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.

Urvashi Rautela

Urvashi Rautela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page is a biography of bollywood newcomer Urvashi Rautela and this article is poorly sourced and the citations provided are not 100% correct. I request deletion or modification of this page so that the article is improved.--Param Mudgal (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletions are address through WP:AFD and modifications are address by hitting the [edit] link yourself. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to know why it was deleted, or need advice, you can ask me if you wish Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I have reopened this, re recent events:

• On 20/11/13 Jimfbleak deleted the article as a copyvio of http://www.filmyfolks.com/celebrity/bollywood/urvashi-rautela.php - not an exact match but a close enough paraphrasing as explained here.
• On 23/11/13 User:Manojnmims recreated the article as an exact copy of the filmyfolks page. I've deleted it a second time.
• The subject of the article seems notable enough, so a genuine non-copyvio version would be welcome. If no one else starts one I'll remove the copyvio material from the one Jimfbleak deleted and restore it. Alternatively anyone who has an interest in the topic can let me know and I'll send them a copy of the above also without the copyvio content, as a userspace starting point. Euryalus (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin

Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have had no prior involvement in this article or in the history of Bangladesh. However, I am concerned that the article currently refers to Mueen-Uddin as a war criminal for the following reasons:

• 'War Criminal' is a loaded term
• the court which found him guilty has been criticised by human rights groups and does not reach the standard of international courts
• the trials are politicised and emotionally charged, with only the losing side on trial
• After one of the accused was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, the 2013 Shahbag protests resulted in the rules of the court being re-written to allow an appeal by the prosecution, and also to allow the death penalty.
• Those involved in writing the article are too close to the issue to be neutral.
• Mueen-Uddin is also a well-known figure in the UK, setting up the charity Muslim Aid and working for the NHS at a high level. These are much more recent, and positive events, but they are not given nearly as much weight.

I would appreciate a third person (or five or six...) reviewing the article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 19:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 Shahbag protests created pressure on the parliamentarians to change a law so that the prosecution can appeal. Earlier only the defense was able to appeal against a verdict. Neither the parliament nor the protests have any relation with the outcome of a court, as the judiciary is a separate institution in that country.--Kaisernahid (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at this a little bit. There are two guys who have been convicted recently by this Bangladeshi court in absentia for the 1971 killings. One guy is Mueen, who is a citizen of the UK located in the UK. The other guy is Ashrafuz Zaman Khan who is in the US. So, there are similar issues with the Khan article. The Khan case actually seems a bit more interesting at first glance; whereas the UK has a policy against extraditing to countries that might use the death penalty, I don't think the US has such a policy. Anyway, better put both articles on the BLPN radar.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

WOW! User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry didn't notice that, Here is a discussion going on! I have placed my points on article's talk page.--FreemesM ^(talk) 11:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin was recognized as war criminal, long before the creation of International crimes tribunal. See this Twenty Twenty Television's documentary on Mueenuddin's War Crimes involvement, directed by David Bergman (journalist)‎ and aired on 3 May 1995 The War Crimes File: Dispatches, Channel 4, 1995. Not only that, there are lots of evidences to prove him as a war criminal. All the allegations against International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) mostly circulated from Human Rights watch and other media just echo that. HRW is not a angle type organization, there are many criticizes against them. Their report against ICT is highly biased.[1]. Few more organizations are there, who talk against ICT just for heavy lobbying of Jamaat-e-Islami (Mueen-Uddin was a member of this party). So it is logical to treat him as war criminal. See these sources-[2][3][4]

Above para was written by me. I forgot to sign. Sorry.--FreemesM ^(talk) 03:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is a description of the brutality of al-badr from an eyewitness of the event. These reports provide evidence that Mueen is a most wanted war criminal since 1971, long before ICT accused him. - Rahat | Message 13:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Your job (to call it something) as a neutral editor of Wikipedia is to present the facts as they are put forth by reliable sources, not argue that this or that shows X or Y, or that something is biased or etc, etc. The article as it stands right now is not balanced or neutral. If you're going to call someone a "balloon juggler" then you must have a source that calls them exactly that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with §FreeRangeFrog^croak. Just to clarify things a bit, I think the original source of this article is a court, Rahat presented additional sources in reply to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's criticism of that court.--Kaisernahid (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

But on Wikipedia, WP:BLP trumps all that, particularly WP:BLPCRIME.--ukexpat (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

He is clearly a 'Convicted War Criminal'. Verify here- [5][6][7][8][9]. Don't you think these sources are reliable? If you want to take the convict's denial, then almost 99% of convicted criminals around the world will claim that there innocent! that doesn't men they are actually innocent. Moreover you must keep in mind convict's payed lobbying effort. [10][11]. this news report may clarify your concept about Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin--FreemesM ^(talk) 04:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

He has certainly been convicted in absentia, but it is by no means clear yet whether Britain and Bangladesh will work out their differences regarding extradition. Without extradition, there can be no punishment. Britain is concerned not only about the death penalty but also about fairness of the trial: "Britain may still agree to send him to Bangladesh but only with assurances he would receive a fair trial and that he would not be executed if found guilty."[12] Under these circumstances, the BLP should take an explanatory tone per WP:BLPCRIME, rather than making blanket statements and applying pejorative labels. Different criminal justice systems may result in seemingly contradictory results.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me clear my points once again. Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin has committed war crime in 1971 in Bangladesh. Then he escaped to UK and got citizenship there. Now Bangladesh government has established a tribunal to punish war criminal's of 1971. As there is sufficient evidence against Mueen Uddin, tribunal declared him as war criminal. Mueen-Uddin knew that the evidence against him is very strong and he could be sentenced to death (I want to inform you that, in Bangladesh the capital punishment is death sentence), that is why he did not appeared to the court. Beside this he and his party Jamaat-e-islami started hiring paid lobbyist to prevent this trial process. Here in this article, I am not concern about whether UK and Bangladesh govts will agree to bring him in Bangladesh. Until now he is a convicted war criminal and none of any court declare that he was not convicted. So I think it is legal to term him as "convicted war criminal" according to all WP policy.--FreemesM ^(talk) 07:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If the UK extradites this British citizen to face punishment in Bangladesh, then I will strongly support writing "convicted criminal" and "war criminal" all over this Wikipedia article. But until then, we are getting conflicting signals from two different governments, much like we got conflicting signals from the acquittal of O. J. Simpson followed by his loss in a civil suit for wrongful death. When Wikipedia gets conflicting signals like this, we're not supposed to use labels and make blanket statements, but instead we are supposed to use a more explanatory tone. There is no urgency here to write "convicted criminal" in the lead of this BLP, so let's just wait and see what the UK and Bangladesh can negotiate. Maybe he will be extradited for an entirely new trial, in which case he would be presumed innocent even in Bangladesh.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. I don't understand why CM's war criminal conviction depends on UK's decision, where Bangladesh is a sovereign country?--FreemesM ^(talk) 11:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I appreciate your concern for WP:BLP. As per WP:BLPCRIME we have to first make sure whether current article has "different judicial proceedings result(ing) in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other", so we may need the verdict of a second judicial proceeding. In addition to that, can you provide the reference of "getting conflicting signals from two different governments" from the spokespersons of the two governments?--Kaisernahid (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's well known that the UK has thus far refused to extradite.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I added "as UK has abolished death penalty" after "although the United Kingdom has thus far declined to extradite him" based on Daily Star as it says: When asked, Warren Daley, spokesperson of the British high commission in Dhaka, said: “The UK has made clear its support for Bangladesh’s efforts to bring to justice those accused of atrocities committed in 1971. Along with our EU partners, we are however opposed to the application of the death penalty in all circumstances. We will consider any extradition request received from Bangladesh within the terms of the Extradition Act of 2003. But in line with this Act, the government will not order a person’s extradition to Bangladesh if he could be, will be or has been sentenced to death for the offence.” But Anythingyouwant has revert back the changes. I would appreciate very much if a third person reviews this. Thanks--Kaisernahid (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is how the lead should summarize stuff that no one seems to be objecting to in the body of the article, regarding extradition. See talk page discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I was out of town, just came home. A lot of change has done without any consensus. I will join from tomorrow.--FreemesM ^(talk) 10:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand, why Anythingyouwant trying to remove CM's war crime involvement info from info box. That is not a good sign of wp:goodfaith. He is also trying to push 'extradiction from UK' issue, which is surely WP:UNDUE. Please do not push WP:POV.--FreemesM ^(talk) 05:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to explain again about the infobox. The template "Infobox person" has a variety of parameters, and three of them are explicitly for information about criminality. It is redundant to also include such information under other parameters like "known for". There is no reason to put "1971 killings" under the parameter "known for" when it is already in the Infobox using a criminality parameter. If you look at the Ted Bundy or Charles Manson articles, we don't use the "known for" parameter to repeat information that's already in the Infobox under another parameter.

