Worse, it's the type that will always inherently lack secondary sources (the he said, she said type). I guarantee it's not the last we'll see this added to the page. Fcreid (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit at issue is a splendid example of the political silly season "this person alleged that John Doe is still beating his wife" level of relevance in a BLP. Collect (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Im actually surprised that this hasn't come up earlier, i guess the Palin fever is starting to break ;-). I commented on the talk page that i dont feel this material should be included for more or less the reasons expressed by Cerejota, Cullen328, Fcreid and Collect. Bonewah (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I first posted material to the Sarah Palin article. As this has been reverted, I've now taken this to Talk:Sarah Palin#Joe McGinniss book. I've explained my reasoning there, and very much welcome additional input into this issue. I am unconvinced by some of the arguments above. WP:SENSATION does not appear to apply to me. This is not something merely reported in scandal-mongering papers. It's something being discussed in reputable, reliable source papers. It is not infotainment or churnalism. The above reference to WP:SENSATION appears to be a rather broad interpretation of what WP:SENSATION is actually about.

As I've said on the Talk page, the driving principle behind WP:BLP is the use of reliable sources, and we have those aplenty in this case. Wikipedia is not a gossip rag, and we should not repeat what gossip rags say. However, when a significant scandal is covered by multiple reliable sources, that is something we should cover, in a careful, measured, neutral and, above all, well-cited manner. Let's use all those cites given above! Bondegezou (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that is being covered in reliable sources is the fact that McGinniss made the claims that he did. And, in any event, reliable sources are necessary, but not sufficient for inclusion in a BLP. Frankly, if this material doesnt qualify and sensationalistic gossip, I dont know what would. Bonewah (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow how you are interpreting WP:BLP. I've re-read it and I don't see anything comparable to your language of "necessary, but not sufficient". If reliable sources like The Guardian, LA Times etc. are covering the issue, I don't see how it can be dismissed as "sensationalistic gossip" alone. While I appreciate your comments so far, Bonewah, I don't see how they relate to policy or reliable sources, which I understand to be the central principles behind all our efforts here. Could you perhaps re-explain your point with specific reference to policy? Bondegezou (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The material includes accusations of felonious criminal activity not sourced to any named person. If that is not almost a textbook definition of "sensationalistic gossip" I wote not what would suffice for you. Collect (talk) 21

01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ive explained my thinking at length on the SP talk page, including quoting the relevant portions of BLP policy directly, I dont know what more you want. Further, between here and the Sarah Palin talk page 8 different editors have rejected inclusion of this material in her biography so far with only you arguing for its inclusion. While that does not preclude further discussion and minds changing, i think you are clearly swimming against the tide here. Perhaps our time would be better spent not arguing in the face of such clear consensus. Bonewah (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the McGiniss book is WP:RS. McGiniss is an author with a long track record of major books, it was published by a major publisher, and it's been widely reviewed.

Whether it's true is another question, which we can't decide. We should include the charges and the reviewers' reactions. That should keep it WP:NPOV.

Whether it's salacious is irrelevant. Unfortunately in the public discourse, WP:RSs regularly publish salacious information (which I don't think has anything to do with their qualifications for office), as they did with Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner.

So now the vote is 2 to 8, and as you know WP:CONSENSUS is not a majority vote. --Nbauman (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The allegations made in the book are currently covered by Wikipedia in Joe McGinniss#The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin, along with analysis of his claims by other reliable sources (which are not supportive). The reviews claim that McGinniss relied on anonymous sources for his claims, this is definitely a big no-no for us per the BLP policy. Unless there's some corroboration for his claims, they should stay out of Sarah Palin and Glen Rice. Kelly ^hi! 17:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Rice himself admitted to sleeping with her. It should be included in his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.227.232 (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP prohibits material that doesn't have a WP:RS; a book by an author of many books with a major publisher is a WP:RS. I don't see anything in WP:RS that prohibits books or articles which themselves quote anonymous sources. All the President's Men is a WP:RS even though it doesn't identify Deep Throat, isn't it? --Nbauman (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Definitely keep new info out the page It would violate the wikipedia rule that editors have to take into consideration the living person and the implications such claims can have on their lives. This is to controversial at the present time with reliable sources saying different things and it is not so relevant to her overall history and bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apolo91655 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We've taken into consideration the implications on the living person into consideration. We've also taken into consideration the fact that she's a public figure (in the libel sense), that she's thrust herself into the public forum, that she's been outspoken on many issues, that she's a politician who held positions of public trust, that she's talked of running for president, and that the public has a right to know all the information about her that they might consider important in deciding whether to vote for her. We've also taken WP:CENSOR and WP:WEIGHT into consideration. I personally don't think salacious material is relevant, but it made a big difference for Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner. If it gets media attention -- book reviews -- then it meets WP:WEIGHT and has to go in. And it has. --Nbauman (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Media attention != relevance. In the case of Spitzer and Weiner, the relevance is clear, they lost their jobs over the affairs. Similarly with Clinton, depending on the incident, he either had to go to court or it led to an impeachment trial. No such relevance exists in this case. Bonewah (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, media attention = relevance. Otherwise, how do you determine relevance? Do you just say, "I don't think it's relevant," and delete it?

I think that if there's a hypocrisy issue, it's relevant. If one of the issues that Palin used to further her political career was chastity before marriage, and she had a one-night stand with a basketball payer before she was married, that would be relevant. Whether Joe McGiniss' account is true is not for us to decide. We only decide verifiability, not truth, and include the skeptical reviews. McGiniss is a published author, his publisher is an established publisher, so fairly or not, it's a WP:RS as defined by WP. --Nbauman (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The book and allegations are mentioned in Joe McGinnis - however, the allegations don't belong in biographical articles about people mentioned by the book, because other reliable sources say that this book is not reliable, as shown above. A possible new wrinkle is that Andrew Breitbart has published e-mail from McGinniss which possibly shows that claims in the book are hoaxes or lack evidence,[8] though none of that should be included in Wikipedia unless documented by other sources. Kelly ^hi! 13:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not the way we do things in Wikipedia. The standard for admissibility is verifiability, not truth. If one source that we define as WP:RS says that somethig is true, and another WP:RS says that it's false, we include both the charges and rebuttal, and let the reader decide.

I think that McGinnis and Breitbart are both irresponsible and often wrong, but my opinion doesn't entitle me (or anybody else) to remove their claims. All that it entitles me to do is to add to McGinnis' claims, and Breitbart's claims, the reasons that other WP:RS give for not believing them. And that's what we should do in the Sarah Palin article.

Even if we agree that McGinnis' charges are completely wrong, they have gotten so much publicity that the charges and rebuttals should be included in the article. People who read Doonesbury will wonder if they're true. If they see no reference at all to McGinnis, they'll wonder whether Wikipedia is censored. And the answer will be yes. --Nbauman (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not agree with that position. Contentious material must be sourced to reliablke sources and while the normal presumption is that published works can be used, where the preponderance of outside sources is that the material is deliberately used as a means of attack (see the NYT and WaPo reviews) and the material is sourced to anonymous sources, and the material relates to felonious activity, the policy actualy requires that such material not be used in the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please give a link and quote the WP guideline you're referring to. That's not my understanding of WP:BLP, and it's not my understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR either. --Nbauman (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Andrea Kalin

Andrea Kalin has a long history of COI edits by parties unknown, both named accounts and IPs. As a result, we have a long, lovingly-detailed promotional account of her film-making career, but no actual biographical information on the human being of this name. It's not quite a resume, but certainly not a real article about a living person: more a brochure for her production services. Can some fresh eyes have a look at it? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• CommentI think it could be improved but I think she meets the standards to be on wikipidia.The fact that she is a documentary film maker explain the fact that she is not as popular as other filmmakers. Nevertheless she has done enough work that she deserves a page. Perhaps make it shorter to match her notability. Talk 21:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Xenia Tchoumitcheva

Xenia Tchoumitcheva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). This is a BLP of a young European model/actress. It would seem to be established on the talk page, using various sources, that there are two competing birth dates. The earlier date seem to be backed by sufficiently reliable sources. The later date is backed by the models agency and agency controlled releases. The later date was apparently asserted in an OTRS email from the subject or a representive (see top of talk page). The conjectured explanation is that the agency has fabicated and pushed a later date to increase the marketability of the model. There is a foreign language source reporting the model being questioned about it, and I think she claims ignorance about some mistake and a need to check with her agents (see here). There is now a long history of slow edits whereby associated SPAs or IPs were inserting the later date into the article. Following substantiated challenge, IPs now resort to removing the earlier birthdate, leaving birthdate unmentioned. Other editors would like to keep the earlier, more reliable, date in the article. The options would seem to be:

1. Insist on stating the earlier date, contrary to the agency official data.
2. Allow the agency official data, knowing it to be likely incorrect
3. As above, but explicitly state something along the lines of "Agency asserted birthdate"
4. Include in the article information about competing birthdates in different sources.
5. Not make any mention of birth date.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• The IP's date insert/remove slow edit war continues. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. WP:BLP, or specifically WP:DOB says "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." That doesn't help - the person isn't that notable, but simply listing the year is exactly what she's objecting to, she has no objection to day and month. Also the subject's official web site includes day and month, right in the title: "Xenia Tchoumitcheva born August 5th, 1989 official website". I'd say go with something like option 4: born August 5, 1987 [ref],[ref] or 1989 [ref],[ref], but unless we have some fairly good sources commenting on the difference, we shouldn't either, just state the facts that reliable sources disagree. --GRuban (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It so happens that there is a reliable source covering the DOB discrepancy question being put to, and answered by, the subject. It looks like we are going with #4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP issue over at ANI

Over at WP:ANI#Dispute over lawsuit sources at Porter Stansberry, we're having a discussion about BLPPRIMARY and its use as a citation for the allegations against Porter Stansberry. There's quite a revert war going on, and there definitely seem to be severe disagreements about whether BLPPRIMARY constitutes a blanket ban against using court filings as a source, or whether it merely prevents sourcing claims and assertions in BLPs. I just thought you guys would probably be able to shed some light on the subject. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 04:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Since an "assertion" simply means "a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason", any claim pulled from a court document necessarily falls under this prohibition. I think it applies equally to statements including "Bobbert is a murderer", "Bobbert was charged with murder," and, even "Bobbert is 46 years old and employed by Bobbert's Rent-a-car". Nothing in a BLP should be sourced to court proceedings, court filings, or court transcripts. Am I wrong? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

but WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". In this case it is being argued that the assertion is not about a living person but is about a complaint filed by the SEC. Thincat (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The next edit to this page removed an edit I had just made, I expect in an edit conflict. Again: There needs to be a reliable source saying why the SEC complaint is in any way pertinent. Without this there is an implicit assertion that the primary source is indeed relevant to the person. As is being said at Talk, a secondary source for the whole matter would be preferable. Thincat (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason that court documents are not reliable sources is that they require a legal opinion, which is by definition POV. When that opinion is rendered by a reliable source (i.e. a court reporter), it is then usable as a reliable secondary source. Once again, any editor's opinion about the meaning of a court document is on its face POV. A further issue that I have with using court documents is that they rarely encompass the totality of the issue. An arrest record for murder will not show the results of the prosecution and thus can be unduly prejudicial, and this is yet another great reason for not allowing court documents as sources.Jarhed (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes we have to step back and look at the underlying rationale behind policies and guidelines. In the case of primary sources, I agree with Jarhed that the danger is most assertions require interpretation by the editor, which is not necessarily non-neutral, but is certainly OR. Generally, the best course is to cite to a secondary source and back it up with the court document. In that way, the assertion in the article is based on the secondary source, and the secondary source's interpretation is based on the court document - and the reader has the benefit of both cites. All that said, sometimes primary sources do not require interpretation, in which case, although perhaps not best and technically contrary to policy, citing them could be reasonable. For example, if an appellate court issues an opinion saying clearly that it affirmed the lower court's ruling, citing it for just that proposition shouldn't be a big deal. In addition, we often cite primary sources in articles about cases themselves. Some might think that's not a problem because it doesn't involve BLPs, but often a court makes findings that impact living people, even if they are not the subject of the article. This is another example where having a policy is, of course, a good thing, and complying with policy is also a good thing, but we shouldn't forget that editorial judgment often comes into play.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The phrase, "if an appellate court issues an opinion saying clearly that it affirmed the lower court's ruling" is a term of legal art that requires a legal opinion in order to determine what it means. I am flatly against the use of any legal reasoning anywhere in WP, but *especially* in BLPs. The phrase I quote might, just might, be appropriate for the BLP of a federal judge. Everywhere else: unacceptable as per BLP.Jarhed (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually another big reason besides intepretation is the fact we have no guide or reason to believe there is any significance if it hasn't been cited in RSS. Nil Einne (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed as a matter of general concept, but in some instances, you have a notable event that is reported on by secondary sources, but a primary source provides a detail that is sufficiently important to the article but has not been reported on by secondary sources. If that detail is not susceptible to interpretation (and I realize that itself can be a matter of interpretation), the primary source might be citable. Although the general prohibition against use of primary sources is sound, exceptions may be made on a case-by-case basis, particularly if there is consensus for doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, I flatly disagree with the use of any court document for a BLP in any way. The "details" you mention might be salacious and unproven allegations that are thrown out by legal authority. More than any useful purpose, court documents are more frequently used as a back door way to get salacious details into a BLP that are flatly prohibited otherwise.Jarhed (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Court and trial documents cannot be used singularly; you can only use them to augment a reliable source that comments on them without the reliable source itself becoming a primary source in the process of reviewing the court documents (for example, an op-ed/opinion column of a reporter is unacceptable; see examples of primary in PRIMARY). Please do note that consensus reached to the contrary on any talk page will be immediately overturned in case it goes against these core policies. Wifione ^Message 16:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand the policy, and I understand that consensus cannot override policy. However, as a practical matter, the issues are more complex than you and Jarhed make them out to be, and non-controversial policy violations abound. It's only the ones that not only violate the policy but violate the rationale behind the policy that generally come to light and are corrected. I refuse to equate "salacious details" with a statement of affirmance, and it is not true that every statement in a legal opinion requires a legal scholar to interpret it. That might be Clinton's view when he argues over what "is" means, but it's not mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If a reliable secondary source considers a detail of a court record too unimportant or salacious to include, that is also a great reason for keeping it out of the BLP. The only "complexity" I have ever seen are arguments to include salacious details from court documents that otherwise do not appear in a reliable secondary source. Not that I am saying that your case is one of these, I am just speaking from experience.Jarhed (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Your first sentence, I believe, is a repeat of an argument you made earlier. I tend to agree that your second sentence is often true. I'm not sure I understand your last sentence, specifically my case - what case is that? Ironically, depsite, my quibbling with the policy, I just enforced it vigorously today in an article that came to my attention on this page. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

1)Yes 2) Thanks 3) Just doing my best to be collegial. Cheers!Jarhed (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but most of this argument seems to ignore the actual BLPPRIMARY guidelines, which states that primary sources can be used to augment a secondary source covering the matter. BLPPRIMARY says absolutely nothing about court documents needing a legal opinion or references to them being OR, which makes me think that it has nothing to do with the matter at all. So, given that BLPPRIMARY says "it may be acceptable to rely on [a primary source] to augment the secondary source", under what circumstances is that the case? Second, how can we have better guidance on what constitutes an "assertion" under BLPPRIMARY, and what does not, seeing as that is the question that undermines this entire incident? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 07:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche Movement

Is this article at all subject to WP:BLP? One editor at [9] and [10] has asserted:

:::::::So? The man is not the movement. This article devotes very little space to Lyndon LaRouche

and

While Girvin was being interviewed on a sidewalk by a TV reporter, someone walked behind her and said "Polly, you're going to die" which the reporter said sounded like a threat. Due to that and what she said were other threatening behaviors, Girvin went into hiding, gave up her practice, sold her home, and left the state. *LaRouche said that a U.S. Attorney who was investigating the movement's fundraising, William Weld, "does not deserve to live. He should get a bullet between the eyes", according to a statement given to the FBI by LaRouche's security consultant, Roy Frankhouser. According to one report, experts stated that LaRouche's involvement in the matter allowed his phone solicitors to raise money by saying they needed contributions to fight child abuse in Nebraska. An editor delete these three passages with the explanation: actually - WP:BLP and the ArbCom decision apply.[11] Could he or another edit point out which part of the BLP policy and which part of which ArbCom case applies to these passages.

Whilst I consider that any article which makes such claims directly impacting a living person is absolutely subject to WP:BLP and that these claims would absolutely disallowed in, say "Kennedy Administration" etc. I further suggest that the ArbCom decision of just a week or so back, and in which Will was active, makes such Wikilawyering actionable. I further suggest that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy requiring, among other things, that all biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy. is clear. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision. is also clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP violation here. Could you specifically detail who the living person is, what the problematic content is? Are you arguing that the statements are

• Unsourced negative or controversial content
• Rumors and gossip
• Defamatory
• Provided Undue Weight

or that they are

• Violations of personal privacy?

Clarity would be helpful. Hipocrite (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You find absolutely no BLP connection in LaRouche said that a U.S. Attorney who was investigating the movement's fundraising, William Weld, "does not deserve to live. He should get a bullet between the eyes", according to a statement given to the FBI by LaRouche's security consultant, Roy Frankhouser ? Astounding! I would have thought it a contentious claim requiring extremely strong sources. Collect (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said "I don't see a BLP violation here. Could you specifically detail who the living person is, what the problematic content is?" Are you saying that content is unsourced? Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The allegation is ascribed as fact relating to a living person. In fact, allegation of a capital felony. One for which no conviction ensued. The person involved has an "interesting" background. (Roy Frankhouser seems to have been one of the most arrested liars in US history). The allegation therefore was, and is, specifically contentious, and not "reliable source", and the use of a source reporting an "allegation" of a capital offense by such a person does not rise to the level of being "beyond rumour" by a mile. Thus the edit was, and is, subject to WP:BLP and the claim that the article is not abot a living person was, and remains, ludicrous. Is this sufficiently clear? LaRouche may be the most despicable man on earth, but all articles containing claims about him (or anyone) must adhere specifically to WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I provided a succinct list of things that are violations of BLP above. Could you explain which of the various options was violated (Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial content, Rumors and gossip, Defamatory, Provided Undue Weight or Violations of personal privacy), and how, exactly, it was violated? You appear to be arguing that something that the sentence is in the wrong order as opposed to saying "Subject said something according to person quoted in report" it should read "According to person in report, subject said something." Is that accurate? Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Rereading above, I think I should be more clear. I read your argument and was unpersuaded. It is not a rumor that Frankhouser said those things - they are, in fact, part of a federal indictment. I consider the Houston Chronicle to be a reliable source - and it's, by far, not the only source to report the quote in question. While LaRouche denies the quote (and his denial should be included), a federal indictment saying something is not merely an allegation that the thing is true made in the press, it's a fact worthy of note. Hipocrite (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Nope - it is repetition of an allegation of a capital crime - the assassination threat of a federal officer -- by a specifically unreliable informant. I trust everyone else can see that. Cheers. And let's still to a non-refactored discussion, please. The remaining sections you just-re-added are of zero utility here. Collect (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important that you explain how the things you removed as BLP violations which I believe are not even remotely BLP violations, are, in fact, BLP violations, or, of course, you could put them back. If there are sources that discuss Frankhouser's unreliablity in the context of the widely reported allegations in the federal indictment, those sources should also be included - however, it appears at this point that you are unwilling or unable to support your position that items directly reported by Time, the Houston Chronicle and the LA Times, among others, are BLP violations that should not be included in our article. Hipocrite (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You appear to not even see an egregious violation as a violation - why not let others weigh in and give their opinions? I am sticking to one example for the simple reason that you deny teven this example - the other examples were, and remain, contrary to WP:BLP but it would overtake this whole page tto handle the semantic arguments which would ensue on each of them individually and as a group. Hence, the rational position to stick to one of the three here. I trust you understood that reasoning, and only used the rhetorical "unwilling or unable" as a "Wikilawyering mode of discussion". Cheers. Now Let's hear from others and not continue this colloquy! Collect (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd very much like to hear why you reverted the other two examples out. Let's hope that someone uninvolved with this issue, like me, shows up to comment here, and perhaps comment on those other two "examples." Hipocrite (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As a sub-issue, I'd like to understand more about the two sections you neglect to mention - in this edit, you removed not only the Frankhouser allegation, but also the Pauline Girvin death threat and the Nebraska sex abuse phone hoax. I've provided sections where you can explain how those are BLP issues below. Hipocrite (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Well, Frankhouser was an admitted liar, informer and infiltrator, with a self-confessed history of telling people what they wanted to hear (which included LaRouche; Frankhouser made up lots of memos addressed to LaRouche, purportedly from a high-ranking US intelligence source, but in fact based on a media contact he had). I have some sympathy for the view that he is not a reliable source for what LaRouche did or didn't say. By the way, re Hipocrite's edit, Frankhouser was a government informer before he joined LaRouche. Having the denial there certainly helps, but without telling the reader a little more about Frankhouser I think the passage is still dicey. --JN466 15:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add whatever info about Frankhouser you think is appropriate. Please be careful when using the phrase "reliable source," - while Frankhouser is a source in the journalistic sense, in the Wikipedia nomenclature, the "reliable source"s are Time, the Houston Chronicle, and the LA Times, among others. Hipocrite (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

And rumours reprinted in "reliable sources" remain rumours. And when a rumour is from a convicted felon, there is a remote chance <g> that the "rumour" is, indeed, "contentious." See the Palin discussion above where rumours from a non-felon were dismissed as violating WP:BLP fairly overwhelmingly. And the bit about me "reverting" anything out -- others should note the two "sections" you added are quite notably empty per the discussion above. I was unaware it was heinous to remove empty sections. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Let's hear from others and not continue this colloquy?" It's not a rumor that the indictment quoted the felon. I'm discussing your reversions to the article. Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

IOW, a rumour started by a felon becomes usable in any BLP as long as a reliable source reprints it? Despite the WP:BLP strictures on rumours and allegations? - that appears to be your position? Cheers -- I think the others see your precise stance clearly, as well as my stance. Collect (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not a rumor, it's a report of a conversation he was a part of. Secondly, it's not just a random reliable source reprinting it, it's a federal indictment, reported on my multiple major newspapers and one of the largest weekly magazines. Thirdly, there is no BLP stricture on "allegations," in fact, the only place the word "allegation" appears in the entire policy is "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." Oddly, that sounds a lot like what we have here, dosen't it? Hipocrite (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

and you then felt obliged to edit so that the actual original BLP clear violation was fixed? The violation was, if you have not forgotten it, a clear statement that LaRouche had made a death threat made as a matter of fact. Sorry if I feel that allegations of a capital crime require substantially more than "a reliable source reprinted it" sort of logic. And it clear that you did as well, else you would have left the original wording intact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So let me get it clear - your problem with this whole passage was sloppy editing, and I fixed it? Let's move on to the other two. What's wrong with them? Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The allegation was, and remains, a violation as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The allegation in question was described in sworn testimony by an FBI agent. That's not really gossip in the usual meaning of the word.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the allegation was serious and remarkable enough that it was the subject of an news article:

• "Extremist's Ex-Aide Disclosed Alleged Statement FBI Tells of Threat by LaRouche:" Ostrow, Ronald J; Roderick, Kevin. Los Angeles Times 10 Oct 1986: 19.

It's also mentioned prominently in several other news accounts. Further, the threat against the prosecutor, William F. Weld, was consistent with other actions taken by the movement, including picketing the Grand Jury proceedings, passing out leaflets calling him a drug dealer, and singing a song about Weld that advocated his public hanging and ended "When his tongue and eyes stick out, then justice will be done." Other than denials from the movement, there was no evidence that Frankhouser lied in any of this statements to federal officials regarding the case.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

How many times has Frankhauser been arrested (including for lying)? I suggest it is sufficiently high and the fact that there was no conviction for that death threat as far as I can tell (I am unsure any actual charge was even brought to court on it) that it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to abet the furtherance of such sensationalist gossip. Cheers. I await your answer about Roy's arrest record. Collect (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The FBI agent found the allegation credible enough to testify to it in court. If you think that Frankhouser's arrest record is germane we can add a sentence or clause about it. Have you read the sources?   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting claim -- as the charges as reported in the news did not include the threat. Nor was LaRouche found guilty of something he was not even charged with. LaRouche may be totally despicable, but WP:BLP even applies to despicable persons. Collect (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

We report many things that are not the subject of judicial activity.[12]   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I might be missing something here, but I don't particularly see how an FBI agent recounting a factual encounter and conversation, when asked under oath, as actually lending credibility to the statement itself. Arkon (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that FBI agents would testify to something they believe to be untrue, and if they did they would say so.   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

IOW - they specifically testified to the truth of something which was not charged based on what a convicted liar told them? Somehow I doubt it - on what evidence in a reliable source do you base your claim that they gave such interesting testimony? And how does that make the hearsay evidence which was not apparently used probative of anything beyong the price of eggs, if that? Cheers if you can work your way past this query! Collect (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow your questions. Was Frankhouser ever convicted of perjury? Have you read the available sources? I'd be happy to send you copies if you'd like.   Will Beback  talk  02:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the impact and importance of the testimony, one source says it may have been the reason why some of the defendants were refused bail.   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

'May have been"? The strech marks on your argument are exceedingly evident. Absent ACTUAL FACTS, the use of Wikipedia as a means of spreading rumours which were not tried in court, and for which the person was neither charged nor convicted of, is, in my opinion and the opinion of a great many others, a gross abuse of Wikipedia. By the way, a person with multiple convictions, including for "obstructing justice" [13], conspiracy for the KKK by destroying evidence [14], convicted in 1975 for dealing in stolen explosives in connection with a school bus bombing, [15] synagogue desecration destruction of evidence etc. is quite reasonably categorized as a 'convicted liar.' Unless, of course, you find routine destruction of evidence, and telling others to destroy evidence, and lying about it not to be lying? I suppose you could find a person involved in a school bus bombing incident to be a paragon of virtue, but I do not. Collect (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I never said that Frankhouser was a "paragon of virtue". If you're going to resort to hyperbole and straw man arguments then it looks like you're not interested in a serious discussion.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

False umbrage != solid discussion. You appeared to contest my disbelief in Frankhauser's veracity. I provided you with what I consider to be sufficient grounds for so doubting. Supopose, for an example, that the FBI agent was of the same level of veracity as Richard Egan [16], who was named by Ramsey Clark Judge Keeton found that the F.B.I. case agent Richard Egan had improperly destroyed documents "in plain violation" of representations to the parties and the court -- would you still aver that the FBI agent would not conceivably back someone who was lying? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's leave the umbrage and hyperbole out of the discussion. The Schiller Institute and a letter from a lawyer for the defendants are not reliable sources for issues concerning the trial. Anyone can conceivably lie, so that's not a particularly useful standard. Egan was never found guilty or even accused of perjury. Getting back to the material in question, it was testified to in court by an FBI agent, and was considered a significant matter by journalists covering the case. I have no objection to mentioning that Frankhouser was convicted of aiding the bombing of a school bus, or whatever. But the material is not a BLP violation.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

then simply remove all the umbrage and hyperbole from your posts - that is where it lies. You asserted that the FBI would never condone incorrect testimony. (I don't think that FBI agents would testify to something they believe to be untrue) Do you stand by that assertion? Do you have a reliable source that such a claim was backed by any FBI agent during the trial? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you accusing Richard Egan, a former FBI agent and presumed living person, of committing perjury, a felony?   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As anyone can read that I made no such assertion, I fear your "question" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Perhaps that is the problem you have here? You do not seem to answer the actual and real question I posed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Egan either lied or told the truth. I assume he did the latter, since he was a federal law enforcement officer testifying under oath. Do you have any evidence that he did not tell the truth?   Will Beback  talk  01:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That is not the point at all. I think we all assume that Egan told the truth about what Frankhouser told him (although there seems to have been some minor confusion about who Egan actually spoke to, and who he didn't [17] – while some errors were found, Egan was not found to have engaged in pervasive or deliberate misconduct). The point is that Frankhouser made a living out of misrepresenting himself, and that even neutral observers found him not very credible [18] ("It is little wonder. Frankhouser has switched sides repeatedly, cutting deals to stay out of prison. 'He is intelligent in a strange way. He is a good talker. He is cunning as hell,' said a Reading official.") In addition, LaRouche was convicted for engaging in illegal conduct that Frankhouser had advised him to engage in, with Frankhouser claiming that the CIA was supportive of that course of action. So what we have here is an untested allegation from an unreliable informer, an allegation that was strongly denied. In many such cases, editors have taken the view that including such allegations, even if reported as an allegation in several reliable sources, is not compatible with BLP policy. --JN466 11:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

None of the uninvolved regulars here appear to have opined on this discussion yet. Do any of them have any input? Cla68 (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I get that Will and Collect don't seem to like each other, but... what was the question? MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is about whether it was compatible with BLP policy to include the statement "LaRouche said that a U.S. Attorney who was investigating the movement's fundraising, William Weld, "does not deserve to live. He should get a bullet between the eyes", according to a statement given to the FBI by LaRouche's security consultant, Roy Frankhouser" in the article LaRouche movement. [19]. Current status is this version. --JN466 12:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Cla68 previously edited this article in November 2009 [20] and more recently in May 2011 [21], when much of this material was already present. He raised no objections then about any alleged BLP violations. What has changed?[22] The RfC on the article indicated that the section on allegations of harrassment could probably be shortened, but made no comments about BLP violations. Mathsci (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

General Comment The problem described here is one that comes up with some frequency across the encyclopedia. Here's how it works. An individual makes a claim about another individual that would never, in a million years, pass BLP on its own, attributed to the source even. This claim then gets reported by the NYT, mentioned in a book, recorded in congressional testimony, or whatever and all of a sudden people here start arguing that it passes BLP because a reliable source has repeated the claim with attribution. The reliable source is only on the hook for the fact that the individual made the claim and nothing else. The nature of the claim remains the same. If the claim was a BLP no-no prior to being mentioned in an RS as having been made then it remains one now. We don't backdoor contentious claims by attributing them, simply because other sources have reported on those claims. We have our own standards of inclusion and they do not mirror the sources we use. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There's actually a useful essay about this topic, WP:LAUNDER. --Slp1 (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This isn't merely something passed on in a gossip column. It's a statement made under oath by a federal law enforcement officer. The fact that it was considered significant by journalists reporting on a major trial does not "launder" it, rather, it helps establish its noteworthiness. I suggest below summarizing it more briefly to avoid giving it excess weight.   Will Beback  talk  16:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Pauline Girvin death threat