Additionally, this article about Mueen falls under WP:BLPCRIME, and it's very similar to the example discussed in BLPCRIME regarding OJ Simpson, who was acquitted of murder but still held liable for wrongful death in a civil case. Similarly, Mueen was found guilty in absentia of murder by a Bangladeshi court, but Britain has thus far declined to extradite him, due to concerns about getting a fair trial and about the death penalty; Britain has also thus far declined to prosecute. So we need to treat this like the OJ Simpson example in BLPCRIME, by using an explanatory tone rather than sweeping labels.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. It appears that "Chase Me Ladies" (who brought this matter to BLPN) has gone away, and I'm the only one attempting to make this article BLP-compliant. I'm getting kind of tired of it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anythingyouwant, please don't take it personally. As an experienced wikipedian you may know, an article should follow wp:undue rule. When you are introducing him just a member of few Islamic organization, it doesn't present his true identity. Moreover we should arrange those chronologically.--FreemesM ^(talk) 06:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems both 'Anythingyouwant' and 'Chase Me Ladies' has lost interest on this article. I think it is time to close this thread. Thanks.--FreemesM ^(talk) 06:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please close this section. Neither User:Freemesm nor anyone else has addressed the specific problems that I have described above, and everyone has had ample opportunity to do so. The lead of the article currently fails to mention that the UK has thus far declined to extradite and that the UK has thus far declined to prosecute, and the whole BLP fails to follow WP:BLPCRIME given "different judicial proceedings result(ing) in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other".Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Mm, except there aren't different judicial proceedings resulting in cinflciting judgements. There's a concluded Bangladesh legal proceeding, and a UK policy decision regarding extradition in death penalty cases. They don't conflict. In fact they represent a UK acceptance that a Bangladesh court made a finding, but not one the UK intends to honour as a matter of policy. But even if this was a matter of conflicting judgements, the rest of BLPCRIME reads that we should then "refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information." Which in this context means noting the Bangladesh conviction and noting the UK response. Euryalus (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Going back to Cavalry's original points:

• 'War Criminal' is a loaded term - True. Let's use "convicted of war crimes by a Bangladesh court" and note the conviction was in absentia and that some groups have criticised the court's validity.
• the court which found him guilty has been criticised by human rights groups and does not reach the standard of international courts - perhaps so, and worth noting in the article. But this does not alter the sheer fact of the conviction. The conviction of Bradley Manning was criticised by human rights groups. The conviction of Hosni Mubarak had thousands of detractors. These points are relevantly noted in their articles but they don't change the simple reality that the convictions occurred in a court of law, whatever others might think of that court.
• the trials are politicised and emotionally charged, with only the losing side on trial - this is a personal opinion, but if you can reliably source it, it might be relevantly noted in the article, in a section outlining dissent from the decsion. Again, its doesn't alter the fact of the conviction by a Bangladesh court, or the name of the charge for which Mueen was convicted.
• After one of the accused was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, the 2013 Shahbag protests resulted in the rules of the court being re-written to allow an appeal by the prosecution, and also to allow the death penalty. - Worth noting. Again, doesn't alter the fact of the conviction prior to these protests.
• Those involved in writing the article are too close to the issue to be neutral. - Possibly. Everyone brings their own world view to their edits. But surely the nature of this collaborative process addresses that concern? Like Cavalry I'm not from Bangladesh and have never heard of this person other than on this noticeboard and then from reading the article.
• Mueen-Uddin is also a well-known figure in the UK, setting up the charity Muslim Aid and working for the NHS at a high level. These are much more recent, and positive events, but they are not given nearly as much weight. - the best point yet. This is someone with decades of community activism in the UK, which rates barely a mention in the article and should, for reasons of biographical balance, be given substantially more emphasis. WP:BLP is more than just the removal of unsourced libel. Its about making sure articles present the whole picture, in proportion to its rleevance. The need for more on Mueen's life is as important in balancing the article as the ongoing discussions over precisely what we think of the Bangladesh legal system.

If the above is too long and dull, I suppose I'm advancing this argument:

a) there is no argument that Mueen was convicted by a Bangladesh court,

b) some have disputed the validity of the court and/or its judgement,

c) as a matter of policy the UK does not extradite people facing the death penalty,

d) the Bangladesh court verdict is not dependent on UK approval to have validity in Bangladesh,

e) the UK is perhaps keeping open the option of its own or international legal proceedings but this is largely speculative, and

f) there are sufficient sources for all of these points for this article to be written neutrally while incorporating both the fact of the Bangladesh verdict and the fact of dissent from that verdict in other parts of the world.

Other views welcome. Euryalus (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The lead fails to indicate that the UK has thus far declined to extradite, and fails to indicate that the UK has thus far declined to prosecute. Both of those things amount to an intergovernmental conflict about the guy's fate, and from all appearances the criminal justice system in the UK is content to let the guy remain free. That scenario may not have been exactly foreseen by those who wrote the Wikipedia policy, but it sure seems comparable. Do you think we should categorize these guys as war criminals too?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2013

Replied on "Common Dreams" at this article's talk page. As I said above, even if we assume the UK decision not to extradite is a "conflicting legal finding", we are merely exhorted not to write in absolutes. The UK failure to extradite is important to note in the article, as is the Bangladesh finding itself. The UK decision neither endorses nor invalidates the Bangaldesh court decision. It simply reflects a UK policy regarding death penalty cases. Let's include it in the article lead as a sentence immediately after the one that says Mueen was convicted. And then again in the article body in the section on the trial and verdict. Euryalus (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(The link above is to Al Jazeera rather than Common Dreams.) I never claimed that the UK decisions invalidate what Bangladesh decided. If you look at BLPCRIME, they discuss OJ Simpson as an example, and his civil trial verdict did not invalidate his criminal trial verdict, yet the apparent conflict between them is reason enough for us not to categorize OJ either as an innocent man or as a murderer. You say that it might be necessary for us to not write in absolutes, and to me that means Wikipedia ought not label this Mueen guy as a murderer or as an innocent man, right? If that's so, then the BLP is violating policy. Also, if Bangladesh cancels the death sentence, I disagree with your assumption that Britain would send him there to be imprisoned for life based on nothing but a trial in which he could not mount a defense. We have sources in the Wikipedia article that specifically say Britain is concerned not just about the death sentence, but also about a "fair trial". And, Britain could easily prosecute this guy but hasn't (which is also mentioned deep in the BLP). If the guy's guilty, I hope he is appropriately punished, but we have no business at this point stating as fact that he is guilty or that he is a convicted murderer. That said, I agree with you that we should include the nonextradition in the article lead as a sentence immediately after the one that says Mueen was convicted in Bangladesh, without suggesting that Britain would extradite but for the death penalty. And how about the UK's choice to not prosecute?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not labelling him a murderer, I'm labelling him a person convicted of war crimes in a Bangladesh court. On the basis of reliable sources which assert that this occurred. The issue of what Britain would do if he was not facing the death penalty is entirely speculative. But by all means note any relevant and reliably sourced comment by the UK Government, in the body of the article.

In the interests of moving forward, can we agree that the article lead should note the Bangladesh conviction and the UK decision not to extradite, and that both of these points can be furtehr detailed with appropriate references in the main article text? We can remove/avoid pejorative references to "murderer" or "war criminal" and simply note the neutral formulation "convicted of war crimes in a Bangladesh court" as well as noting the objections expressed by human rights groups and others to the constitution o that court and the fairness of its proceedings. That way we present the reader with the facts and with a sourced cross-section of people's views on those facts. Euryalus (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like an appropriate plan, thanks. Having been reverted so many times at the article, I'd prefer not to take a lead role, but will help.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake is a BLP mess

I have spent the past 4 or 5 days over on the Rupert Sheldrake article. I was going to jump in and help when I heard of the problem from the BBC coverage of the issue on the page. After going through it, I don't think I nor anyone can do much of anything and I don't want to get harassed like other editors who seem to jump in and help do. It's ridiculous to see what is happening there and no progress is getting made on very simple things like listing the man as a scientist with his proper degree, an argument going on for months now with no resolution. Rules are being stretched left and right. It's just a tit for tat that is going nowhere. Philosophyfellow (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Philofellow...I have sadly spent the last month+ on this article, if only to prevent it becoming some sort of whipping post for radical 'scientific ideas'. Mr Sheldrake's page is becoming a war zone. His intro should ONLY contain his name, date of birth, job description, (that he is a scientist, was a scientist and will continue to be one regardless if certain people disagree with that point, he's referred to as such in a number of UK publications which I have already referenced, but have been ignored) and what he is famous for.... The problem is certain people don't agree with his theories, and think that scientists ONLY investigate certain areas of research, which completely misses the point. His name and data should be on this page, regardless of certain people's OPINIONS. It's now surfing very near to being libellous and as my husband is a lawyer and I'm a published author (so I'm very aware of libel issues) and have read most of Mr Sheldrake's books, I'm trying to help keep the peace and keep the intro on track but I was dismayed to read the words decidedly pseudo bla bla tonight and have made a revert, which I'm sure will be removed in less than a blink of an eye....I will persist, if only because I happen to like the man......This article is at pains to make Mr Sheldrake appear as some sort of wacky being, when in fact he's an intelligent, caring and interesting Human Being.....and since this is a biog of a LIVING person, surely we must be careful of certain people's opinions??/ I apologise for adding this comment here, but I added it at the end of this piece and it got rattled and wouldn't save so I've added it at the top of the page as it's extremely important to make sure a living biog article is not defamatory... xxxx Veryscarymary (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

VSM, you have been making the claims that the lead should be blanked for "potential libel" for a long time and you have been pointed to WP:LEAD and WP:BLP multiple times that the lead covers the important aspects of the subject of the article including any major controversies that are reliably sourced. Since Sheldrake's only notability is for the controversial pseudo-scientific works he promotes, they must be covered appropriately in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is entirely consistent with WP:FRINGE. Mainstream viewpoints are represented.