Nebraska sex abuse phone hoax

• What's going on here? Clearly the movement has been plagued for decades by cult-like intimidating behavior, wild antics, and general strangeness so it's not as if somebody's reputation is suddenly sullied. Obviously, anything has to be sourced as having happened, and being relevant and of due weight. Typically, the making or reporting of a criminal allegation is too uncertain, unreliable, etc., to include, either sourced to the allegation itself or news reports covering it. Giving a blow-by-blow account of a federal criminal case and the testimony and charges is typically not encyclopedic, BLP or no BLP. However, if many sources cover the allegations not for the fact that they were made but that they are of significant weight and relevant to the subject, then it's usually worth including. John DeLorean is dead for instance, but if he were alive and it were a BLP issue, surely the fact that the feds brought a case against him and he got off on an entrapment defense is one of the salient points of his life. My quick reaction is that the threatening and spooky tactics of the movement, in aggregate, are significant and there is already a huuuuuuge section on that. Each specific incident is typically disconnected, though, and few of them by themselves are all that important. We should wait for very strong sourcing before adding yet more stuff on that pile. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments. Good points. I'd be fine with summarizing this and similar threats more briefly, I just don't think they should be deleted outright simply because the subject was never prosecuted for them. This particular alleged threat is consistent with other movement responses to the investigation, which included explicit death threats, and with the responses to other investigations or criticisms, which also included death threats. Rather than going into more detail, about the previous crimes of Roy Frankhouser and the reliability of Richard Egan as a witness, I think it'd be better to say less. Something like, "People in the movement are also alleged to have said privately that the prosecuttor should be killed." Any objections to that shortened version?   Will Beback  talk  23:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Um ... unnamed people accused by unnamed sources of making a threat of a capital crime for which no one was prosecuted nor convicted? Looks like an item for the daily gossip page in a tabloid. Sorry -- that is likely the absolutely worst possible sort of tripe to be added to an overlong article in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's called "summarizing". Anyone who is interested could find the details. We could put them into a footnote, for example.   Will Beback  talk  16:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Summarizing hearsay does not make the article better, on the contrary: It just makes it an collection of summarized hearsay. That's what WP:BLPGOSSIP is supposed to prevent. Waalkes (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• CommentProbably should leave quote out. Too serious of an alegation without enough extensive credible sources to be included. It would not perhaps be representative of who he is. WP:BLPGOSSIP is supposed to prevent. Apolo91655 (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Leaving out the actual quote would be another way of summarzing it. We could simply describe it as "allegedly discussed killing the federal prosecutor" or something like that.   Will Beback  talk  02:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm --JN466 11:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Though I haven't made any comments thus far, I have been following this thread and I agree with the points made by Griswaldo and Apolo above and the entire sentence should be removed. A summarized version does not satisfy the objections in my opinion. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Chris Mason (darts player)

• Chris Mason (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article could really do with some experienced BLP editors going over it. It is being edited by (probably) the subject, and some administrators. For the last year it has flipped between a bit of whitewashing, and restoration of the referenced 'controversies'. The referencing is poor (in places non-existent) and mainly to local papers, and the controversy section is over-dominant in the article. The details in the "hammer attack" section are out of proportion, and possibly misleading because of it. The "benefit fraud" section relates to dates in a span of three months, not two years, and it's "when applying", not "while claiming" which implies more continuity. The most recent diff looks like this. If some experienced editors could take a look, I am convinced it could be improved. The bloke is upset and complaining and saying some things are untrue. He would probably prefer some things never happened, and probably pushing too far the other way. But if he's suggesting the article is unbalanced I think he's probably got a point. It could do with some editors who can really reflect what the sources are saying, in good proportion. 199.167.132.119 (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we get some extra eyes on this? The hammer attack and benefits fraud sections both appear to be backed up by reliable sources, so I don't share the concerns that the information is inaccurate. Nor am I convinced it's undue weight, although it might be possible to condense the situation.

The acute concern is that ChristopherJohnLukeMason (talk · contribs) has claimed to be the subject and edited the article. He's apparently put in an OTRS request but not gotten a reply concerning the article. Since his last user talk page comment heads down the legal threat path, I'd rather get some discussion moving so he can withdraw that threat and work with editors here, rather than to have him wind up blocked for it. —C.Fred (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

ken boyd (politican)

Please help to resolve edit war between anonymous user with multiple IP's.

Continuously inserting information which is not sourced in any way and false. User is linking to sources which do not verify claim. User is refusing to address these concerns even after the article was locked. I have laid out step by step why some portions of article need to be changed on talk page but other editor will not discuss any of them outside of two and will not compromise. Help resolve this PLEASE.

Rules state I am not allowed to list the unsourced and false material here. Where should I? Escytherdon (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• That article has some real NPOV issues. I tried reading the discussion and my eyes crossed. You guys are all over the map with what you're talking about. So I don't know who is trying to put what in, but it's obvious that the current version has a lot of POV material in it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The three revert rule allows me to remove information of a bis and unsourced nature placed by sockpuppet or banned accounts. I will be doing that now and would LOVE for community involvement in rebuilding the page. Escytherdon (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made some edits to the page. Most of the "anti" material is sourced, it seems. --BweeB (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Being sourced doesn't mean it isn't being given undue weight or being presented in a POV way, agreed? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

NOOO< I had so much info written here and when I submitted it Wikipedia stated that another editor had posted and it deleted it. x.x

Please consider the following:

• He has been noted for his strong support of developers and sprawling developments. (Where is the citation for this? No he has not)
• He says he did not serve in the Vietnam War because injuries from an automobile accident prevented him.[1] (Saying he 'says' that he did not is almost accusing him of lying. Why include it?)
• In 2009, he told C-Ville Weekly he would not run for reelection to his Supervisor seat in 2011.[1] (This is actually a flat out lie. He did not say he wouldnt, he said he would consider not but wasnt sure. This is referenced earlier in the article, why state it a second time?)
• There is no Hollymead controversy. This received two days worth of media attention and is now gone. If it was worthy of note in Wikipedia it would be an issue in the current election or even in the previous ones, it has not been. What makes it worthy of note in a biography? It is also very badly misrepresented here.
• Boyd did not play a central role in the bypass decision, he has had the same vote for it for ten years. He did not even bring it up, another supervisor did and another one after that changed their vote giving the pro people the majority.
• The OLD bypass was listed as wasteful by the taxpayers for common sense, not the new and re-designed one. This is misleading and false.
• The source for the bypass being unpopular is a closed facebook group. How is this even a source?
• the editorial was not unprecedented. The daily progress is not conservative, and why is only one side of the issue being represented? Best to simply state facts about the issue rather than messing with quotes from both sides.
• Why is cynthia neff a non-notable person for Wikipedia (her page was deleted) yet she is given reference in the article and her website listed at the bottom?
• Stating that during the congressional run he wanted the DoE abolished is a lie. Reading the article, he says he wants it to operate at the local and state level and not the federal.

Thoughts and THANK YOU 20:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Your response gives the appearence of a bias of your own. And trying to address 10 points all in one post.......well, that makes it pretty difficult for anyone else to assist. Slow down a little. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• My apologies. I do NOT want to be bias. As I have stated before if I could write a page for Cynthia Neff I would but it was deleted. I only want this to be accurate. I will rely on more experienced editors to help with this. If we could address the first two points I would appreciate it.

• He has been noted for his strong support of developers and sprawling developments. (Where is the citation for this? No he has not)
• He says he did not serve in the Vietnam War because injuries from an automobile accident prevented him.[1] (Saying he 'says' that he did not is almost accusing him of lying. Why include it?) Escytherdon (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon

• Could we please discuss this more? I know the community must be busy with other things but the bias is bothering me.

Escytherdon (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not see the above text int he article. I have made some more clean-up edits. --BweeB (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clean-up edits. Would you mind looking at the changes I have just done and my explanations (I think I am starting to understand HOW to edit in Wikipedia now) and give community input? I tried to make small changes each time and keep neutrality and well-sourced info alone.

Escytherdon (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at my changes and make sure that the page is now neutral and non-bias. If you see any evidence of bias and/or information requiring source material please let me know. Escytherdon (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Adriana Ferreyr

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

(RVT- WP:NOTNEWS Not a biographical issue at the moment, and using primary court documents is WP:OR) Please check the Revision history of George Soros in order to find this justification. copied from Loonymonkey

Copied from User talk:Karthikndr -

This pesron user William de Berg continues to commit vandalism on wickepedia and it is compromising its integrity to true factual unbiased information. He is citing references that do not prove the accuracy of his stamentes-- they are misleading and not factual. He is trying to gain an ufair advantage for George Soros by portrying Ms. Mr. Ferreyr in a bad light. Please read the refences to see that they do not prove his claims. This is a person working for Mr. Soros that is trying to misrepresent Ms. Ferryer in order to gain an advantage for him. Is there any way to prevent his behaviour which falls under the category of slander and defamation. This in in regards to the page Adriana Ferreyr Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hap791 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear sirs / mes dames, With regard to my contribution to the article of Ms Ferreyr. I have quoted what she herself has submitted to the New York Supreme Court in her own testimony. You will understand that this is neither slander or defamatory. It is how Ms Ferreyr describes herself. The secondary quote comes from Reuter's news agency.

The above user is also wrong to imply that I am in anyway connected to or representing Mr Soros. I have never seen,communicated with, spoken to or met Mr Soros, nor anyone representing him. I am merely adding to a biography to give a balanced view of the subject. Unfortunately no one is perfect. William de Berg (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

To add to my concerns about this biography.

As has previously been noted this biography is little more than an advertisement. The article is full of hyperbole and superlative commentary.

As regards the referencing within the article. Most references are to web pages which have merely referenced elsewhere for their facts. Unfortunately these sites have either referenced IMDB or Linkedin. Let us critique those sources now. Linkedin. Linkedin is self written. Or in this case it has been written in the third person. None of the linkedin claims are verifiable. This wiki quotes verbatim from the linkedin profile. IMDB. Again the facts contained here are not verifiable. The biography written on IMDB is written by a Lucas Almeida. Yet again, nothing is verifiable.

There are very close similarities between all 3 biographies.

I will add further to this in an attempt to have this biography removed.

William de Berg (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't report the legal claims from the court records - also the claimed assault was written a bit weighted against the subject - I would leave it out. Its a bit tabloidy - and they had a row and the police were called and nothing happened. Wait and allow the separation suit to develop a bit - and then report the result - the content could be improved but doubt if it would be deleted according to policy. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

In terms of the material you added to the article about her lawsuit, it cannot be used. The first material cites to a court proceeding and violates WP:BLPPRIMARY. The second material is not supported by the source as the person who said the police investigated was Soros's lawyer - and that puts aside the issue of whether the material belongs in the article in the first place.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

William insists on reinserting the material. I have reverted it, posted a warning on his Talk page, and edited the article to improve the tone and wording.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

OK I have removed myself. Now please tell why...

A court submission is inadmissible when it is th actual person's testimony. They are obviously relying on it in court. They will obviously swear it to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So why is it not permitted in a wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William de Berg (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for removing it (not sure how I missed the reinsertion). You have been told here and on my Talk page what is wrong. You have been cited the policy (WP:BLPPRIMARY) more than once. It doesn't matter what you think - the policy is as clear as any Wikipedia policy ever gets.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks good now at this version - the simple main issue. Off2riorob (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is definitely improved, although as my and your tagging indicates, there is a fair amount of unsourced material. However, I'm trying to figure out if she's even notable. As far as I can tell, she was a soap opera actress in Brazil (don't know how long it lasted) and then became Soros's girlfriend. That ended badly, and she sued him. Is there something I'm missing? Certainly, the Soros relationship and the lawsuit don't establish notability. Is the former soap opera deal enough?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Its on the cusp imo - shes a circular redirect on the Portuguese wiki on the nouvela , soap she is/was in. translated google diff - If she is redirected/deleted I would be more open to supporting a small comment in Sourus's bio. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. My gosh, the soap played for only 7 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana Ferreyr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• CommentI have googled her and there is more then 900 sources from all over the world that callher a soap star from Brazil. I wached her clips on you tube + commercials. This woman has more then enough notibility for wikipidia. Even the law suit alone would be enough of a reason to heep her page. --Apolo91655 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Apolo, you just registered today. You made a couple of article edits, and now you've gone through commenting on a slew of topics here on BLPN (five and counting). Mind you, I'm not accusing you of anything, but it's pretty odd.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

George Soros

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

(RVT- WP:NOTNEWS Not a biographical issue at the moment, and using primary court documents is WP:OR) Please check the Revision history of George Soros in order to find this justification. copied from Loonymonkey

His ex-girlfriend is Brazilian Actress and entrepreneurAdriana Ferreyr.[18] [19]. He is currently being sued for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery among other claims. (New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 109256/2011)[20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hap791 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

In Sorus's life it is as yet of limited note - there are press reports that would support a single comment.. but it is much more notable in her life that his. -Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitely enough reports in the US press including [23] NY Daily News [24] ABC News, [25] Reuters, and a bunch of Brazilian and German sources as well. As long as it is not presented in any salacious manner, or presenting rumours as fact, I suspect the material properly belongs in the Soros BLP. Collect (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, there's that word again - "salacious". How could something like this not be salacious? It has all the earmarks of juicy gossip. I agree, though, both about the sources (there's a ton I discovered when editing the Ferreyr article), and that it merits inclusion in the Soros article. At the same time, I agree with Rob that it doesn't merit more than a sentence or so.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Not worth mentioning unless it has sustained coverage. Collect, you routinely object to the inclusion of "salacious" stories about American conversative personalities that have received broader coverage and wonder if you could explain why we should apply lower standards to Soros. TFD (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the posting of the details of the charges - I suggest that the existence of the lawsuit meets notability requirements at this time. If you read my post, you should note that I specifically stated that the material must not be posted in any salacious manner as I seek to be consistent in my positions, whether the claims are about Soros or Hari. I assume you think Johann Hari is some sort of conservative, like Chris Hulme, Alex Sink, Ray O'Connor and all the other five hundred BLPs I have edited. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Mention Enough reliable sources that would justify two statements or three.Apolo91655 21:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Raoul Peck

Resolved

 – reporter blocked as a block evading sockpuppet - disputed content removed

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

Wiki editor User:Dayewalker repeatedly reverts factually incorrect information about this entry and then blocks out/deletes relevant links on the discussion page. Why is this?

Briefly:

Article currently states:

"Raoul Peck served as a Haitian Minister of Culture under President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, but later became disillusioned of Haitian leftist politics and frequently criticized the former Haitian leader. [4] [5]"

This is factually incorrect on two counts. Peck served as Minister of Culture in the Haitian government of René Préval from March, 1996 until October, 1997. This is attested to by both this article from Haiti Democracy Project Director James R. Morrell - http://www.haitipolicy.org/archives/Publications%26Commentary/peck.htm - this article from Haiti Libre http://www.haitilibre.com/en/news-1178-haiti-social-raoul-peck-is-pessimistic-for-the-future.html and and by Peck's own autobiographer, Monsieur Le Ministre.