Isn't it strange how Philosophyfellow (talk · contribs) turns up in November 2013 apparently partially familiar with Wikipedia policies? Weird. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the morphic resonance that people scoff at. Its obvious that the more people who know and use Wikipedia, the quicker new entrants will come being familiar with the systems. (except for some reason the mental block at comprehending WP:VALID never seems to go away) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, wikipedia, where editors are WP:NICE. Here is the second half of WP:VALID -- "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." (Translation: if it ain't mainstream, don't call it mainstream, nor imply it is.) "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them,"... (such as in an article about something completely unrelated per WP:ONEWAY) ..."and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world."

    There is nothing here that says, if you the editor dislike some of the ideas that some BLP has put forward, that you can omit Reliable Sources of your choice, cherrypick what facts to include in mainspace, and in general call anything reliably sourced you want to exclude WP:UNDUE. It is an absolute abuse of WP:VALID to say, that omit-stuff means we can downplay the fact the guy has a PhD, since if readers *knew* the guy had a PhD, that would unduly legitimize his work. Similarly, it is a horrid abuse of WP:FRINGE, to say that because *some* ideas are "accused of being pseudo" as Barney puts it below, that therefore every idea and every action and every BLP-detail are thus *also* now WP:FRINGE... including their religion, their mainstream professional credentials, and their philosophy-books... as opposed to just specifically their scientific-theories-or-pseudoscientific-concepts (which themselves must be kept firmly separated for folks like Sheldrake which have published both kinds of things).

    p.s. WP:AGF may help explain why PhilosophyFellow knows something about policy... just like myself, perhaps they read the five pillars prior to editing, and used their anon editing for some time, before signing up for a registered-username-account. But if you want to discuss who started editing when, introduced to wikipedia by whom, that info might be helpful in answering Roxy. Suggest instead that you stick to being WP:NICE and WP:AGF, plus specifically quote the sentences you are using to justify your actions, rather than always saying WP:PG is the justification for your actions. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I still dont get where you are coming from. we cannot /not/ cover the fringe concept because that is why the subject is notable, and so we must cover it as the mainstream academics cover it - ranging from dismissing it as irrelevant to considering it harmful pseudoscience that misguides the public and leads them to not understand science.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the article is consistent with WP FRINGE but that's the problem. It's a BLP page, not a page about some spook hunting theory. Editors, especially the ones responding here, are twisting all kinds of logic to create an impression of a living person that flies in the face of proper encyclopedia editing. That's just one of the problems. The other problem is that no matter how many times new voices come into the page to state the blatantly obvious - editors get attacked or harassed or are given circular argumentation and no progress ever gets made. If anyone is wondering why there would be IP editors or new editors coming in with fresh accounts, consider that they are probably just protecting themselves from harassment over arguing something as simple as the first sentence in a BLP. The only solution at this stage is just block all current editors from the page for the next 30 days and let a new crop of editors not associated with either Psi or Skepticism and let them work it out. Philosophyfellow (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that some people are so fanatically committed to declaring people in areas of interest to them as "fringe" that they constantly violate "Wikipedia" policy. Maybe you have to document the issues and take it to WP:ANI to get an article ban on them or a topic ban if there are a series of related articles. I don't think it would hurt to tell editors who tried to edit and were harassed off about the WP:ANI, would it? Sometimes it takes several anis and visits to noticeboards before people figure out there is real bias (and probably hidden COI?) involved in stifling WP:RS info about individuals. Biased editors often try to get long quotes of criticism in, without there being even a one or two sentence explanation of overall views. That's probably your problem too. CM-DC talk 21:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) - the issue here is partly that a number of pointed criticisms have been made. It's not just "he's completely crazy" (I've left those out for BLP reasons). The criticism, repeated over and over again, is that his ideas on MR are so vague as to be worthless, and not scientific because they're not falsifiable and also not testable, inconsistent with existing scientific theories, and fail Occam's razor by invoking forces for which there is no evidence, avoiding peer review, and distorting the public's understanding of science. I've tried to find Sheldrake's responses to these criticism, but apart from one complaint that Steve Rose was basically being nasty to him, I can't really find where he's addressed it. WP:BLP doesn't mean whitewashing the article of all criticism (especially because if we don't summarise it and cite it and present it his fans try to claim said criticism doesn't exist). Yes, you are right that WP:ARB/PS applies and I wish it would be enforced more. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Every single statement in this diatribe is false. It's the criticisms of Sheldrake's theory that are "so vague as to be worthless." Morphic resonance is not only testable (and therefore by definition falsifiable) but has been put to the test several times, though of course any edit describing one of these tests is almost instantly reverted. Morphic resonance is in no way "inconsistent with existing scientific theories" and does not fail Occam's razor precisely because it does not invoke "forces for which there is no evidence." Sheldrake would love nothing more than to see his theory widely tested, with the results published in peer reviewed journals. I challenge you, Barney, to find a single source that provides substantive details behind any of these claims. And when you're done with that exercise in futility, how about reading one of Sheldrake's books, say, A New Science of Life? How about educating yourself on the man before disrupting his biography page? Editing the Sheldrake page requires two things: a knowledge of science and a knowledge of Sheldrake. I see no evidence of the latter in any of the editors currently controlling the page. Alfonzo Green (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) - so highlighting quite specific issues with philosophy of science is vague and meaningless is it? Just because this topic (philosophy of science, sociology of science, seems to be beyond your evidently meagre ability to understand basic topics, doesn't make it "vague and meaningless". Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

To get specific, you need to explain why morphic resonance isn't testable despite many apparent tests having been conducted, which scientific theories it's incompatible with and what forces it invokes for which there is no evidence. Otherwise you're just repeating vague claims circulating in the media. While there's no reason the Sheldrake page can't include these claims, that doesn't mean we have to work under the assumption that they're true. When we do that, we're involving ourselves in a dispute rather than just reporting it. Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney -- once again -- WP:NPA. "your evidently meager ability to understand basic topics". WP:ROPE. WP:NICE. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) WP:BLP is not a whitewash.

Philosophyfellow can you please state specifically what if anything is unsourced or is not representative of the mainstream academic perceptions of Sheldrake and his work? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikipedia has a general problem with BLPs of the originators of or noted campaigners for fringe theories. Supporters of such theories regularly (but quite improperly) try to use the BLP as a way of sneaking in support for the theory. But opponents of such theories also regularly (and in my opinion equally improperly) try to disparage the BLP subject as a way of attacking the theory. Frequently such opponents "win", as it is relatively easy for them to quote policies usuch as WP:FRINGE in apparent support of their editing, but this approach is confusing, for example, Rupert Sheldrake with morphic resonance: a BLP is not an article about a scientific theory. Uninvolved editors need to watch carefully for both types of error. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones (talk) Yes, you put it more succinctly than I. A sense of neutrality is lost on the page and it's become a tit for tat between the skeptics and the supporters. Wikipedia not a place for that battleground and we have to watch this carefully. The fact that this made it to the BBC and I have since found a number of bloggers covering this issue for the past few months is sign enough that this battleground needs to stop. Philosophyfellow (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Jonathon is correct... and, if you look into the edit-history, there once *was* no conflation between the man and his theories. Over on deWiki, they still *have* two articles, but on enWiki there was an ill-advised merge-n-delete of the article covering morphic-stuff. Undoing that mistake was one of my first suggestions, but one of the editors involved in the merge-n-delete claims that Sheldrake-the-BLP and also Sheldrake-the-BLP's-theories-about-various-things must all be in the same article, because otherwise wikipedia will have a POV-fork. In other words, the *goal* seems to be the ability to apply WP:FRINGE to questions like the BLP's religious stance, and to whether or not the BLP has a PhD, and so on. If there were two articles or more articles, WP:FRINGE would only be rarely applicable. That said, there are deeper problems here, about whether or not wikipedia editors are permitted to discount reliable sources they disagree with, on that basis only. Especially, there are several attempts to discount *parts* of sources, through an abuse of WP:UNDUE. It is a sordid business, but many appearances at noticeboards, not to mention in the BBC and New Republic, have failed to bring sanity to the mainspace, or even the talkpage. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Re the opening sentence, the conversation is only a day old. The root problem is that people either do not participate or do not participate constructively. vzaak (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The conversation is not a day old. If anyone goes through the talk section, they can see the same issue being addressed over and over in other topics going back some time. I went back a few months and it's the same questions and the same responses all with the same argument - 'Sheldrake cannot be listed as a biologist or a scientist even though the majority of all secondary sources refer to him this way as well as the primary sources because to do so would lend credibility to his work on morphic resonance'. Some editors at one point did not even want to refer to Sheldrakes 'Hypothesis of Formative Causation' as an actual hypothesis because that too would mislead readers on the page that the idea has scientific support. All one needs to do is collect the sources on the page that are being cited, find other proper RS sources and compare what the majority say. They say he is a biologist. They say he is doing scientific research. Because he is a biologist and because he is doing scientific research does not make his theories accurate. He could be absolutely wrong and still be a biologist doing scientific research into telepathy. If this page is having problems with the simple stuff like the opening sentence and can't use common sense to asses a sticky topic, the rest of the page is hopeless. Please, let's get these editors out of here and invite a new team to come in. This is becoming more about dynamics between editors and egos and it's never going to get resolved this way. Philosophyfellow (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

In that section I spent some time outlining the essential problem (conflicting sources) and presented possible solutions. However instead of engaging the issue, people are just asserting that their opinion is obviously correct and drawing caricatures of the other side. Both sides are doing this. vzaak (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Any conflicting sources to Sheldrake either being a scientist or a biologist are in small number compared to the high number of quality sources that list him as such. How does Sheldrake list himself? As a a biologist. How many secondary sources support the primary source? Plenty. University of Cambridge should be enough, but even his most recent appointments list him that way. It would seem to make matters simple to list him as a biologist, or at least as a scientist which appeared to be the compromise before it was reverted. Any editors who have problems with morphic resonance or issues with Sheldrake performing faulty science can list those as quotes where relevant and that satisfies WP Fringe. This is such a simple issue to solve. If there are issues with conflicting sources, just use common sense and be careful not to interpret. The fact that the problems on the talk page prevent this easy step from occurring is why I think we need a change of the guard here. Philosophyfellow (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not a simple issue, though people on both sides seem convinced that it is. Please, make your argument addressing conflicting sources at the talk page, not here. Remember I got reverted, too, after adding "scientist"; that is why that talk page section exists. If I add "scientist" again it would basically be warring. I wanted people to make arguments in that section, but that hasn't happened in any serious manner. vzaak (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't happened in any serious matter apparently for months. The warring has been going on for awhile. That's why we need to get a new team in here. Philosophyfellow (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The team is fine; it's just that policy does not support having an article that hides the contrast because Rupert's fringe views and those of mainstream science. MilesMoney (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If people are Not pushing a fanatical agenda, it should not be that difficult to have a description of what his views are and what the criticisms are, in a balanced manner. But when you find that people won't even admit what multiple solid refs show is their field of study or area of knowledge, then you have a major problem, just like you would if all criticisms were removed. I just read the Depak Chopra article "The Rise and Fall of Militant Skepticism" in the SF Gate about editing this and other articles about organized bias on wikipedia and I've found that problem in a number of areas. Let's be aware of it and figure out how to get editors to be more neutral - especially on BLPs. Unfortunately, as I found in editing a couple of them, some times threat of sanctions is the only thing that cools down temperatures. Trying not to get involved in more articles, but may take a look... CM-DC talk 01:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of organised sceptic activity on the Sheldrake page as suggested by all the gullible press reports, initiated by a blog post from a "psychic" editor? Instead of making wild accusations, present this evidence please. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

When you see the same issue jumping up on three noticeboards at once, you know something's up. And the description of issues above sounds like that. CM-DC talk 01:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Organised or not, one of the truly depressing things is that despite everyone seeming to recognise that there are differences that are being (re)hashed out on the talk page, a NPOV tag keeps coming and going at a dizzying rate - the very tag designed to alert readers to underlying disagreements of this nature! The Sokal/Dawkins stuff in the interactions section is a shameless display of WP:OR triumphing over WP:RS - how is is possible to edit constructively under such circumstances? Blippy (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone experienced with noticeboards should notice that this report is content-free—there are plenty of generic claims, but no specific issues. It's pretty simple: what text at Rupert Sheldrake is a BLP problem? Why?

@CM-DC: It would be better to examine the issues at the article before taking sides. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with @Johnuniq:. No specific issues have been mentioned. I read the article lede and everything seemed fine. What specific issues are there with this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well these responses are indicative of the problems faced. Numerous issues have already been flagged here. The NPOV tag, the Sokal & Dawkins content, the use of the word "theory" to describe MR, referring to Sheldrake as a biologist/scientist/biochemist. There are others. Or are you simply dismissing these out of hand as content-free generic non-specific issues? Blippy (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

THe issues, Blippy (talk · contribs) have been addressed. WP:IDONTHEARYOU isn't an excuse. You've been told why we can't call it a theory, you've been told why we can't use the Dawkins story, you've been told why we can't endorse him as a scientists if he is being accused of not doing science you've been told you must justify the NPOV tag with reference to sources and policy (especially WP:FRINGE). If these tired old refuted arguments are the best you can come up with, it's not good for your case now is it? Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney, please remember that this is a new noticeboard, and that people who have not been following the Sheldrake talkpage since the sea-change in mainspace this summer, may not understand exactly what you specifically mean when you say the "issues have been addressed". Please give the one-or-two-sentence-each summary, for 1) why reliable sources that call Sheldrake a biologist are kept out of mainspace, 2) why reliable sources giving Sokal's actual *serious* views on Sheldrake's work are kept out of mainspace (different Sokal's purposely-false-views expressed in the hoax-paper as you well know), and in particular 3) why wikipedia cannot "endorse" him by calling him a scientist "if he is being accused of not doing science". Are you saying that some animals are more equal than others, and some reliable sources trump others? Wikipedia is supposed to describe the conflict in Reliable Sources, not pick the winner. This is no place to WP:RGW, and try to keep gullible readers from thinking Sheldrake might have highly respectable scientific credentials... *especially* when those credentials are the very reason his telepathy-like theories allowed him to co-author half a dozen books. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Johnuniq (talk). The opening comment from myself lays it out pretty clearly. The very first opening sentence in the article is the problem in question. I specifically mentioned the issues with referring to him as either a biologist or a scientist. I'm not sure how much clearer it could have been but hope you have clarity now. Any issues being brought up about 'organized skepticism' on the page are irrelevant. Organized or not, there is a battleground happening on the page between two sides of an issue.

@Barney, you're not being very forthcoming here. The fact that you would even write 'he has been accused of not doing science so we can't refer to him as a scientist' is a perfect example of biased editing that doesn't serve Wikipedia well. Let's get a new team in here who are not so emotionally attached to the outcome or how the world perceives Rupert Sheldrake. Philosophyfellow (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

calling or not calling someone "a scientist" is not a BLP issue. (particularly someone who has made their living for the past 30 years as a author) "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine any scientist would feel defamed if an article on Wikipedia claimed they were not a real scientist. Also, a BLP needs to be accurate, even if it's not libelous. Surely you are not suggesting that inaccuracies or misleading articles are acceptable as long as they are not defamatory, are you? Also, I have not seen one source that shows that Rupert Sheldrake has made his living for the past 30 years from writing books and has divorced himself from scientific research. The fact that these little opinions or interpretations of Sheldrake are making their way into a BLP is why we need a new team to come in and clean this mess up. Philosophyfellow (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Show me where the article claims that he is not a scientist ( that is not a reliably sourced quote from an expert)? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It's the editors who are claiming he is not a scientist doing real science and that claim informs the article. Diff 01 Anyone can see this diff which claimed he was a scientist was removed. Diff 02 citing the arguments listed here. Now he is not even listed as a researcher, just an author and lecturer. Surely any fair minded person would agree that it makes no sense to have either supporters or detractors inform the content of the article. Philosophyfellow (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

But no one is stating they want to include "Sheldrake is not a scientist" in the article. You still have not identified any actual BLP concerns. You have identified that Sheldrake would like to have his article read as a promotional POV CV, but that doesnt really matter-we dont do that.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Case in point: I could not ask for a more clear response that highlights the problem with biased editors in question. I rest my case. Philosophyfellow (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