Aristide's first term of office ended on 7 February 1996. The so-called reliable sources Dayewalker cites nowhere claim Peck was Minister for Aristide! Did he even bother to read them before restoring the inaccurate entry? He must now admit that he did not.

Why does Dayewalker repeatedly insert factually incorrect material as saying that Peck was a Minister in Aristide's government and then blocks/deletes the links that prove otherwise. Does he care to explain himself here?

Also, the statement that " became disillusioned of Haitian leftist politics" is completely untrue as Peck himself is more or less a Marxist (see his film Profit and Nothing But!). HaitiObserver (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't notified of this discussion, thanks to Rob for notifying me. To start with, this is almost certainly another sock of MultiWorlds, who was indef blocked yesterday here [26] for operating at least ten socks. Several of his socks deal with removing links from Context23's user page, although they never actually stop and explain specifically why the links (including one to a Wikipedia page) are "libel." [27] [28]

As for the edits on the Peck page, I reverted them yesterday because blocked editors are not allowed to edit Wikipedia, especially not indef blocked editors pushing a POV and edit-warring on another user's page. If someone else would like to do the research on this and take responsibility for the edits, I certainly have no problem with that. Dayewalker (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I am disturbed that User:Dayewalker does not address the fact that he has repeatedly inserted factually incorrect information into this entry without bothering to check it and refuses to acknowledge his mistake. The links are all above. I thought it was important that Wiki editors verify the accuracy of the information that they include in an entry. The links that User:Dayewalker say confirm that Peck was an Aristide minister do nothing of the sort, so either he did not read them or is for some mysterious reason not being fully upfront here. HaitiObserver (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I only undid your reversions as a sock of a blocked editor. That section was initially added by Context23, an editor this sockpuppeter appears to have a problem with judging from the way several of them have deleted content from Context23's page (as above). Dayewalker (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

But what is your explanation for including - and then defending - factually incorrect information into a biography of a living person? Wouldn't it be a good idea to check the links first, as they don't prove what you say the do? It is easily provable - as has now been done - that the claim that Peck was an Aristide minister is false. Why quibble when the evidence is plainly there? I am confused. HaitiObserver (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As a note, the reporting editor has now been blocked as an obvious sock. [29] Dayewalker (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the block evading sockpuppet has made an edit which appears to be accepted, or at least , not reverted. Perhaps User:Context23 , the original additioner of the content needs to take a little more care. I have rescued the removed references to the External link section as the article is short on reliable externals. Hopefully this will be the end of it. Off2riorob (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Federico Pena

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

Someone continues to insert in Mr. Pena's biography that he owned land near and/or around the new airport and therefore profited from its construction. This assertion is false and libelous and must be deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.14.82 (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• - Disputed and uncited content is currently removed from the article. I warned the editor that was adding it and added the article to my WP:Watchlist - Off2riorob (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ina Garten

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

Several editors (including myself) are attempting to include information from a recent news story about Ina Garten, where she repeatedly declined requests from the Make-A-Wish Foundation before ultimately being rejected after she reached out to the family in question. This content dispute has been active since March 2011, but recently resurfaced due to an appaearance on the Crackle.com home page. The story has been reported by the following sources: ABC News, Business Insider, Salon, TMZ, Mediaite, Slate, AOL, The Los Angeles Times, The Daily Mail, Yahoo!, E!, Huffington Post, and OK! Magaine.

Citing previous consensus, several editors have repeatedly reverted any mention of this controversy in the Ina Garten article. The reasoning behind the reverts have been violations of WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and WP:UNDUE. The editors have questioned the reliability of the sources, and pointed out that the incident is a minor event that is not relevant to Ms. Garten's biography or career.

Arguments for inclusion cite the uncontested verifiability of the claims, as well as the reliability of the sources (LA Times, ABC News, Slate, Salon) and the well-documented coverage of the issue (including both secondary and primary sources, from Make-A-Wish and Garten's PR team). The subject of the article is well known, meaning that if the write-up of the incident is modest, and written in a disinterested tone, it would not contravene WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE.

Note: a prior posting to the BLP Noticeboard went "unresolved" here: [30], and talk page discussions have not been productive. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it is time for an RFC. Bring in more editors, have a straw poll, see where things stand. Gamaliel (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It just seems to be complete trivial low quality attack trash, add my vote to keep it out of the article completely. The distorted weight given to such titillating crap in wikipedia biographies is disgusting. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Junk, plain and simple. Frankly, I fail to understand why anyone would devote so much effort to trying to get trivial nonsense like this into Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Off and Andy. --BweeB (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree as well. --JN466 11:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• - Its a WP:featured article from five years ago , (one of wikipedia very best articles) looking at it I don't think its of that quality now. It looks ready for a review. - Wikipedia:Featured article review - Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above, I don't see a reason to include this information. Yes, it happened. That doesn't mean it deserves a place in a BLP. Dayewalker (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I opposed adding this gossipy stuff back in June, both here and on the article's talk page. This faux, whipped up controversy consists of the fact Ina Garten (a person famous enough to receive far more requests from charities than she can possibly honor) didn't respond to a specific charitable request. Some editors are claiming that we should report what she didn't do, somehow implying that she is heartless. I thought consensus was clear against this in June, but a few tenacious folks have made it their personal campaign to add this "information". I will put the article on my watch list and encourage others to do so as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A posting on Crackle.com has given this issue new life -- the "tenacious" editors lobbying for the inclusion of this material in March have already been properly stymied and shooed away. I was under the impression that the criteria for inclusion was verifiability, not fairness, or even truth. Ina Garten is a public figure, outspoken in her philanthropy efforts. Whether this story is trashy, disgusting, whipped-up, junk, or totally unfair...it's reliably sourced, verifiable, and relevant (though "relevance" is admittedly a debatable aspect). It's rare for a celebrity to be criticized for failure to participate in philanthropy, but it's not entirely unheard of -- Lady Gaga came under criticism for not recording a charity song for the 2010 Haiti Earthquake (the snub has a one sentence mention in her article). But I can see how editors would interpret this story as irrelevant gossip, so I will happily abide by consensus. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the Cracked Mag link ColorOfSuffering is referring to. --04:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Garten works extensively for a variety of causes, including battered women, cancer patients, AIDS awareness and animal rights. She supports them both financially as well as in person. Garten gets about an hundred new charity requests each month. Like most people in her position she has had to hire a PR person(s) to sort through her correspondence, field press questions, and respond to those requests. There are a lot of worthy requests she has to decline and those requests are filtered through that person(s). . One of the charities she supported was the Make-A-Wish foundation:

The Make-A-Wish Foundation has a very strong working relationship with Ina Garten, a celebrity wish granter who has generously made herself available to grant a wish in the past. Ina is a good friend of the Foundation and we are grateful to her for her support of our mission.[Our charity] regards the planning of wishes as a private process among the parties involved.” From time to time, planning for wishes doesn't turn out as originally envisioned, despite people’s best intentions and efforts. In such cases, the Foundation is committed to working with the wish child and family to grant another wish.

Each wish we grant requires extensive support from many people, and we respect that no individual has an unlimited capacity to grant children’s wishes on demand.

We regard the planning of wishes as a private process among the parties involved.

— Make-A-Wish

Additionally, she is not a one-man-band. To fulfill a wish and reproduce what she does on TV, she needs to coordinate with the others that work behind the scenes.

A seriously ill 6-year old boy enjoyed watching Garten’s show with his Mom and asked to have her cook a meal for him. Garten's PR representative declined the request for the second time. The little boy, once he understood he did not need to know how to swim, decided to swim with the dolphins instead. According to the mom he was thrilled with his new choice. She saw Garten as snubbing the family rather than her having work commitments and being asked 1200 times a year asking for her involvement making it impossible to fulfill all the demands. The gossip site TMZ then posted their story The reaction to that event was described in CBS’s Chow website, under the title “The High-Tech Smearing of Ina Garten” as an online lynching. TMZ did not report

• how Make-A-Wish works nor
• find out that “The Make-A-Wish Foundation has a very strong working relationship with Ina Garten, a celebrity wish granter who has generously made herself available to grant a wish in the past. Ina is a good friend of the Foundation and we are grateful to her for her support of our mission.”
• report how many requests a celebrity normally gets
• that an employee filters charity and correspondence for her as well as most celebrities
• the impossibility of fulfilling all worthy requests or
• give a reasonable report of her other charity efforts

All these distortions would have made anyone look bad.

At the start of the weekend, an LA Times gossip blog entry echoed the TMZ story but warned readers there was another side to the story still to be told. Sure enough, she did respond on Monday. On March 29th, that same gossip blog issued a more balanced entry, titled “Barefoot Contessa Ina Garten was unaware of request, but will now host her young fan”. It reported that Ina Garten had finally heard of the request that her PR person had turned down. By that time, the mother had published on her blog an entry titled “PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS” (the title was in all-caps). The parents were still angry at Garten.

You need to ask yourself why this cyber-lynching was beneath Fox News, CNN, network news such as NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC. It was beneath the New York Times, Wall Street Journal --even People Magazine. It was covered by a mostly-unseen ABC property called “ABC News Now “ for 36 seconds. In my highly-populated area, Comcast doesn’t carry it in my area. Time-Warner in NYC doesn’t show it. Has any editor seen “The Buzz” before a Google search uncovered it. It is the equivalent of the minor leagues in baseball. It recycles ABC broadcasts already seen on TV and some additional 36 second hamburger-helper to fill a 24-hour news hole. Not worth a second of time even though the morning shows need to fill 3,000 hours on the 4 morning shows alone.

Here is Ms. Marikar's article from http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/barefoot-contessa-turns-make-kid/story?id=13238578

SHEILA MARIKAR (@SheilaYM) March 28, 2011 “ABC News Now” “The Buzz”

The "Barefoot Contessa" has time to star in her Food Network show, pen cookbooks, and cook at charity luncheons for her well-to-do fans. But apparently, her schedule was too packed to meet a 6-year-old boy stricken with leukemia who requested a cooking session with her through the Make-A-Wish Foundation. She turned him down, twice.

Just In this introduction, she is actually giving reasons why Garten really is so busy and twists them into reasons she should have plenty of time. Even a charity event that raised money to preserve America’s early history(including a farm dating from 1640) becomes framed as a way to hang out with richy-rich friends. She downplays her making time for a stricken kid before so she did make time to meet with a stricken child. She neglects to mention her other charitable activities. If “ABC World News” is the major leagues (New York Yankees) and the middle-of-the-night “World News Now” is the minor league , “ABC News Now” is in whatever league goes beneath that one. “ABC News Now” is not the same as “World News Now” (which is broadcast). How many editors have seen “The Buzz” on “ABC News Now” before it being brought to your attention by an editor here? How did he discover it?

In my years on the net, this is the first time I have ever seen a comment from a journalist appear after an article: Ms. Marikar, the highly-biased angle you took in this article made it hard for me to read as a fellow journalist. It's completely understandable that a celebrity chef of Garten's magnitude would not be able to grant every appearance and favor asked of her. Now—of course she's dealing with a PR crisis, but only because it was created for her by journalists like you who are looking for the next juicy celebrity scoop. “Charmingsnob”, March 28th It is a manufactured event. Why do you prefer her judgment over the rest of ABC News that did not publish the gossip? Re: Salon link you provided, they said

Hey, what do facts matter when there's an opportunity for a good old-fashioned character thrashing? Who cares, even, if it's at the expense of the alleged victim? Haven't been angry enough yet today, Internet? Take it out on Ina, let the facts and Enzo's family's feelings be damned.

I guess they agree with me.

Other blogs also see this as a cyber-lynching: http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=4717276e164989b9a47f4f4479f6580b&topic=92605.0

http://ifrymineinbutter.com/2011/03/26/this-is-why-we-cant-have-nice-things-the-people-vs-barefoot-contessa/

Why do you prefer OK magazine over People? And OK magazine publishes lies on its front cover such as OK Rob Pattinson marries Kristen Stewart. Never saw People do that.

--Javaweb (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Except it was reported by Fox News, as well as The Washington Post. It was also reported on by The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Hollywood Reporter -- two more news organizations with well-established editorial oversight. In fact, per WP:NEWSBLOG, even the gossipy Los Angeles Times blog qualifies as a reliable source. The New York Times did mention it obliquely, but not in a dedicated article: [31] so that doesn't really count. So I agree; the story was not picked up by every news organization.

However, this was a newsworthy event that received a good amount of news coverage -- maybe not complete saturation, but that's not a requirement for inclusion, per WP:V or WP:BLP. Celebrities ignore charity requests all the time; no one is disputing that. The thing that makes this newsworthy is the fact that the family of the child cancer patient went public with the rejections. "Fair" or not, it was widely covered by reliable sources.

Her philanthropic efforts are great; if those philanthropic efforts can be sourced, I think they should be added to the article, since plenty of other well known figures have entire philanthropy sections; Lady Gaga, Brad Pitt, Rachel Rey, Bill Gates, Heidi Klum, et cetera. I am not interested in giving her a "cyber thrashing." I have no interest in her reputation one way or the other, and my opinion (or any Wikipedia editor's opinion) of Ina Garten is totally irrelevant. Here are the three core content policies:

1. Is the information verifiable? Yes.
2. Is the information original research? No.
3. Can the information be presented in a neutral tone? Debatable.

I would argue that simply mentioning the controversy does not, in itself, violate WP:UNDUE. It is possible to include this information in a neutral, dispassionate, balanced, responsible, and conservative way that addresses the controversy without explicitly condemning Ms. Garten. The Salon article is a perfect example of that, because it acknowledges that there was "firestorm," but it put the media coverage, Ms. Garten's response, and the child's condition in perspective. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Just wrong. There is nothing remotely 'neutral' about discussing a bogus 'controversy' drummed up by sections of the media on a slack-news day. Ina Garten's notability has nothing whatsoever to do with her philanthropy (or alleged lack of it). In any case, there is very little 'information' to include - she was asked to do something, and declined. Everything else is hype, speculation, and spin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• I believe we are talking about text similar to this edit regarding a "Make-A-Wish Foundation Controversy". The text is pathetic gossip that belongs nowhere on Wikipedia, and particularly nowhere near a BLP—the subject declined to do something, and Wikipedia should not be used to make a smear out of the non-incident. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Dustin Diamond

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

Why is there no edit option for this page? Also previous information regarding himself releasing a sex tape which was reported by numerous news outlets has been removed from the page? This is still relevant in the sense that information concering Tom Sizemore's sex tape is on his own page? Im not sure why the mention of the sex tape was removed from this article, when it had already been stated by Dustin himself including and an article featured on E! television about this prank with a dirty sanchez? It is referenced here : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?entry_id=9287 and http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2006/10/screech-sex-tape-guest-stars-revealed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasow187 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• - Article is semi protected - the tape allegations were removed as not being supported by WP:RS wikipedia reliable sources -as the user that removed them commented, a sfgate blog post and celebrity gossip dot com are not reliable sources to use to add content to a en wikipedia biography and if you can source the tape reliably, it can be added. Off2riorob (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Costello

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

I wanted to alert the powers that be to the page of sitting U.S. Rep. Jerry Costello. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello) I have just added and cited a "Controvery" section to Rep. Costello's page that acknowledges a trial that was widely reported in the 1990s.