While the article never says "Sheldrake is not a scientist" the article's history is littered with examples of the word "scientist" or "biologist" being deleted or reverted with dismissive edit summaries. And the Talk page has whole sections devoted to hammering home the proposition that calling Sheldrake a scientist or a biologist violates WP:FRINGE. The same argument can be found in the archives. Also, easily found in the archives and edit history of the article are crusades against describing morphic resonance a theory or a hypothesis. TRPoD, you have made these arguments and edits. It's extraordinarily disingenuous for you to argue that "no one is stating they want to include "Sheldrake is not a scientist" in the article." I imagine that sentence is true. But it's misleading, in the extreme. DiffsExamples to follow. David in DC (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake arbitrary break 1

Examples of disingenuousness on current talk page:
"scientists do not cling to magical proposals. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)"
"He is NOT a "proponent of an alternative scientific world-view" and mis-labeling him as such in the lead sentence is a non-starter.WP:NPOV / WP:VALID his is a pseudo-scientific world view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)"
"The intro sentence must provide a basic context around the subject and why they are notable. Sheldrake is notable because of his lecturing and writing on fringe subjects and the rejection of those subjects by the mainstream. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)"
"Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Discussion:_theory_.2F_hypothesis_.2F_. "Hypothesis" has multiple meanings, some of which are completely inappropriate for this article. There are other words that do not contain the same chance of presenting words in a way that would be able to be misinterpreted by our readers. We take the path that avoids misinterpretation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)"
"and he may still be carrying out "research" but as has been shown multiple times, to call it "scientific" research is to put a false label on it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)"
"I must have missed something. How does having a doctorate mean that everything that you do (even if what you are doing does not follow scientific standards) is qualified as scientific research? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)"
""resting your case" on Content in Wikipedia is a very tenuous position to put yourself in. He is now an author on parapsychology and not a scientist at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)"
David in DC (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong noticeboard for everything posted in this section. Even if disingenuousness of editors on a talk page could be established, this is the BLP noticeboard and the only thing relevant would be to explain what existing text is a BLP problem. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, John. The heart of the problem with the page is a determined, tooth-and-claw effort to derogate this Living Person by marginalizing him. We must not call him a scientist. We must not call his idea a theory or a hypothesis. That approach might be OK on an article about Morphic resonance. But not in a Biography. We MUST treat biographies of living fringe theorists differently than we treat their theories. When a principal warrior appears on the BLP Noticeboard to argue that "no one is stating they want to include "Sheldrake is not a scientist"", that argument must be contradicted, in the same place. The examples above and the archived sections below establish, dispositively, that there are indeed ones (including TRPoD) trying to make this biography "say" that Sheldrake is not a scientist.David in DC (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A deletion of "Hypothesis"
and a couple of archived talk sections with TRPoD arguing vociferously against using "hypothesis" or "theory" to describe morphic resonance are sufficient to back my accusation of disingenuousnes of the sentence "But no one is stating they want to include "Sheldrake is not a scientist" in the article."
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Statement_by_TheRedPenOfDoom
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Decision
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Removing_reference_source_17:_Consensus_sought
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Morphic_resonance_as_.22alternative_theoretical_formulation.22
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Solidify_at_least_one_decision
David in DC (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, what exactly is the BLP issue of content in the article? (And I will fully stand by my analysis that "morphic resonance" should not be described as a "hypothesis" or "theory", terms which have multiple meanings most of which do not apply to the crackpot idea and we have words that better describe what MR is without the chance of misleading our readers to think it is something it is not and so we should use them.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The BLP issue is that there are sufficient reliable sources to call Sheldrake a biologist. Deleting the word (or the word scientist) from the lede, as has been done repeatedly, is derogation of the Living Person who is the subject of this Biography. His recent work is quite well contextualized in the subheds about his books, public appearances and interactions with other scientists. No sane reader could read the article and think he was anywhere but out on the fringe. Calling him a biologist, as the sources do, misleads no one. Neither does calling his theories "theories" nor his hypothesis a "hypothesis". A months-long campaign against these words violates BLP and brings disrepute on our project.

WP:FRINGE is not license to turn a BLP into an ATTACK piece. David in DC (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

and again, I am not seeing how not calling somebody a "scientist" and not calling something a "hypothesis" is either an ATTACK or a BLP issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear there is little understanding of that. It's why we need to get a new team in here who does. Philosophyfellow (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately TRiPod it is your willingness to "fully stand by [your] analysis" that is symptomatic (causal?) of the problem. Editors are performing WP:OR and analysis instead of simply relying on WP:RS's. There are umpteen WP:RS's which refer to Sheldrake as a scientist, biochemist, biologist. There are as many more with refer to MR as a theory and/or hypothesis. However you continue to insist that your analysis is what matters. This is not how WP operates, despite your (and others) insistence that it does. The Sokal & Dawkins interaction pieces suffer from exactly the same problem. In fact, the problem also arises in the insistence to not allow a stand alone article on MR to exist despite it being so prominent in so many different fora. Blippy (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Blippy is making a valid point, and as for TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom's comment about the innocuous nature of removing descriptors, they change the entire context of the discussion and role of those involved. "The man had an idea about eggs" connotes some clueless guy who's hungry, "the scientist had a theory/hypothesis about eggs" connotes an academic who had a structured, researched argument about bird embryos.

Whether that structure stands up to scrutiny and that argument is correct is irrelevant, the issue is that descriptors matter and their use or abuse reflects the legitimacy of the BLP they're present in. The Cap'n (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

and per WP:VALID, Sheldrake is hungry. show that there is any significant or even "minor" support in the mainstream academic community for Sheldrakes WP:REDFLAG ideas. using terminology that promotes otherwise is the violation of NPOV and BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of WP:WIKILAWYERING, but WP:'s have been bandied around pretty loosely as a justification for just about everything, so let's take a look at the text of the two links you attached. WP:REDFLAG is referring to editors making fringe claims about legitimate topics, not to the articles on fringe claims themselves. Thus someone who tries to edit the JFK page to say Kennedy was killed by the Illuminati would be a red flag, but the page on the Illuminati itself would not. In the same way no one is not making fringe claims about Sheldrake, but rather reporting accurately on a man who has made fringe claims. There's an important distinction in the burden of proof.

As for WP:VALID, it says:

"We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." (emphasis added)

The focus is on neutrality, balanced legitimacy and context, not on restricting any factual information that might legitimize the subject. 2/3 of Sheldrake's article is contextual info about his contested place in the scientific community, so there is no case to be made for his legitimacy being misconstrued unduly. For this article to be a legitimate BLP, we cannot fall into the trap of using WP:VALID & WP:REDFLAG to justify violating NPOV. There is no danger of Sheldrake being depicted as mainstream, no language indicative of misrepresentation and no reason to avoid descriptors that are sourced and common sense. The Cap'n (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but is any text currently at Rupert Sheldrake a violation of WP:BLP? If so, what text, and why. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to prove a negative. The problem isn't in the current words of, for example, the lede. The problem is the routine deletion of words from the lede. Important words for making this article BLP-compliant are absent, because FRINGE-fighters wheel war to revert or delete them. Here's an example, just from the lede, although they happen throughout the article.

In the lede, the BLP violations are what happens when someone tries to call Sheldrake a biologist or his work a theory. I've just done both, because fixing a BLP violation does not require consensus. I hope to be proven wrong, but I expect to be reverted. David in DC (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

One thing that you certainly HAVENT done is show the affirmative that Sheldrake has any size support in the mainstream academic community - Please provide some before you keep claiming there is ANY POV problems in the article's presenting of him as someone without support in the mainstream academic community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

My similar efforts have been reverted persistently, so I will be (pleasantly) surprised if yours aren't! WP:BLP is predicated on NPOV, NOR, and V. All the claims mentioned above fall under these three policy areas. The Sokal bit is an obvious piece of OR, as is this bizarre notion that Sheldrake not be referred to as a scientist/biologist/biochemist, and that his theory not be described as a theory. We know it's OR because of all the Verifiable sources that use this language. Sokal arguably violates NPOV too, since it only serves to link Sheldrake to a hoax that he had no part in i.e. a smear. NPOV is also relevant to the exclusion of the Dawkins incident (which satisfies WP:V) since Dawkins is critical of Sheldrake and this incident provides an important (according to RS's) example of how he has had to defend himself against "abuse" and "prejudice" that have been "have been unfair and uninformed". How is it presenting a fair and balanced view of things to exclude such things? And as for this odd notion that there is some sort of OTHER standard of proof that has to be satisfied for Sheldrake, where does that come from? This is BLP. The Sheldrake page is not a FRINGE page - Sheldrake is real, so is his life, so are his efforts/work, and his reception. We don't pretend the controversy doesn't exist or that because not everyone agrees with him that he therefore doesn't exist or do anything of NOTE. There are multiple RS's for the suggested edits. End of story. Blippy (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

thank you for providing the evidence to show that there is not any mainstream support of his ideas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