The history of Rep. Costello's page indicates that the controvery has apparently been added and stripped from the Wikipedia page in the past. That seems inappropriate. The event led to formal ethics complaints. The congressman himself has responded publicly.

I am not a resident of his district, nor am I a regular Wikipedia contributor, so I am not likely to stick around to monitor this situation. I will probably check back over the coming days, but wanted to alert somebody better situated than I am. For what it is worth, I came across the controvery while reading my Criminal Law textbook, and was sufficiently alarmed by the blank Wiki profile that I researched and added the Controversy element myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musskel (talk • contribs) 03:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• - I boldly removed it as undue coverage/weight - Costello was not indicted in the incident and an ethics complaint was submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the matter - and nothing happened, just about sums it up as undue coverage of something that was only attached in a minor way to the subject being written up to assert all sorts of crimes and evil doings, nothing of which was brought to court in regard ot this person and nothing of which appears to have had any affect on this persons career. If local editors think it is worthy of a mention I will rewrite it and replace with less weight. Off2riorob (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• • I have more information: Rep. Costello was required to testify to a grand jury in this matter. Citation for that information is below. He was accused in court by a sitting judge, as well as both suspects in the case, one of whom the best man at his wedding. There was ample press coverage about this scandal, and it continues to be mentioned in voter guides about him. My citations included articles from the Chicago Tribune and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, two of the largest papers in the Midwest. Here's an additional article from the Chicago Tribune which suggests the scandal affected the congressman politically, as it derailed a planned attempt to run for the Illinois Secretary of State's office. (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-12-01/news/9612010046_1_aide-leak-white-house). If you have other qualms, I'd be happy to address those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musskel (talk • contribs) 11:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Democrat sources report about the republican candidate.. it just seems like partisan attack content to me. Nothing happened to the subject of the article he was not indited or charged in any way. If I write it in a NPOV way it will be exposed as such. If it has any value here it would be on an article about the main man Amiel Cueto that it is all about, and he is not wikipedia notable. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Each of your arguments is factually incorrect. This is a clear case of a scandal that involved a sitting U.S. congressman. Read the citations. The "sources" are the federal courts, mainstream newspapers, and a formal ethics complaint filed by a reputable, non-partisan organization. The candidate is a Democrat.

What did this person do that was scandalous? It is fifteen years ago, are there any charges against this person? Ah, yes a democrat, I saw Rep/representative and read republican, excuse me. Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The standard for you which advocate is unworkable. It would, for instance, prohibit Wikipedia from documenting the Chandra Levy saga. After all, there was no indictment against the involved congressman, and a different suspect has in fact confessed.Musskel (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - you are talking about a successful politician in office continually since 1988 has been re-elected to every succeeding Congress; currently he is the most senior member of Illinois' House delegation. He was reelected easily in 2008. You expanded his biography by thirty three percent with these uncharged allegations from fifteen years ago, which imo seems a bit undue Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think editing the content for length is a good idea. However, I do not think it is appropriate to scrub the incident entirely from the congressman's biography. Would you like to edit what I first posted? I'm not terribly interested in putting something back up if you're going to strip it down again.

My point is pretty simple: I think it is important that Wikipedia reflect an incident which provoked a formal ethics complaint against a sitting U.S. Congressman. The fact that the incident is listed across the internet, and in stories about his reelection effort in 2010, speaks to its legitimacy and longevity.Musskel (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ethics complaints are ten a penny and don't even need to have any facts in, they are just a letter asking for investigation - in this case nothing came of it, the ethics complaint, did it? Was any action forthcoming from the ethics complaint? Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

In 1996 reports in the press alleged Costello was involved as a silent partner in a casino deal for which, after a federal investigation a man was sentenced to six years in jail. Costello testified before a grand jury in regard to the matter but was not indited or charged in the case and denied any involvement. The Congressional Accountability Project wrote an ethics complaint requesting investigation of Costello which resulted in no action.[1} Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great. A few suggested tweaks. The most important is removing "the press" as the source of the allegations regarding Costello. Newspapers only reported the allegations, which were made by federal prosecutors in open court. I also think we should be specific about the allegation -- "unindicted co-conspirator" instead of "silent partner". Those are different things, and I think the difference is meaningful. I also changed "jail" to "prison", as those are different, too. (In the U.S., jail is where you go immediately after an arrest; prison is where you go after a conviction). Finally, I changed "a man" to "a longtime friend." I think that sheds light on the issue. I'm also including a suggested citation from the New York Times, which is pretty reputable. Notice the NYT calls him "a longtime friend", too: (http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/12/us/after-7-months-in-limbo-ethics-panel-is-back.html?pagewanted=all)

In 1996, federal prosecutors alleged that Costello was an unindicted co-conspirator in a plan to build a riverboat casino. At the end of an investigation and trial, a longtime friend of Costello's was sentenced to six years in prison for obstruction of justice. Costello testified before a grand jury in regard to the matter, but was not indicted or charged in the case. He denied any involvement. The Congressional Accountability Project filed an ethics complaint requesting investigation of Costello which resulted in no action.Musskel (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you seem to have asserted a degree of long term notability so unless there are other objections this NPOV write seems not an unreasonable inclusion, your alterations are all good. - I added a couple of internals that seem to be worthy of pointing to ...Here is the NYT external citation formatted for insertion. - <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/12/us/after-7-months-in-limbo-ethics-panel-is-back.html?pagewanted=all|title=After 7 Months in Limbo, Ethics Panel Is Back|publisher=The New York Times|date=12 September 1997|accessdate=20 September, 2011}}</ref>

I don't really know how to edit Wikipedia well, so maybe you could post to his page? (The external citation formatted, etc., is confusing to me). I want to say thanks for your help with this. We did a little verbal combat, but I think the selection above is better than what I started with, and that's to your credit. I think the incident itself is worth noting. As I said in my original post, my hope is that this doesn't get stripped from the congressman's page, as it apparently was in 2010, etc. Best of luck. Musskel (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha.. a little verbal combat, its was all in good faith and taste though, no worries. Although it happens quite regularly, controversy is not recommended per WP:MOSBIO for a section header, I suggest either adding it to the correct place as per the time line ... or if it doesn't sit well in the body of the text a title , perhaps, 1996 Ethics report or something similar..?  Done - I have added our content. Jerry Costello#1997 Ethics complaint - Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Saw it posted. I think the header is appropriate. Cheers. Musskel (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries, after our lenghty-ish discussion, investigation and agreement, any removal will require similar discussion. As I have now watchlisted the article and spent a degree of time on the addition I will keep an eye on it. Regards.Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Palani G Periyasamy

Resolved

 – investigated and moved as requested

Palani G Periyasamy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about my father and I just wanted to note that his name is spelled incorrectly. It is spelled PALANI G. PERIASAMY. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.13.122 (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As per your report and http://web.archive.org/web/20090303203657/http://india-today.com/btoday/07051998/cf2.html - and others , I have moved the article to Palani G. Periasamy. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

berty cockbill

Resolved

 – user advised

i submitted the article regarding the footballer berty cockbill i am very new to this and the peice has been deleted iam not sure hat i have done wrong and as i am not too good at this technology could anyone please explain slowly how to submit this again i am trying to update all former stratford town players who played professionally thank you so much and please be gentle ha ha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratfordvillain (talk • contribs) 15:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Your request/question might be better at the WP:Help desk - this noticeboard is not for article creation assistance - see WP:Article creation for guidance - September 20, 2011 User:Peridon deleted "Berty cockbill" ‎ (WP:A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) - Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football seems to be the issue that your creation is failing, you will need to at least get him over the grass cutting minimal notability for English wikipedia of the WP:General notability guidelines - Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Karmella Tsepkolenko

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

It's an Wiki article with low verifiability. Looks like a self-promote SEO webpage. All sources provided in this article is not so reliable as needed (just a personal homepages). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.140.4.23 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look promotional to me. Hard to tell whether she's sufficiently notable. News searches come up with virtually nothing. However, she's mentioned in books and has published books (as the article says). Probably more notable in her own country than worldwide, even though the article says her music has been performed in other parts of the world. The cited sources aren't great, but they aren't personal homepages, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Bbb. Doesn't strike me as promotional, but it is not clear to me whether she is notable, per wp criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Primary Sources (Email) in Articles

I hope you don't mind me contacting you, I got your name from the Editors Assistance list. I conducted a GA Review of the article Robert Abbott (game designer) which you can read here: Talk:Robert Abbott (game designer)/GA1. One of the issues that I identified was that quite a bit relied on emails received by Hi878. I checked WP:Primary, and understand that primary sources can be used if necessary, although with caution on BLP pages, however nothing is mentioned about emails - merely self-published Websites. Do you know of any process, perhaps through OTRS that we can arrange for the emails to be acceptable references?

Thanks in advance for your help, Deadly∀ssassin 07:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

OTRS already certified the email as coming from him, with the template at the top of the talk p. and it's "published" on the article talk page, so it could be considered to essentially has the same status as if he had published the same thing on his blog: usable for routine details only. The problem I see is that on his blog, we could also quote from it about what he says are his motivations, , and I just don't feel comfortable doing that based on the email. It's a blurring of boundaries. I would certainly not give GA status to an article relying on it. This is a difficult question: usually OTRS is used to permit people to correct facts about themselves, and to donate copyright, not more generally to permit sourcing from emails. I've never seen such a request on OTRS., but I work there only a little. I would want to check how often this has been used. I suggest that you move this question to either the RS or BLP noticeboards. I think a general opinion is needed. It's not a question for the OTRS volunteers primarily but the community. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• The above was copied from DGG's talk page to elicit a more general opinion.

To put in my two cents, as the one who is wanting to use the e-mail, I would not use information told to me in e-mails other than to add straightforward facts that cannot be found anywhere else. For instance, in the article, I only have used it to back up the statements that his sister helped him test games when he was young, that he sent a letter to Martin Gardner about Eleusis and subsequently was written about in his column, and that Sol Stein noticed his games and published a book of them. The only other thing I can think of that I would use an e-mail from him for his when he was married, and who to; there isn't anything about that anywhere else. I would only use e-mails for facts that aren't covered anywhere else; I don't really see any other alternative, other than having a sizable chunk of information missing. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't add anything from any email, its self published (its not even published - its being published primarily by wikipedia - and I certainly wouldn't see any article supported by such as a wiki good article) and such editing doesn't seem in line with the projects objectives. The fact that these emails aree required for content additions seems to reduce any assertions of notability - where are the reliable independent reports?Off2riorob (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting issue. While the work in getting the email is terrific, I don't think it should be used on Wikipedia. My main feeling is that when information is verified by a personal email to an editor, the information will either be inconsequential (and so could be omitted, despite some loss of interest), or the information will be important (and so needs much more than a personal email for verification—rather like a WP:REDFLAG issue). Also, the precedent is terrifying—imagine a politician's article full of all sorts of embellishments sourced to emails from the politician or their publicist. What if we get an email from the politician's opponents with the inside dirt—of course the source would not be suitable. Johnuniq (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• I see where you're coming from, and you're right that it is prone to abuse, but is it really any different from using a self published website as a source? Per WP:PRIMARY they are acceptable in certain circumstances and with care in BLP articles. --Deadly∀ssassin 12:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

An email to an anonymous Wikipedia editor? Yee. Try to get Abbott himself to put the emails up on a website he controls. He seems to have one: http://www.logicmazes.com/ --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have suggested that, GRuban, but he seemed to not be wanting to. In response to Off2riorob, he is still notable; things that he has done have made him notable, and those are backed up by reliable sources, but said sources don't have many personal details. In response to Johnuniq, would the name of his wife and when he was married fall under either of those? There isn't anything about that anywhere; the only way I would be able to add that is if he tells me in another e-mail. I compeltely see where you are coming from with not wanting to set a precedent for that, but it seems as though something like that, or the minor ways I have already used one, would not cause any problems. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're coming up against one of our core policies. WP:NOT#OR. "If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online publications." That's exactly what you've done by getting information from the article subject. That now needs to be published somewhere else, "other venues". Not here. --GRuban (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks GRuban, that's a lot clearer to me now. Hi878, I've commented on the GA page if you could take a look? --Deadly∀ssassin 23:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders

• Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Presumption of guilt on the part of one of the two subjects (only one has been convicted), and an excessively detailed series of descriptions of grisly crimes, which also presumes guilt on the part of the defendant in an ongoing criminal trial. The "Home Invasion" section in particular is unencyclopedic and will need to be stubbed. causa sui (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I would delete the entire Home invasion section. I'm not sure there's any way to successfully stub it. It's supposedly all based on reports by the media, although I haven't read every word or checked every source. It just assumes Komisarjevsky (the one who has not been convicted) did everything.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed everything from the Home invasion section except the first sentence as a clear BLP violation. I've commented on the Talk page. I've also removed or reworded other material in the article connected to Komisarjevsky.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The home invasion section can be rephrased, perhaps, but I don't see justification for gutting it. This crime has made national news. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP violations cannot remain in an article. Feel free to take a stab at rewording it, but I saw no easy way to do so. It was very long, very detailed, and all of the Komisarjevsky material was intertwined with the Hayes material. The fact the crime made national news is irrelevant to the BLP issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously Wikipedia can't say, footnoted or not, "Unbeknownst to them, they had been targeted by" X and Y. However, can't this be attributed to the prosecution? Correct, the national news aspect is irrelevant to the BLP issue, but relevant to the need to retain details, however distasteful. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A lot more than that one phrase you note was a problem. It's not a question of "distasteful" - it's a question of whether it assumes Komisarjevsky's guilt. If you can figure out how to explain the reported details of the crime without involving Komisarjevsky, or without constantly using qualifying phrases ("according to prosecutors") that are also backed up by reliable sources so that it becomes almost unreadable, good luck. Also, just sticking in a bunch of allegedly's won't eliminate the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Parenthetically, I see from the talk page that this article is a GA. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and you'll also note that User:causa sui and I both pointed out the significant problem with the reviewer's evaluation of the article, given the BLP violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Judging by what ran recently in The New York Times, this is an overreaction: "Another defense lawyer, Walter C. Bansley III, began by conceding many of the facts but blaming Mr. Hayes for turning the crime into a homicide. 'Joshua Komisarjevsky never intended to kill anyone,' he said."[32] The essential description of events isn't contested, just a dispute between the two admitted perpetrators as to their relative culpability. The section needs careful review to eliminate certain unproven aspects of the description, but most of the contents were adequately sourced and apparently accurate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is the correct approach. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hullabaloo, you made this same comment on the Talk page, and another editor made a similar but less professional comment. First, what defense counsel may say to the press can be reported on, but a lot of that is strategy and posturing. What matters is what evidence is presented to the jury and what the jury concludes. Second, and probably more important, as I recall from beginning reading that section, it didn't read like "relative culpability", but more like a detailed report of the "facts", without any qualifications as to whether a particular "fact" concerning Komisarjevsky was a concession by him or an accusation by a prosecutor or an allegation of some witness or what.

I'll take two sentences that were in the middle of the section as an example (I hadn't read it until now): "Komisarjevsky sexually assaulted the 11-year-old daughter, Michaela. Komisarjevsky, who had photographed the sexual assault of the youth on his cell phone,then provoked Hayes to rape Hawke-Petit." It's sourced to a newspaper account of Hayes' trial that says this: "Hayes' defense team has highlighted distressing revelations about Komisarjevsky's role in the killings of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daughters, Hayley and Michaela, during their questioning at some of the most crucial times in the case." So, clearly, Hayes' lawyers are trying to throw blame onto Komisarjevsky. As to the article material itself, the cited source says: "jurors — during cross examination — learned that 11-year-old Michaela's body showed evidence of a sexual assault and that Komisarjevsky's cellphone contained graphic photos, some of a young girl bound to a bed, taken during the same time as the home invasion." Mind you, it does not say that the young girl was Micaela. There is also a sentence in the source that says that Hayes said that Komisarjevsky assaulted Micaela - not very surprising as each defendant blames the other, but also not what our article says. I found nothing in the article that supported the assertion that Komisarjevsky had provoked Hayes to rape Hawke-Petit.

With these kinds of issues throughout the section, it is better to remove the material and to much more carefully reinsert properly sourced material that does not violate BLP.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP compliant means more than "true" and "verified". The purpose of this article, and especially the "Home Invasion" section, is specifically to disparage the subjects and reinforce to the reader what awful monsters they are. Maybe they deserve to be disparaged, but Wikipedia is not the platform for that, especially while a capital murder trial is still ongoing. causa sui (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Come on. Both of these men are on trial for involvement in a grisly murder. The section that was removed simply described their alleged crimes. It could have been worded better, surely. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to see a proposed wording that is BLP compliant.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"Come on." That they're on trial for a capital murder is a reason for stricter adherence to the BLP policy, not less. causa sui (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What was written in the article turns out, especially in light of the playing of the current defendant's confession in court yesterday [33], to be at least a bit less inflammatory than repeating the defendant's own words would have been. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Evidently there's some misunderstanding between us about what is at issue here. causa sui (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche movement

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

Please review [34]. Is the removed text a BLP violation? Why or why not? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems appropriately sourced, to the Philadelphia Inquirer. If the material is clearly presented as a claim by Girvin (as the newspaper presents it), then I don't see the problem. Since there is an extensive history of harassment allegations against LaRouche and his followers, well-sourced cases are probably relevant enough to warrant brief mention. I'm having a really hard time seeing a BLP issue here, assuming that the material is presented and attributed responsibly.

In fact, this material seems to fall very clearly under the section of WP:BLP which states: 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. MastCell ^Talk 23:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that the section above on the LaRouche Movement is clearly against the addition of material that is is based on the word of one person. John lilburne (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Mastcell, if an allegation made by one person, which has not been substantiated by anyone else, is reported in one source it is clearly not "well-documented." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Per Griswaldo. A very serious allegation, apparently reported once, accusing no one in particular, but "the movement" in general. This is pure gossip, appropriate for the Philadelphia Inquirer, but not for an encyclopedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup, vague and unsubstantiated. There is quite enough useful verifiable material from reliable sources to reveal the LaRouche movement for what it is, without having to use this sort of 'evidence', in any case. Giving prominence to these sort of allegations only serves to make them look more significant than they are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If there's a consensus against it, that's fine. I'm just giving my opinion; this seems to me to fall under the heading of "notable, relevant, and well-documented", but thanks for the lectures. I see there are other LaRouche threads here, but they seem marked by incessant bickering and spin, and it was very difficult to decipher the actual content being discussed. This question was refreshingly clear and neutrally phrased, so I gave my opinion. I guess I could argue the factual contentions - for instance, it is clearly not "reported in one source" (there were two in the diff provided by Hipocrite), but I don't really care enough about the subject, and this is reminding me why I avoid the area. Carry on. MastCell ^Talk 04:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I only see, and only saw, one source for the material Cla68 removed in the diff Hipocrite posted. If the allegation can be found in more sources then the allegation may be more well-documented, but I was commenting on the available information. As others have pointed out there are yet other issues, in that the information is still at the level of hearsay. The fact that one person's hearsay has been repeated by three or four newspapers isn't exactly improving the quality of the original statement. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

In the diff cited by Hipocrite ([35]), the removed material was sourced to both a Montreal Gazette article (check the reference tag) and a Philadelphia Inquirer article. But again, I'm not arguing strongly in favor of this material; I'm just trying to sort out the facts on the ground. MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm continually surprised at how many established editors in Wikipedia (not you, MastCell) will fight so long and hard to keep pejorative information in BLP-related articles, even to the point of revert-warring in an attempt to keep the material. Anyway, thanks to the uninvolved editors who have commented, and hopefully this discussion can serve as a precedent for assisting in the removal of further sketchy material from that and other BLP-related articles. It just shouldn't be this hard. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The activities of the Larouche movement in Leesburg, Virginia and the events concerning Polly Girvin can be found in multiple sources apart from the Philadelphia Inquirer, eg The Pittsburgh Press [36] (but beware, this issue of the paper contains a story about the capture of a squirrel) and the Orlando Sentinel [37]. It's very hard to see where the BLP violation is. Certainly it was not clear even to Cla68 in his second edit to the article in May 2011.[38] It's quite hard to see what has changed since then.[39] Oh, but I'm forgetting ... Mathsci (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No matter how many times something is repeated it doesn't add anything to its credibility. For example you can find 100s of news reports of people saying that Obama is a Muslim. John lilburne (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You may perhaps wish to start an AFD for this, then.Hal peridol (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Why? That article seems to be discussing the quintessence of the loon, rather than Obama, which isn't te same thing. John lilburne (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea about this Larouche group or why they fire many users up but this content is clearly rubbish, likely more rumor than truth imo - a whisper at the start and it never gets any louder. As Andy says, Giving prominence to these sort of allegations only serves to make them look more significant than they are, this "alleged" whisper in a time where the report I read said the phones were hanging off the hook with negative claims about the group as the locals attempted to get rid of them. Off2riorob (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, you've commented about LaRouche and his group before, so I'm surprised to see you say that you "have no idea about" the topic. Regarding this particular issue, it was made in front of a TV camera and a reporter, so it's not really an "alleged" whisper and it certainly is not a rumor. If you're not willing to read the sources and inform yourself then commenting on topics about which you have no idea isn't helpful.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"I have no idea about this Larouche group or why they fire many users up" - I have almost never posted about this group, perhaps a couple of posts, a disputed content removal at one of the associated articles, for example - I have not once posted on the article that this BLP thread is about, the La Rouche movement article or the La Rouche movement talkpage, you are the major contributor to both of them,contributions La Rouche movement - over the last five years - you have nine times more contributions on the talkpage than the next contributor. I have no interest in them but I recognize low quality attack content when I see it. I realize you are a famous opponent of the group so I defer to that, but I am allowed to comment on this simple single content dispute - its often better if uninvolved contributers comment. I have seen the local press publications about this. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The only place I'm a "famous opponent of the group" is on Wikipedia Review, in the imagination of HK, the senior admin there.

If you are so uninvolved then why did you tell me on my talk page the other day that we should "back off" from one another? Please, take your own advice.

Philadelphia, New York, and Los Angeles, which are among the cities whose newspapers reported this, are not actually local to Leesburg, Virginia, though I'm sure the local newspapers covered it as well.

It's typical for editors who've created large articles to make the most contributions to them. I don't see that you've created any articles on Wikipedia, so you might not be familiar with that pattern. Don't forget, too, that the article has been fought over by at least 18 sock puppets of HK. The article, its contribution list, and its talk page would all be much shorter if not for him. Anyway, as Scottyberg has pointed out below, this particular incident is not a BLP issue.   Will Beback  talk  07:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have created one, well sort of. Gabriel Mar Gregorios - I am the main contributor to over a hundred articles, perhaps two hundred. There are many ways to contribute to this project without starting articles, all of them equally valuable. There are currently a couple of million very low quality articles all in need of improving. Off2riorob (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No doubt. But notice that you have made five times as many edits to Gabriel Mar Gregorios, an article which you sort of created, as any other single editor. The point is that the number, percentage, or multiple of edits is not, by itself, indicative of anything. 00:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, statistics are vague... Any way, thanks for your quality contributions here Will, I would be proud of a similar contributory record as yours. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. In the future please don't throw my contributions in my face as an accusation of wrongdoing. I'm working hard and in good faith to improve Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  01:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Tch, shame on you Will Beback, you are unable to even take a compliment without attacking. Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no personal attack in that statement. I was commenting on your post which started this sub-thread, in which you commented on my editing statistics. Let's just drop this.   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree that it seems like a minor incident blown out of proportion. However, it is not a BLP issue. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Its not a clear specific BLP violation (likely why it has sat in the article for a while) but it is undue weight to an attacking unverified claim that alleges severe crime against a whole unnamed section of living people, that supporters of Larouche threatened to kill someone is the jist of this unconfirmed whisper. - Threat to kill is a crime in the UK and imo it is just being used unduly to portray Larouche's supporters in a negative manner. Its a simple neutral editorial position to keep it out of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Threatening to kill a federal official is a major felony in the US. [40] threat to kidnap or kill—imprisonment for not more than 10 years, Killing any federal official is a capital crime, punishable by death. In short - a quite serious crime to be given prominence in any "allegation" in any Wikipedia article subject to WP:BLP (which is actually all articles mentioning such a living person or small group, etc. Collect (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that sums it up pretty well. It's a minor thing that doesn't belong in an article on a political movement. It might belong elsewhere. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

@Collect: the diff does not state that Girvin is a federal official. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I am referring to the prior claim promoted by Will about a threat to kill a federal prosecutor, also from this article. The "Montreal Gazette" cite (article by Wald) is not findable on the Internet at all, not even through the paper's archives. Thus not likely to be regarded as a "strong source." I would also note that Canadian law also makes a "threat to kill" a felony, just in case, for some odd reason, any editor could possibly think otherwise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure now why we're citing the Montreal Gazette for that article, but it is a wire service copy of Wald's article for the New York Times.[41] In any case, the death threat against William Weld was discussed in a different thread on this page, #LaRouche Movement. Please assume good faith.   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

@ScottyBerg, some political movements are known for their use of violence to achieve their goals. Omitting information about that aspect of a movement would give an incomplete picture. While reasonable people may disagree about the relative weight to give to individual incidents, the idea that we should leave such incidents out of an article on a movement entirely contradicts the idea that encyclopedia's should be comprehensive. NPOV says that we achieve neutrality by using the neutral point of view, not that we achieve neutrality by reporting equal amounts of good and bad.   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What violence was used and by whom? Were there any charges or convictions? Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

@Will: this appeared to be an isolated incident. If not, and if an RS says it is not, then I can see inclusion. Otherwise it just seemed out of left field. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Tt was not an isolated incident at all. In addition to the other instances of alleged harassment of Girvin, numerous other people in town who signed petitions or spoke out against the movement were also harassed. FYI, the entire section is based on research compiled here: [42]. You can search on "Leesburg" and "Loudon" to see partial reports of the related incidents. The sources describe these are part of a pattern of harassment, both in Leesburg and as a general characteristic of the group.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What struck me about this incident was the extreme nature of the reaction (sold her home, left town), which did not seem warranted by the provocation. That is why I thought it might have gone a step too far. I suggest that since there is no BLP violation here, that it be taken before the NPOVN. This just isn't the right forum, as no living person is disparaged here. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Peggy Adler

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

Bxzooo (talk · contribs), self-declared as the subject of Peggy Adler, has repeatedly inserted a statement that she is a victim of domestic violence, linking the statement to her ex-husband, without providing any WP:reliable sources. She has stated that she has forwarded copies of the police blotter and the judge's protection order to User:Killiondude, but that doesn't seem to me to be sufficient to state in Wikipedia's voice that he is an abuser.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• No way - warn, and if she continues, block away. Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Remove : It's a simple matter on this one: per WP:BLPPRIMARY, Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. The material must be removed until/unless Peggy (and I'm still baffled why she isn't blocked from "her" article...) comes up a valid third party source for the point. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• As best I can tell she has already agreed not to post it again (see Talk:Peggy_Adler#Thanx.21_I_like_the_way_the_article_now_reads and User_talk:Bxzooo#OK. I would say it's moot unless the user resumes adding the information. fish&karate 14:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Herbert Mataré

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

According to User:Wikinaut (talk) Herbert Mataré died on September 2. I did not find any reference yet, but he has send a copy of the death card to OTRS: "Dem Support-Team liegt unter Ticket:2011092210019198 ein Scan der Todesanzeige vor". Can somebody check this OTRS ticket and confirm that this enough to allow the update of his article, till the official reference is available? -- SchreyP ^(messages) 18:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody answer above questions? Is the OTRS content enough as reference for the recent changes on the article? -- SchreyP ^(messages) 17:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Berezovsky

Boris Berezovsky (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors are removing reliably sourced information from the Boris Berezovsky article, and on the talk page seem to indicate that it is a WP:BLP violation. Can uninvolved editors take a look at Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Use_of_libel_tourism.2Fterrorism and opine over there. There appears to be gaming going on to keep relevant information out of an article. Appreciate any input on the talk page. Thanks, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on the Talk page has been fairly robust. I'm not sure why Russavia brings it here as no one has said that inclusion of the material he wants added to the article would constitute a BLP violation. Russavia has also done an WP:RFC on the Talk page, which is perfectly fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an unfortunate expansion of a Russavia combat-mode which was noted in prior ArbCom decisions. The talk page discussion is extremely clear on the article talk page, and I doubt Russavia will gain from this post. I think he would be quite well-advisednot to advertise his problems at this point in time. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Umm, I've brought it here, because BBb23 was talking about keeping information out of a WP:BLP article. Hence, it is insinuating a BLP violation, and hence, I'd like some BLPN regulars to take a look; particularly those who were involved in the last round of comments. Bringing such things to BLPN is of course the right course of action. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained on the Talk page why the material doesn't belong, as have other editors. It doesn't follow that just because someone wants to keep material out of a BLP article, that means the basis is a BLP violation. And it certainly isn't true in this instance - nor has anyone implied it to be true. You're just persisting in your own misinterpretation of other editor's actions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You haven't explained anything on the talk page, and in fact, at the 3RR report you again insinuated that there were BLP violations in there. You were going to post to ANI to ask about the article and my alleged BLP violations. And you are avoiding discussion on the talk page, not engaging in it. Of course, scholars disagree with you, and given your history on the article in question, we go with what scholars and reliable sources say. If the scholars comments were BLP it would be WP:FRINGE material, but it's not. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick and final comment that all of your remarks about me are untrue. I was actually thinking of closing this topic because the article has again been locked, but that didn't seem fair to you, so I didn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Étienne_Tshisekedi

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

This article is not neutral. The information is highly biased, especially as one reads on in the article. I noticed that it recently underwent a lot of heavy editing, and this is likely why. Given that this person is a political figure and running for a coming election, this bias is not surprising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarewen (talk • contribs) 08:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This politician has been around for a long time, and there's a lot of info about him at Google Books. The best way to improve the article would be to use that info from Google Books, accompanied by a lot of footnotes. Unfortunately, Google Books doesn't seem to work well on an iPhone, so I can't get started on it right now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the article has now been thoroughly overhauled. Unfortunately, it took a second thread below to get me off my butt (or rather to get me on my butt in front of a desktop computer).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

shannon wheeler

Resolved

 – Article updated.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

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

I would like to ask for two points of information to be removed from this article: - "Shannon Wheeler grew up in the 1960s in Berkeley, California.[1]" This is not correct. Wheeler was born in 1966 and for the rest of that decade, lived in Texas, until moving back to Berkeley at the age of four. - "As of March 2010, Wheeler lived in Portland, Oregon, and had twin sons then 12 years old.[1]" We would like to avoid direct references to the children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamdao22 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your first point is that the material is reliably sourced to an interview with Wheeler. Now, perhaps Wheeler was speaking loosely when he tacitly agreed he was brought up in Berkeley in the 60s, but you would need to find another reliable source that gives the history more clearly. As for his children, when you say "we would like to avoid", who is "we"? Again, the same interview sources the twins.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

For the first point, the interviewer asked the question about "growing up in the 60s" based on his own research and Wheeler went along with it as the meaning behind the question was something more akin to "What was it like being raised by hippie parents in Berkeley, California?" And about finding a source that cites he was not in Berkeley for most of the 60s, I'd be hard pressed to find a written source of his mother's statements. (I heard this from her direct.)