and please provide a rationale for why including Chopra's criticism of Dawkins that only includes Chopra and Sheldrakes take on something Dawkins decided not to do (not include Sheldrake in his TV show) in the article about Sheldrake is a BLP compliant action. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's the BLP problem. [13]. It took about an hour. Using the words misleads no one and does not violate WP:FRINGE. Deleting them is derogatory toward the Living Person who is the subject of this Biography. Fixing WP:BLP violations does not require consensus. But it's impossible to fix them here, because of determined edit-warring by editors with a skeptical POV. WP:NPOV would be to call him a biologist (or scientist), call his ideas hypotheses (or theories) and use the body of the article to tell the story of his life, including the voluminous (and accurate - I'm not a Sheldrake acolyte) material from reliable sources critiquing the ideas he promotes that are deeply flawed. Adding material opposing the theories is totally justifiable. Derogating the living person by deleting reliably sourced biographical info about him is not. David in DC (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

we do not participate in Sheldrakes promotion of pseudoscience by using scientific terminology where non-scientific terminology is not only adequate but more accurate. There is no BLP violation in using more accurate terminology.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(1) Your terminology and phraseology are wholly inappropriate, judgemental and biased. (2) Describing Sheldrake's views does not "participate" in the "promotion" of his ideas, any more than the Wiki article about the Nazis does the same. (3) Using scientific terminology does not lend undue credibility to his ideas, any more than, for example, the use of the word "theory" to described "Phlogiston theory" or "Nordström's theory of gravitation". Likewise the suggestion is contradicted by a source that you offered,[14] ie. Rose's paper[15] which uses the term "hypothesis" extensively, but leaves the reader in no doubt of his position against Sheldrake's views. (4) NPOV describes views neutrally, not judgementally, ie. without bias (WP:NPOV, first sentence.) --Iantresman (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

and it was bound to happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Pedantic correction: Godwin's law specifically requires that one side *call* the other side a Nazi, or at least, imply that the other side is no better than the fuhrer. Iantresman is not calling anybody that, or even coming close to implying that; they could just have easily said that the Sarah Palin article is fair, or the Barack Obama article is fair... or what the heck, even that the Kim a-new-star-appeared-in-the-heavens-the-day-he-was-born Jong-il BLP article is fair, compared to the one-sided Sheldrake article. Quite frankly, the articles on the national socialist party, and on the fuhrer, are written by pansies, people afraid to say what those folks *really* did.

  Folks defending the Sheldrake mainspace as NPOV, please, compare the Rupert Sheldrake article to the Charles Hapgood article, two scientists gone to the dark side, and notice the difference in tone, and one-sided-ness. That is the point Iantresman was trying to make: we treat the nazis more fairly than Sheldrake, and they are all dead, so BLP restrictions do not even apply. The problem is not that Sheldrake is pure as driven snow, the problem is the mindset that sources agreeing with Sheldrake, about anything whether it be his academic credentials or his telepathy-theories, simply because they agree with Sheldrake about anything at all, therefore must be fringe. This is a deep misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, which demands we reflect the reliable sources, all of them, not just ones we prefer, not just ones that are true, but all of them. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

And indeed it did. Perhaps if you could address what appears to be a common sense rebuttal to your argument instead of offering snarky commentary the page could actually get somewhere instead of being stopped for personal reasons. That fact that some editors are unable to progress their arguments past a reasonable point informs us that we need to get a team in here who can. Philosophyfellow (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake arbitrary break 2

As an uninvolved party, maybe I can help propose a compromise acceptable to both sides. This is, in one sense, and unusual dispute because it is not as much between advocates of different views of the article subject, but instead between advocates of different policies. After reading the dispute and related materials, the issues appear to be simply:

1. Should Sheldrake be described in the led as some flavor of scientist?
2. Should morphic resonance be described as a theory or hypothesis?

Sheldrake is currently described as: "an English author and lecturer on science-related issues" I see nothing in MOS:LEAD, WP:MOSBIO, WP:FRINGE, or WP:BLP that suggests this is an unacceptable or derogatory description. It is eminently neutral and clearly identifies his current, primary activities. Sheldrake may call himself a scientist, but we are under no obligation to favor the subject's views about themselves in any description them. Removing the word "biologist" or its variations from the first sentence is especially not a problem when the immediately following sentence identifies him as a "biologist," "biochemist," and "plant physiologist." If the various advocates are dead set on integrating biologist into the first sentence, then perhaps, "an English former biologist who currently writes and lectures on science-related issues," would bridge the gap.

The dispute over the use of "theory" versus "idea" is one that appears to depend on different definitions of "theory." In one sense, both are correct. American Heritage Dictionary variously defines "theory" as:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. (skipped)
3. (skipped)
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation
5. (skipped)
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

From his detractors' perspective, Sheldrake's morphic resonance clearly fits one of the latter two definitions. From his own point of view, it clearly fits the first. Regardless, using the world "theory" is a fitting description. It implies no endorsement unless one is determined to ignore the clear qualifiers that contextualize the way morphic resonance is described in the article. "Idea," by contrast, strikes me as not sufficient to describe the primary intellectual activity that the subject is engaged in. Either way, the point is not so much about the inadequacy of "idea" as the adequacy of "theory." "Theory" means both what supporters and detractors want it to mean. The difference in views is more about the connotation of this word than the denotation. Connotations are of primary linguistic importance when other context is lacking, which is not the case here. I hope this helps the involved editors reach consensus. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

While I think the first part of your analysis is correct, the second part is not. As a pseudo-scientist, Sheldrake is laying a fake scientific veneer over non-scientific acts. We should not be collaborating in such a process by using terms which have among their meanings some that are specific to the scientific arena and applying the words in a manner which supports a casual lay reader into assuming that Sheldrakes ideas are more scientific than they are, particularly when we can appropriately use terms (like idea or concept) that will not inappropriately promoting the misunderstanding of science and the place of Sheldrakes pseudoscience ideas in the world of actual science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake[16] and others[17][18] tend to use "hypothesis", which is a compromise in the sense it is not quite a theory, and more than just an idea. --Iantresman (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. I can see how this may seem like a helpful offer, but I am not sure it addresses the problems raised by others. The issue some editors are having is that WP is choosing to remove his credentials as a scientist so as to frame his entire biography as having little integrity to make the claims Sheldrake makes. That's the issue. It's not between supporters of WP policy, it's the question "Is Sheldrake credible as a scientist to question the foundations of science and perform research into telepathy or promote his hypothesis of Morphic Resonance?" As you can imagine - that's a debate editors should not be having, especially when sources conflict. The editors on the other side are providing sources that support removing scientist or biologist, but these sources are opinionated sources. If the truth be known, there are sources out there that could support both sides of the argument, making this more complex than it appears to a new reader. There are no reliable sources that suggest Sheldrake is no longer doing science. All reliable sources list Sheldrake as a biologist who is currently doing research into claims of telepathy in animals and humans. There is a conflation between the *type* of research Sheldrake is doing, which is on the fringes of science, with the quality of research he is performing.

In terms of referring to 'hypothesis' or 'theory' - it is entirely neutral to refer to his Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance as an hypothesis, because again primary sources support this as well as secondary sources. It's also the title of his Book, The Hypothesis of Formative Causation. And technically it is an hypothesis and Sheldrake never refers to it as a theory. Sheldrake has a BA in Philosophy from Harvard as well as his own PhD in Biochemistry. There are no sources, or any precedent that I am aware of that support stripping Sheldrake of his academic credibility as a primary source especially when secondary academic sources support it.

So essentially we have editors on the one side who consider Sheldrake to be performing a kind of fraud by pulling the wool over people's eyes, and on the other side editors who believe that such a treatment of Sheldrake is biased, turning this whole issue into an ideological battleground that has no place on Wikipedia. Remember, this is a BLP, so it's very important we get it right, not to just protect the reader, but to protect the living person. The fair treatment would be to list Sheldrake as his credentials suggest and state very clearly the opposing side of the issue with proper sources. We can't choose one over the other, that's what's happening in this battlefield. We have to present both. It's the only way to stay neutral. And it's also the simplest solution.

Thanks for your good work though. I hope you stick around. FYI I keep telling myself I am done with this. I may step away from this I can see why so many are getting rattled. It's a frazzling situation. Hopefully this is my final word on the issue :) Philosophyfellow (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears the leading advocates are both opposed to the suggested compromise. I'm not sure this is a sign that it is a bad suggestion or, possibly, a sign it is an actual compromise. What I am sure of is that positions are hardening, and further discussion between these two parties is unlikely to establish a consensus in the absence of other voices. I suggest the way out may be for an RfC be opened on these two points and both agree to abide by those RfC results. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I admire your boundless sense of optimism, Eggishorn. How it survives the treatment of your eminently reasonable compromise proposal, I cannot fathom. But admire it, I do. Thank you for trying. David in DC (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Eggishorn, your points are well-taken, but in this case compromise on particular content-positions is 100% premature; any content-discussion will result in hardening of positions, and permanent grudges, methinks. The policy-misunderstanding must be fixed, first. Apologies for the wall-of-text; David can translate, if necessary, he speaks pidgin-74-eze.