In "we," I mean that Wheeler and myself feel uncomfortable having detailed information about the boys in a forum that people access easily. Concerning their mention in a public forum, I feel differently about a local weekly paper mentioning them than I do if it's on Wikipedia. Wiki has a much greater outreach and many more people use it as a go-to resource. The information here spreads quite rapidly. In the Portland Tribune that's used as citation, the interviewer brought in a question that lead with the statement "You’ve got twin 12-year-old boys of your own..." I think that Wheeler would not have brought up this specific information himself. I still feel that the boys would feel uncomfortable if people assumed they were 12-years-old because that's the most recent information in a Wikipedia article. They are feeling well beyond that age now, I believe.Tamdao22 (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on your explanation and your very polite request on my Talk page and the fact that including his sons' age is unnecessary anyway, I've removed the age part from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! The result is better than what I requested. Very much appreciated. Tamdao22 (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul Krugman (2)

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

As I understand the policy on avoiding self-published sources this should be removed from the article on Paul Krugman because it is based on personal self-published blog. However, one administrator reverted me twice claiming that blog post "is acceptable as a source of the expert's professional opinions regarding the issue" [43] even though WP:SELFPUBLISH explicitly says that we should "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert". Can somebody please clarify this issue? -- Vision Thing -- 20:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

content:- However, economic historian Brad Delong defended Krugman as intellectually honest, and stated that Crook failed to understand the economic argument that Krugman was making.

source:- http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/02/in-which-clive-crook-succumbs-to-the-high-broderism-i-think.html

Brad DeLong is a recognized expert and more than acceptable as an RS. Here he is being used as a source not for factual information on Krugman, but for a source for DeLong's opinions about a published article. I fail to see what is wrong here. The alternative is for the published attack to remain in a BLP unchallenged, which violates BLP more than including a self-published defense of Krugman by an expert, which is only prohibited by stretching the policy and interpreting it in the most myopic of ways. I should note that the same editor complaining about including this defense of the BLP also supports including a broadly-worded negative statement about the BLP in the lede of the article sourced only to a few negative opinion pieces. Gamaliel (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What my alleged argument about another issue has to do with this? -- Vision Thing -- 21:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think editors editing patterns on a biography are relevant on this noticeboard. All editors should edit from a WP:NPOV point of view - a recent arbitration case noted that editing from a one sided position is an example/violation of a WP:COI - Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Then I should note that Gamaliel is showing much greater tolerance for sources that praise Krugman (in this case he is willing to allow use of self-published blog on BLP) than for those sources and interpretations that are critical of him. -- Vision Thing -- 21:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I know you are, but what am I? Seriously, this is nuts. The only way using this would be in any way equivalent to what you want in the lede would be if I was using DeLong to make a statement like "Krugman is widely seen by everyone as awesome and studly." Gamaliel (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It has everything to do with is, as you are advocating including negative material on much flimsier grounds than the ones used to justify the inclusion of this particular defense of Krugman. So it appears that the obvious explanation for this is that you are either pushing negative material or removing positive material in a retaliatory manner. Gamaliel (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If you claim that self-published blogs written by experts are a reliable source for BLP than there is no limit on claims that can be included in this article on Krugman. -- Vision Thing -- 21:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment seems ot mis portray the comments posted here. Of course such a position of an article full of self published comments of experts would not be correct. Occasionally such additions may be acceptable. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I had a bit of a look and in this case is seems to be more or less acceptable - a fair rebuttal to the opinion of Crook that precedes it, which is Crooks own opinion published in his column - Delong's comments are not really claiming anything about Krugman , as in Krugman did this or krugman did that, just the opinion of an expert, seems to qualify as acceptable. Policy/guidelines are usually written to allow some degree of interpretation and editorial inspection. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Same criteria should be used for both criticism and praise. DeLong is claiming that Krugman is "intellectually honest". If he was claiming that Krugman is intellectually dishonest would you still find use of it acceptable? -- Vision Thing -- 21:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Different criteria for different things. The BLP policy treats negative material more harshly. That's just the way it works. And these are very different matters you are treating as the same. You advocate in the lede a broad, sweeping negative statement based on a few negative opinion columns. I advocate including a single defense of Krugman based on a single column and make no broad, sweeping claims about Krugman. Gamaliel (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - I will reserve my opinion on that hypothetical case. In this case looking at both the sources I feel the one you have been removing is almost required as a rebuttal - he is after all a very respected expert on the subject. - Without out imo, it is a bit one sided - feel free to perhaps find another rebuttal in a stronger source and discuss replacing it Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, BLP treats criticisms and praise equally. [44] -- Vision Thing -- 21:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; - thats the point really - the rebuttal of Crooks negative opinion of the subject is almost required. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttal is welcomed if it is based on a reliable source. However, per our policy that deals with reliable sources, this is not a reliable source for BLP. -- Vision Thing -- 21:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I and Gamaliel disagree with you on that interpretation of policy in this case. Lets wait for any other users to comment. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That policy explicitly permits the uses of sources like DeLong: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert" Gamaliel (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, Vision is right on what the policy page says on this. The language about using SPS on living people is clearly intended to qualify the sentence which says SPS may be considered reliable; meaning, SPS may be considered reliable on subjects other than living people, and on themselves. At the same time, presenting only the criticism and not the rebuttal presents an obvious NPOV problem. The only unobjectionable proposals I've seen are to either improve the sourcing for the rebuttal or to remove both. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically I agree with Off2riorob here - though it should be clearly noted that there's several BLP issues here, not just regarding Paul Krugman; both Clive Crook and Brad DeLong are alive and well AFAICT. Anyway. This is what you get for opening the can of worms which is using an opinion piece (by Crook) in the first place. If that is acceptable then so are DeLong's comment on it. Of course, you could just not include Crook and there'd be no need to include DeLong (my preferred option).

Also, DeLong isn't just an "economic historian", he's an "economist" who's done some work in economic history. But his work has been far broader than just EH. Let's at least get that part right. Volunteer Marek  22:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I had also thought that the best solution was to remove both opinionated comments. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Bill Young

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

Article about a Republican congressman from Florida which could use some attention for OR and POV concerns. Early in the article there is a paragraph about a committee Young served on and this paragraph makes some sweeping accusations without a source: "This committee was created by the Florida Legislature in 1956 to investigate and intimidate civil-rights groups such as the NAACP, and went on to conduct a witch hunt against gays and lesbians in public schools, state universities, and state employment." There is a lengthy controversies section which repeatedly implies that Young did something wrong without using a source to say that it was wrong. For instance, the section on the Walter Reed scandal reads: "As chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee during 2005 and 2006, Young did not call hearings or otherwise engage in active oversight on the matter." This really should be stated as: "Commentators such as x, criticized Young for not using his oversight power as chairman of ... even though he claimed to have known of the situation at the time" or something to that effect. I'm also concerned that the ratio of information about controversies to information about his record is quite high.

FWIW I am not a Republican. GabrielF (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the committee paragraph. The only source was at the beginning, and it was non-functional. I have no idea whether it had any support for the remainder of the paragraph. I haven't looked at the Controversies section yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've now removed the Reed subsection as well as it, too, was sourced only by a dead link. Also, its reference to the Walter Reed article wouldn't work to implicitly source what it was saying as the Reed article had only one mention of Young, which was sourced to the same dead link. I've removed that sentence from the Reed article. It's like a badly constructed house of cards.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The parenthetical material about his son only having a GED etc. does not belong. Collect (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the Johns Committee paragraph, using a 1993 article from the St. Petersburg Times about his involvement. I think its relevant to discuss, but it should be limited to events that occurred when he was on the committee and not before. Let me know if you have any suggestions for improvement. GabrielF (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Without looking for more sources, it's hard to know what to suggest because the only source (the 1993 article) is apparently not online - I'm assuming you have a paper copy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I found it by searching LexisNexis. Its part of a series of articles on the committee from when its records were released. I've put a copy online here so that editors can comment but I can't keep it online permanently for copyright reasons. GabrielF (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks to me like you were very careful in conforming to the source. I've made a few minor changes to the section, but they don't have to do with your description.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Dell'Olio

Resolved

 – edited to remove the npov and blp violations

Nancy Dell'Olio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not that I don't appreciate the often sarcastic and acerbic tone of this article--I'd be lying if I said I didn't--but I'm pretty sure this is not the way a Wikipedia biographical article should read. I almost don't want to see it go, I wish there was a section for more opinionated columns or something, but I appreciate what Wikipedia has offered me over the years too much and I'd hate to see this type of material coverage become a norm. I come to Wikipedia to get a good base of understanding from which to form my own opinions, not have them made for me. This is why I'm reporting this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NGH2 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is a disgrace. Apparently, the editors who have worked on the article have decided that Dell'Olio is a somewhat comical figure, and so the article can also be comical. I've done some work cleaning it up, but it needs a lot more, and I won't have time today to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I refreshed it with some trimming for blp an npov. - It looks like it has been a single person with a dynamic talktalk account editing from london, there are multiple occasions of negative attacking SPI edit sessions from this user - if they return request semi protection. Sadly she is highish profile at the moment and one day last week there was 5600 views of that attack crap - shame on the project. Off2riorob (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking over after I logged off last night. I did a few more tidies this morning. It's still an odd article, but at least it's no longer an eyesore. Oh and thanks to NGH2 for bringing the article to our attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

David Axelrod

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

Before I break 3RR even more, can I ask another editor to take a look at the unreferenced edits that 67.86.0.20 has repeatedly inserted here [45], here [46], here [47], here [48] and here [49]. There has been no discussion on the talk page, and no response to queries in edit summaries or on their talk page. --Deadly∀ssassin 02:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If he continues you could ask for semi protection. I reverted them, some known commies seems a bit pointy to me. update - the ip continued with the edits and was blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Block seems reasonable here. Reverting blatant BLP issues is exempt from 3RR (or you wouldn't get blocked for it, at least). I warned the IP to behave, but there's clearly some kind of vendetta thing going on here, so a block makes sense. I doubt it'll be particularly effective, though. A few more eyes on the article would be good. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Quan the rapper , I'm him and I want to correct the information they have up here about me

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

To whom this may concern my name is Clifford Peacock, better known as the rapper/singer QUAN aka DONFERQUAN I'm honored to be apart of your historic site, and I'm thankful someone has taken the time to attempt to keep up with my career. There are some corrections that must be made . and I would like to prove my identity so that we can make those changes. (Redacted)

i go by Quan ...thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifford peacock (talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Best thing to do is to suggest the changes you want made on the article's Talk page (identifying who you are). Wikipedia works with verifiable, reliable sources, so for each change you wish you should also give us a reliable source to cite to for the change. You shouldn't include personal-identifying information (e.g., e-mail, address, phone number, etc.) in these forums.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Kent DesOrmeaux

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

I changed the subject's last name to reflect spelling according to his own website, but the user Materialscientist is claiming - in contradiction to Wikipedia's own rules - that this is not considered a reliable source.

cur | prev) 23:45, 23 September 2011 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) (10,586 bytes) (rvt: see your talk page; (i) keep reference names; (ii) provide reliable sources (his webpage is not) - all other sources don't capitalize O) (undo) (cur | prev) 23:28, 23 September 2011 72.179.5.17 (talk) (10,586 bytes) (I have capitalized the "O" in DesOrmeaux's last name to accurately reflect the French spelling as it is used on Kent's own website: http://www.kentdesormeaux.com/) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) (cur | prev) 08:55, 23 September 2011 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) m (10,586 bytes) (Filling in 3 references using Reflinks | fixed dashes using a script) (undo) (cur | prev) 08:49, 23 September 2011 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) m (10,270 bytes) (Reverted edits by 72.179.5.17 (talk) to last version by 69.204.185.42) (undo) (cur | prev) 08:09, 23 September 2011 72.179.5.17 (talk) (10,270 bytes) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) (cur | prev) 08:00, 23 September 2011 72.179.5.17 (talk) (10,270 bytes) (→Brief biography) (undo)

Unfortunately, such cases are not that easy. Even if your changes were 100% correct, the references must keep the name of the sources, that is mass substitution is not a solution We go by reliable sources, and do not consider the subject (Kent DesOrmeaux himself and his website) as such, and this is the real problem. In other words, we do not support the idea that anyone can suddenly decide how he/she wants to be called - we look at how most of the (English-speaking, as this is English wiki) world calls him/her. Countering a mistake, which was propagated by multiple reliable sources, is a difficult task. Surely, providing government sources can do that. Otherwise, we can say that he is called both DesOrmeaux and Desormeaux (without saying what is "correct"), but we need reliable sources for DesOrmeaux. Materialscientist (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you asserting that wikipedia is a reliable source from which to learn how "DesOrmeaux" is properly punctuated, but asking an individual with that surname how it is punctuated is NOT a reliable source? Kent DesOrmeaux did not suddenly decide how he wants to be called. If the individual's website is not reliable, then what might be considered reliable so that I can prove to you that the correct spelling of this man's name is "DesOrmeaux" and help to improve the accuracy of wikipedia and diminish this website's reputation for propagating false information. Would a phone book be a reliable source? I could also provide a birth certificate; most people consider birth certificates to be valid. I hope you will deem it as valid as wikipedia! If not, then it is disappointing, to say the least, that a wikipedia patroller will accept the propagation of false information acceptable because overcoming the "red tape" that you describe makes presenting accurate information a "difficult task."