Key to 99% of the content-disputes: *whether* both sides of conflicting *ReliableSources* should be allowed into mainspace ... or, if editors can *pick* the winning ReliableSources.

To begin with, the two content-disputes you focus on, and suggest for an RfC, are just the tip of the iceberg. I can tick off ten eleven content-disputes (biologist / PhD / royalSociety / seriousSokalQuotes / thePatternsMatch / Dawkins / Sufism / consultingPhysiologist / philosophyOfScience / philosophicalSceptism / wifesName) without even stopping to think about it. The talkpage is hundreds of kilobytes; almost every single paragraph in mainspace is disputed. The root cause always boils down to just one thing. The policy disagreement is, whether or not, once *one* portion of the five decades of work that this BLP has produced, across the fields of biology / biochemistry / pseudophysics / philosophyOfScience / politicsOfScience / spirituality / parapsychology-aka-psychical-research / prollySomeLeftOut ... once one of their ideas has been called "pseudo" by four or five reliable sources, is it or is it not okay, to *remove* sourced content that *agrees* with something the BLP once said, in *any* field?   Just on the two questions you raised, we have plenty of impeccably reliable sources calling Sheldrake a biologist / scientist / biochemist / cellBiologist / phytomorphologist / plantPhysiologist / botanist / professor, and several 'weighty' reliable sources calling him parapsychologist / pseudoscientist / formerScientist / nonScientist. Both sides of the conflicting sources MUST BE IN the article. You would think that obvious, wikipedia *describes* conflicts in the sources (cf Mariah Carey birthyear), but not everybody on the Sheldrake talkpage agrees!   As for morphic fields theory-or-pseudotheory (of which morphic resonance is a phenomenon predicted thereby), you have the problem backwards: it is either very questionable science, or flat out fringe science, and WP:FRINGE guidelines apply. The reverse is the problem: given that morphic-stuff is fringe, can editors thenceforth proceed to treat Sheldrake's consciousness-related psychology (not just the parapsychology portions!) as fringe, treat his spirituality as fringe (not just the morphic-related portions!), treat his position on the politics of science-funding as fringe, treat his musing on the philosophy of science (such as the question of whether conservation of energy applies to dark energy), downplay his two decades of mainstream biology/chemistry scientific work(!), downplay his highly respectable academic credentials(!!!), and in general slant the page so hard it goes vertical?   Worst of all, tell me that *certain* quotes from the Wiseman paper are fringe and thus kept out, while *other* quotes from the same paper are kept in. *Certain* reliable sources like Nature are kept in, whilst *other* perfectly reliable sources like a half-dozen major newspapers are kept out. I'm not talking about the Journal Of Sasquatch Believers, here, believe me.   TLDR. In case you missed it in all the boldface, there is absolutely positively no content-compromise possible here, as yet. Policy is very clear, and one side has a deep misunderstanding of the policy, and are expanding the use of WP:FRINGE / WP:VALID / WP:REDFLAG faaaaaaar beyond questions that impinge on scientific claims, and applying the opinion of experts from *one* field of inquiry, about *one* idea of the BLP, as if somehow they could hop the fence, and apply the fringe-label and the fringe-policy to *other* ideas of the BLP in other *completely* different fields of inquiry (or simply dispute the seemingly-indisputable facts -- like the UCambridge PhD in biochemistry!).

  This they simply cannot do; so sayeth pillar two. After *that* WP:CHERRYPICKING problem is well and truly settled, then -- and only then -- will settling the content-disputes even begin to be possible. (The skeptics firmly believe that taking a pro-Sheldrake quote... or even a neutral-towards-Sheldrake quote... and an anti-Sheldrake quote... from the SAME SOURCE... is cherrypicking on the part of the apparently-vastly-numerous-army of Sheldrake fanbois! To include impeccably-neutral David our BLP specialist... not to mention recent arrivals like myself, PhilosophyFellow, TheCapn, etc... when in fact the *actual* Sheldrake fanbois were harried off wikipedia long ago.) I predict content-disputes will evaporate, nigh-instantaneously, compared to the past four months of WP:battleground, once the core problem of we-are-not-cherrypicking-because-fringe-redflag-pseudo is finally resolved.

  If the core question is left unsolved, namely, whether there *is* in fact a skeptic point-of-view, or not, and if so, whether SkePOV is, or is not, straight-up *identical* to NPOV... lacking those answers, Sheldrake's BLP will be at the noticeboards indefinitely, until enough editors from one faction of this four-sided conflict die of old age, or ArbCom intervenes... but note that if SkePOV==NPOV, the *meaning* of the 2010 decision changes greatly. Hope This Helps. Arthritis. Making. It. Hard. To. Type. Please. End. The. Madness.... —74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

tl;dr, but actually we are required to weigh and give value to the sources, and give more weight to the peer reviewed academic sources as per POLICIES: WP:REDFLAG, WP:VALID, and Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Fortuantely we have lots of reliable secondary sources that have done that for us, which I have listed here(permalink). Of course we should state the position of the few academic primary sources we have, and we should look at any secondary sources you provide. I have been requesting them for some time now. --Iantresman (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tried. So many sticks, so little life left in the poor equine. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Judging according to publish or perish, is Sheldrake dead or alive as a scientist? Is he dead or alive as a pseudoscientist? Mind you that biology as a science is not concerned telepathy and does not research it, instead parapsychology (a pseudoscience) does that. You speak of science and of organized skepticism. Well, science is organized skepticism. So pretending that scientists should not be skeptical is like pretending that the Pope should not be a man. If Sheldrake is the victim of organized skepticism this proves that he isn't a scientist (if he ever was one). Scientists actually benefit from organized skepticism and are required to organize themselves as skeptics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake publishes, of course... and notability is not temporary... but since you asked: philosophy-of-science (2012 book), parapsychology (previous two books), phytomorphology-and-pseudophysics(first two books), theology(two co-authorships). According to Iantresman, he has published reasonably-mainstream-scientific papers in 2012/2010/2009, and in the previous millenium published something like fifty indisputably-mainstream-science papers. Sheldrake is also still invited to lecture, including during the past few years, about his mainstream-bio-research axion-phytomorphology stuff. But the problem here is not whether Sheldrake "is" a scientist, based on logical reasoning by wikipedians, which is WP:OR. (( If you **want** that, my own take is he's a semi-active scientist mostly constrained by funding rather than ability, and a *very* active parapsychologist -- but not as active as he would like to be -- again the funding-constraints play a key role. His redoubled notoriety in 2012 and 2013 methinks are an attempt to generate publicity, book sales, and thereby research-funding, for both his science-and-his-psuedoscience. ))

  The core problem is sticking to *ALL* the Reliable Sources, and never trying to eliminate those some subset of the *editors* happen to disagree with. The related problem is trying to apply the pseudo label *outside* the realm of science-based-claims itself: if Sheldrake's subquantum physics is pseudo per Reliable Sources, well then fair enough... but that does not mean his PhD is now pseudo too, nor that his books on spirituality are now pseudo, nor that his position on how research-funding-infrastructure ought to be reformed is somehow pseudo-politics-of-science! WP:FRINGE is being abusively expanded way beyond the question of is-he-or-is-he-not-currently-a-scientist. p.s. Sheldrake claims to be attacked by Organized Skeptik Konspirators... see my WP:OR for this above... but the truth is, the Sheldrake BLP article is (just since ~July 2013... contrast with deWiki on the same topic) an un-centrally-organized emergent phenomena, of personally-skeptical editors that simply deeply misunderstand the very-restricted scope of WP:FRINGE. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There is not a "very narrow and limited scope" for WP:UNDUE / WP:VALID / WP:PSCI (part of the POLICY level document) and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final_decision. There are many people who seem to fail to either understand or acknowledge that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Please consider commenting here, if you're previously uninvolved. David in DC (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The RfC has been withdrawn.

I believe that we are back where we started with a "complaint" about a BLP issue that has not defined or identified any actual BLP issue with the article. Can a neutral admin please close this? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer

Susan Lindauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some POV-pushing and plain fact-twisting going on in the latest changes here in my opinion, but it's turning into an edit war so I'd appreciate other editors' input. Mezigue (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone see a problem with adding this quote "co-workers recalled her as a woman who was prone to mood swings and erratic behavior." from the Seattle-PI? So far it's the only one I've seen, and I'm hazy on whether she is a limited public figure at the time that quote was derived.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

NVM, the NYT confirms this.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mezigue's assessment. I'd like to add that no where in the article should we speculate on the subjects mental health. Let the newspapers do that for us, and if in doubt, leave it out.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Part II

User:TheRedPenOfDoom is claiming that the having the article stateHer colleagues at The Herald commented that at times, her behavior was "erratic." is a BLP violation. However this is directly sourced from the New York Times in an article titled An Antiwar Activist Known for Being Committed Yet Erratic[19]. These assessments are also corroborated by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer[20] as well as the Seattle Times[21] and KBOO[22]. These opinions are from her former colleagues at The Herald (Everett). According to the sources, it is not just one person making these claims, nor does it appear that the sources have failed to follow their normal due diligence. It is quite common for newspapers to interview a subject's neighbors and co-workers to help explain paint a picture of what type of person they are. There are still yet other sources that also comment on her demeanor; One in which she is called "nuts"[23], one which diplomatically states she "had her own way of doing things]"[24], and she was "erratic and prone to perceptions of crisis."(WashPost paywall).