Please try to understand the problem. I didn't say it is easy. We trust reliable sources, that they checked the spelling before publishing it. There is no easy way around (to sort out rumors/hype/etc., which is what we mostly get from such situations). We are not supposed to analyze the sources, but sometimes (in such cases, for example) we get into it. We need alternative reliable sources to start doing that (at least to present alternative spellings). We can't analyze ID, birth certificates, and such - a third party can, and they can publish information based on such sources, which we can use then. Note, that generally, what a person says about himself/herself is not a reliable source, unless verified by reliable third parties - there could be dozens of reasons for tweaking personal bio details, obvious and non-obvious. Materialscientist (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You are quite plainly asserting that an individual does not determine his or her name, but that journalists are the entities responsible for naming an individual. This is ludicrous to anyone who cares about the accuracy of knowledge, and this is exactly why Wikipedia is never trusted as a reliable source for any level of scholarly paper, from the college freshmen level and beyond. If consistency to the source is of primary importance, then why is the “O” not capitalized in the link to Kent’s own website? “Note, that generally, what a person says about himself/herself is not a reliable source, unless verified by reliable third parties.” What is your own reliable source for this statement? I made changes to reflect biographical accuracy in accordance with an individual’s website, and then you changed my corrections based solely on your own opinion that this is “unreliable.” Can you site the peer-reviewed journal article that proved that what people say about themselves is unreliable? Wikipedia approves Kent DesOrmeaux's website as a reliable source of information about him: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.5.17 (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

All this because of a disagreement about whether to call him "Desormeaux" or "DesOrmeaux"? His website capitalizes the O whereas secondary sources do not. Right? According to WP:SPS, the website can be used as a reliable source for information about the subject as long as five criteria are met. The only one that might not be met here is Materialscientist has some doubt as to the authenticity of the website? I'm guessing. It looks like the other four have been met.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

We've got a situation that all sources of the article (and basically all web sources) use Desormeaux, whereas the subject calls himself DesOrmeaux on his website, and the IP was mass substituting Desormeaux by DesOrmeaux in the article (including the references). This might well be a propagated error, and we can, and perhaps should mention both spellings. All I asked was do some research and provide as many reliable sources on DesOrmeaux as possible, so that we could consider changing the name. So far I only saw his webpage. (PS I might have been wrong that his web page can not be used as a reliable source, but this is not really the issue here) Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The little bit of research I did shows only the subject spelling his name that way, no secondary sources. Obviously, titles and references can't be changed. The only question is whether the subject's spelling trumps the other sources. My reaction is it does, but I also think it's much ado about very little. The difference is innocuous, and the subject should know better than the secondary sources. It's not like his age or some other statistic where the subject might have reason to misrepresent the statistic. The only thing I can think of that might be at play here is that the subject's last name was spelled one way at birth, but he has since discovered that the capital O spelling is more authentic. I have no idea, for example, what spelling he uses on official documents, and I'm not sure it matters. However the issue is resolved, there should be an explanatory note in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about this particular case, but I agree with Materialscientist as Wikipedia should not be used to correct a bunch of reliable sources. There are three issues: What is the subject's legal name? What name is used by reliable sources? What name would the subject prefer? The subject's preference may be worth noting (if a reliable source has commented on it), but it should not be used to rewrite an article. What would we do if, say, an entertainer decided to add "!" to their name on their website? Answer: we would follow sources. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is generally a fiction (in the U.S. at least) that there is such a thing as a "legal name", just as it's a fiction that there is such a thing as a "legal signature". You can call yourself whatever you like and you can even use different names if you wish, as long as you are not doing so for some illegal purpose. In Wikipedia, we sometimes get around this issue if, for example, we know the subject's birth name, but he uses a different name professionally (cited by reliable sources), or if the person actually uses multiple names, in which case we can list aliases (again if cited by reliable sources). This case presents a more unusual problem, and I've proposed my preference as to how to resolve it below.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Many people with the surname "DesOrmeaux" capitalize the "O." This is nothing like adding an exclamation point in one's name. The reason the "O" is capitalized is because these are two different French words combined into one surname. ("des" means "from" - "orme" means "elm") There are other French surnames used in the United States that capitalize letters in the center of the name. A few example are LeBlanc, LeFleur, and LeDoux. Here are a few reliable sources which demonstrate that many individuals with this surname capitalize the "O," including Kent DesOrmeaux, according to his own website. ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/columns/story?columnist=hays_graham&id=4433796 Louisiana State University: http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-04112007-094810/ The DesOrmeaux Foundation: http://desormeauxfoundation.com/ The Roman Catholic Church: http://www.stmarymagdalenparish.org/parish-staff And though I don't consider wikipedia reliable, perhaps in this case it will consider itself reliable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_DesArmo (It seems to me Wade probably got pretty exhausted with explaining his name to people.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.5.17 (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of you describe this as overreacting. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall to try to convince you that the "O" is capitalized even though a quick google search does not confirm what I'm trying to teach you. I'm sure Kent also became exhausted with correcting people, which perhaps began the propagation of spelling his name "Desormeaux" in the mass media. 72.179.5.17 (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please understand that we have many hundreds (if not more) edits per day changing someone's name, nickname, birthday, birthplace, etc., against reliable sources. They may be good-faith attempts to correct errors, or bad-faith attempts to introduce them. We can't easily tell, and go by reliable third party sources. There is no use "banging one's head against a brick wall" here. We don't create sources, we follow them. Materialscientist (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually have some sympathy for the OP here. IMO we it comes to a person's name, we should always use personal preference except in cases of stage names and the like. When the preference is clearly expressed, even if it's a SPS (but there's no doubt the subject is behind the sourced) I would follow this. However this comes in to conflict with WP:Common name. We do have guidelines like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) which tend towards this but not any overall guideline. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names does suggest we should use someone's preference (in a related area) if it has regular and established use in RS. Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought about this some more after logging off yesterday, and I think the best solution is to leave the name spelled as is but to put a footnote in the article that he spells his name as DesOrmeaux on his website. It might be different if he explained the discrepancy between the two spellings and why he currently spells it differently from the newspapers, the Hall of Fame, etc., but without more, or even a complaint by the subject, that would be my proposal.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Leon Bright

You have Leon listed as a Running Back with the CFL BC Lions. Leon was actually a Wide Receiver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcsportsfan (talk • contribs) 00:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Eron Falbo

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

This article does not meet any criteria for notability, it does not use any reliable sources (according to Wikipedia's definition) and it sounds like advertising. It sounds very much like the person himself, or someone very close to the subject, has written it. This article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.15.133 (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that you have requested speedy deletion of the article. I'm not sure how far that will get. At the same time, the article appears to have been written by Falbo. I have left a COI tag on the editor's page, along with a username tag as his username is fairly close to the name of the production company that apparently is owned by Falbo (according to the article, one of his AKAs is Leon Quills). In terms of notability, I've done no searching for sources, but the sources cited in the article are generally not supportive of notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The speedy deletion based on G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) was declined with the following comment by the admin: "May be a7able but isn't promotional in its entierty". The speedy deletion request was originally based on G11 and "fails to meet relevant notability criteria", which I guess was the IP's attempt at doing an A7 ("no indication of importance"), but another editor removed it because it's not a valid criterion. Not sure what would have happened had the IP properly specified A7 or if the other editor hadn't removed part of the tag.

Since the decline, I have stubbed the article because virtually nothing in it was reliably sourced. I seriously doubt the subject is notable, but I'm not going to AfD it because the last time I AfD'ed an article that I had removed sources from I got pummeled by one of the commenters in the AfD discussion who assumed I'd "set the article up" to be deleted. It's a wonderful wikiworld.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicolas Berggruen

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

Reviewing the talk page shows that Bioplus (talk · contribs) clearly has an axe to grind against Nicolas Berggruen. Bioplus insists on using his own extrapolation to describe the subject pejoratively as a party animal, without any sources supporting his claim, and now 86.173.211.194 (talk · contribs) is adding the same material, which absolutely quacks WP:DUCK to me. WilliamH (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Rm puff as well -- is he actually "notable" per WP? Collect (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think so. It would appear that he has begun working in politics in California as one of the cited sources (the interview) talks about.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Étienne Tshisekedi

Dear Sirs,

Further to our 2 emails we sent to "info-en-q@wikimedia.org" complaining about the validity and neutrality of the content published on your website regarding the biography of Etienne Tshisekedi, we were very disappointed for not receiving any response to our request.

As we wanted to follow all procedures as stated in your terms and conditions in regards to changes which are not minor and failure of response as mentioned here above, we decided to correct these damaging affirmations on the biography of Mr Etienne Tshekedi.

Our concern, except cables from wikileak, is that the content published by Mattgirling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mattgirling), one of your Administrator on the person of Etienne Tshisekedi contain defamatory information and its sources are biased and not legally reliable; for instance the quote used about the assassination of the First Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of Congo Mr Patrice Emery Lumumba.

The delibarate choice of the Editor not to mention the political and life struggle of Etienne Tshisekedi.

We will indeed be happy to see readers not being misled as it is the main aim of Wikipedia to provide non biased and also trustworthy information.

We sent our reaction to the editor notifying him about the character of his changes.

We hope and trust that you response to this dispute will help really readers to have correct information from your website.

Kind regards

Alain Kabuika — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorUd (talk • contribs) 19:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that there is a section above about this BLP. EditorUd has been repeatedly invited to discuss at the article talk page why he has deleted sources that are apparently reliable, but EditorUd has not discussed anything so far at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I make no claims about the current sources in the article, but removing sources en masse and adding even more text with no sources is not acceptable. Regardless of the current sources, the text is written largely unbiased (even if it is factually negative) whereas the proposed addition by EditorUd is far from neutral.

It appears that EditorUd has got confused over who added what material; I simply reverted his edit as I felt it was against policy. I resent being told I deliberately chose not to mention certain aspects and have deliberately defamed an individual. I request that EditorUd retracts this accusation.

As is clear on the article's talk page, Anythingyouwant and I have offered help to EditorUd. I've not got the time or knowledge to sit down and rewrite the article at the moment, but have suggested EditorUd brings content and sources to the talk page so we can work something out. This offer has been continually ignored, and his repeated reversions (despite his unfulfilled claims that [he]'s "opened to a constructive discussion"), he is now in violation of WP:3RR. matt (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The bit about him being involved in the Lumuumba killing was iffy (cite did not appear to support wording) so I went to the New York Times for what appears to be a reliably sourced claim. Collect (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That's okay by me (I quoted the non-NYT source at the article talk page, BTW). Collect, now that Google News Archive is gone, did you find that NYT article using a general google search of the web, or instead using advanced google news search?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) The article has now been overhauled. Thanks to User:Collect and User:Mattgirling for the help.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology

Journal of Cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is the usage of the blog Pharyngula ok to source this statement? "it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics" I believe this is an attack on a BLP although no names are mentioned. So is the blog OK to use to call the editors of a journal "Cranks" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a widely reported quote featured in nearly all the coverage about the Hoover controversy. See e.g. [50][51][52][53], and so on and so forth. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A few comments. First, another editor has removed the phrase "of crank academics", apparently in an effort to appease Darkness Shines. Second, there is an edit war going on and a report by Headbomb of Darkness at WP:AN3. Third, it might help to cite to some of the secondary sources for the quote in addition to the source (Myers) of the quote itself. Finally, as to the BLP issues, it's borderline. The journal has received a lot of negative press, and to the extent that criticism of a journal is criticism of the journalists, I don't see that as a BLP issue. It's just that Myers speaks his mind more directly and more colorfully.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Darkness has also raised this issue at WP:RSN.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The result of the edit-warring report was full protection of the article for 3 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Louie Gohmert article and rogue user

I removed the section on Gohmert's comments on Obama policies towards the Middle East. As far as I've research this only has been referenced to on Talking Points Memo which is a web-based political journalism organization created and run by Josh Marshall, journalist and historian covering issues from a "politically left perspective," The other references in Google are also all from left-wing blogs. http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&pbx=1&oq=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=570l6454l0l6744l29l21l1l4l4l0l314l2410l5.9.2.1l21l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ff4e2b09f4e053ae&biw=1152&bih=584 From what I have seen all the referrals to this quote are attributed to left wing sources promoting a point of view. The source who put this cited CSPAN directly, not what should be cited if this was truly a controversy. In the mainstream media for instance it doesn't look like this actually caused much controversy. The other two incidents are more cited in the news media. For instance, the Terror Babies incident should indeed be kept in because it was widely covered in the news. The college of fine arts director incident was also not covered widely outside of one story on CNN and again on the website Talking Points Memo so I am not sure if it should be included because it also did not cause controversy. I have read the guidelines for reliable sources and the context of the, and the guidelines on controversy and I am not sure if these fit the context to be included. Just opening up the discussion. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversial_articles I forgot to add. I don't know if these comments belong here and were controversial just because they enflamed one side of the political aisle. Article related to other figures like Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Steny Hoyer do not have a controversies section even though I am sure one side could carve one out with the hundreds of floor speeches these people have given. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore the article has continuously been stopped from being edited by a ip user. He has been using three IP address 99.168.72.86, 75.60.185.120, 75.60.186.187 and two user names Jdblack326 and Johnnyb.3261. The IP addresses all trace back to Columbus, Ohio and have the edits are all revert attempts to edit and a section in the article entitled "Implication Obama is complicit in creating a Islamic Caliphate." He seems to have now made an account Johnnyb.3261 after being warned about being blocked. He has refused to engage in the talkpage rather. He has reverted any attempt to modify this section or put in perspective changing the article back a total of at least 11 times with the edit summary (These statements, accurately reflected in the heading, attracted national attention and are historically significant as example of the type of inflammatory rhetoric that has been employed in the 112th Congress along with hate speech against the Presi)

--Andy0093 (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Louie Gohmert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe we are talking about edits like this. The article has been fully protected owing to an edit war, and the text is currently not in the article. The proposed text is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia because it is synthesis whereby an editor has decided that a particular extract from some statement indicates something. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Phil Collins and Dana Tyler

Resolved

 – Discussion now moved to more appropriate and centralized one at Talk:Phil Collins#Dating gossip. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Phil Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dana Tyler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For two weeks, Kumkwat (talk · contribs) has constantly removing information about Collins and Tyler dating despite multiple warnings not to do so ([54]). With the situation continuing, I am taking this discussion here to see if others can voice their opinions on this matter. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What opinion would you like? He's citing 3 sources. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the 2006 reference is not considered a valid source for relationship claims. What I actually meant was: the user in question was re-adding the invalid sources in those articles. Should we remove those if possible? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this a controversial issue for any reason? The third source is from 2010 and from the music section of the Telegraph. I'm not sure why an issues is being made of this. Are there conflicting reports? Otherwise I don't understand why you all keep reverting him. If one of the soruces isn't great then remove that one source.Griswaldo (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is controversial. I am partially involved in this issue. The conflicting sources in question can be found here and here. Does this make sense? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How are those sources "conflicting" with any other sources? Don't all three sources say that the two are dating, and isn't the third from 2010? I'm not sure I understand where the controversy is.Griswaldo (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. However, the sources do not state that their relationship is current or continuing. Should we open up a discussion on the talk page to see if we can sort this out? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what you should have done, like, yesterday. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is now open here. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Darlton Kenton

Darlton Newton Kenton. Chef and author of three published books. Was raised and educated in, Jamaica. He has been writing poetry since the age of nineteen. Kenton trained at the Culinary Institute of America. He is also the owner of DNK Catering Services LLC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darltonk (talk • contribs) 03:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Shawn O'Sullivan

This page currently includes the following line in the section titled 'Life After Boxing': "Currently Frequents Vic's place and enjoys the drink." This seems slightly cruel and libelous.