Considering that her mental competency was challenged is an integral part of this article, is it appropriate to add this brief assessment? Is it a BLP violation?Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Precisely because allegations of mental competency are involved we most certainly CANNOT be inserting random claims from random people with no training or expertise in the field just because they have made off hand "testimonials" to a journalist. We dont include Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Critical_response man on the street movie reviews for lack of expertise, there is no fucking way we allow the same for judgment of mental health of a living person! [[WP:C-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

However no claims of mental competency (or lack) are being made by the edit in question. Her colleagues called her behavior erratic and flaky. No diagnoses of a mental condition is being proffered, so it doesn't matter if those who commented are not professionals. Now if they edit were to have said "Colleagues said she was bi-polar", you might have a point. However I doubt sources like the NYT would ever print such a statement in the first place.

I fail to see the problem with this edit in that A) it is well sourced, B) it is relevant, C) it says what needs to be said with no fan-fare and D) these opinions are attributed to those who made them. That multiple sources feel these opinions are relevant are more than enough reason for this to be included. Outside opinions are used all the time to paint a clearer picture. This search of wikipedia for site:en.wikipedia.org according "was a loner" shows that non-professional assessments of demeanor are used all the time.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

We only include opinions of people who matter. These peoples "opinions" do not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that, although the articles come from reliable sources, the actual claims do not. They are anonymous and made by obviously unskilled/untrained in psychology people. The article already makes it clear that actual, trained psychologists/psychiatrists examined her and made their judgment that she was incapable of standing trial. Adding these anonymous claims only adds gossip. It is unnecessary to paint the clear picture of the article subject's behavior. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The claims are not anonymous. Two supervisors, both named commented on workplace behavior. They, by definition are supposed to be judging on the job behavior. It still seems strange to me that multiple sources saw fit to publish these claims, yet it is not fit for us to parrot them here.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Those that are not anonymous are not relevant. From the NYT article, we have one supervisor whose most damning statement is, "I certainly saw some signs of flakiness." From the Seattle P-I, we have a reporter that says, "One minute she could be very pleasant and the next very bitter." Etc. etc. The named sources basically call her difficult and flaky. I'm not aware of any DSM-IV disorder based on difficulty and flakiness. I am certain that the actual psychiatrists that examined her and whose conclusions are already in the article are more relevant than these supervisors and co-workers. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

They both (the supervisors) stated she was erratic. AFAICT the disputed text is true to what the sources state. No one that I can tell has argued that the text in question suggests to the reader that the observations are in fact, or purport to be a clinical diagnoses. I can however, see the view that the social workers views may be more relevant if we were talking about the same time frame. I believe these observations were made years prior to her forced hospitalization. I'm not too keen on pushing this any further, because after examining the editing history it appears that Susan is possibly following this article. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The green quote at the top about being erratic is fine, as written, from what I can see here. (Somebody who has read the sources and the article will have to be the judge of how emphasis and placement concerns are handled... and WP:BLP definitely applies there of course.) It does not matter that those being quoted were not professional psychiatrists licensed by the state; it does not matter that the statements were not made in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or put into a medical dossier based on the judgment of professionals about the person's medical mental health.

  The sources we have fully back up the sentence, and the sources are Reliable... which is not the same as colloquially-reliable. TRPoD misunderstands that WP:FRINGE only applies to science-and-medical-claims *about* the fields of science and medicine. The NYT was merely *journalistically* noting some WP:NOTEWORTHY opinions from everyday people that were "experts" on the BLP's everyday behavior. This is not a medical diagnosis, nor a scientific claim, and since multiple independent reliable journalists have published the stuff, and multiple independent reliable editorial-boards have fact-checked the stuff, it goes in the article. WP:FRINGE is totally inapplicable here. Just be very clear that these are *churnalism* claims, and wikipedia is not making *any* statements about the woman's mental health (or for that matter about DSM-IV ... which *does* in fact contain about thirty different Officially Recognized Medical Ailments that everyday folks would just call bad-hair-day-syndrome).

  Also, please do your very best to figure out what is actually true, and write the article to reflect that (without eliding any Reliable Sources however). Was the woman really erratic? Or was that just the excuse the boss used to (fire her / whine later / whatever they were interviewed about) in a way that covered the employer's butt? Was the NYT journalist biased? Just because somebody said it, don't make it true, and just because the NYT satisfies WP:RS, don't make them unbiased. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in my analysis that even touches on FRINGE - where are you getting that from?

And it is absurd to state that the qualifications of the people making the claims of "erratic" about a living person irrelevant. BLP requires the highest quality of sources. We don't include the opinions and observations of the man on the street about films, there is no fucking way we would include their opinions about mental health status. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not absurd, however what is bordering on absurd is assuming one need bona fides to make an everyday observation.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

People without bona fides are free to make whatever observations they want. As an encyclopedia we however follow WP:UNDUE and particularly WP:BLP when determining whose observations of what we include in an article. And the persons bona fides absolutely make a difference. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those polices support your position, because by its very nature this claim doesn't require an expert opinion. If we were attempting to make a specific claim, such as so and so was schizophrenic, your point would make more sense. I really wish you would address this point of why this non--medical claim (attributed nonetheless) requires a medical certification. Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. If film reviews require recognized expertise to be included, we cannot be taking man on the street observations about mental health about LIVING PEOPLE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

What is nonsensical is that you fail to comprehend, despite having it pointed out to you multiple times, is that the text in question is not talking about her "mental health". Would it be permissible for a non-mental health professional to say that someone was behaving (aggressive/happy/upset/dazed) in a specific situation?Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I will point you towards something that someone, (oh, yes that someone is YOU) stated "Considering that her mental competency was challenged is an integral part of this article, is it appropriate to add this brief assessment? Is it a BLP violation?Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)" Yes, her mental health has been challenged and is an integral part of the article and therefore ABSOLUTELY NO it is NOT appropriate to be inserting any random speculations by nonexperts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This is like talking to a brick wall, and it's obvious your obfuscation is intentional.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Xiomara Castro

Xiomara Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A disagreement over whether any mention of the names of non-notable people violates WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPPRIVACY. -- Irn (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

We are specifically talking the children of Xiomara with former Honduras President Manuel Zelaya. The daughter of another famous Honduras political leader was shot at last week so there is a real danger that children of other political leaders could also be targetted. I am not conviced by Irn's arguments about how publishing the names of these 4 children, some of whom may be minors, and with no context (in the infobox) will improve the article but believe BLPPRIVACY and the needs to respect the privacy of these non-notable children demands we dont include the names. So I reverted Irn's inclusion of the names but we have been unable to reach consensus in an extended talk page discussion since. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion if the article should mention her children's names, but including them is not a violation of either BLP or BLPPRIVACY. Assuming this info is sourced (and it appears it is based upon hits from Spanish news sources) this info doesn't violate the basic tenet of BLP. BLPPRIVACY specifically deals with how information may be misused against the BLP subject, for example information used to commit identity theft. That somehow including these children's names on the English Wikipedia article could somehow endanger them is facetious. I note that this information is included in the Spanish Wikipedia. It seems if someone targeting her children would seek their information there instead. And since this information is readily available, any intent on wrongdoing would find this information anyways.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP covers all living ppl and not merely the subjects of articles, that would be giving protection to article subjects and to hell with everyone else including those mentioned in non-biographical articles. Seems an odd interpretation of BLP and PRIVACY says crime or perhaps shooting at someone isnt to be taken as a serious crime risk? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your assertion that including the names of the children of a public figure puts the children at "any risk is absurd.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What is absurd is your assertion that BLP only covers protection against minor crimes such as identity theft. If one leader's child has already had an attempt on their life this week why is my assertion absurd exactly? Why should we harrass the unnotable children of politicians by including their names when this could put their lives at risk and when they may be minors? Honduras is a dangerous place including for the children of politicians and your dismissal of this, while entirely in keeping with your character, isnt really acceptable or professional. I dont believe taking info from sources in a poor, small, developing non-English speaking country and introducing them to a whole new readership on the English wikipedia can be helpful to the encyclopedia. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who cited BLPPRIVACY on the article's talk page. The text on BLPPRIVACY is crystal clear on the rationale for that section. Just because the link has the word "privacy" in it doesn't give you license to invent policy. And I'll kindly ask you not to attribute assertions to me that I never made, specifically "BLP only covers protection against minor crimes such as identity theft". That is what one calls a "straw-man argument". Of course these children are entitled to BLP protections. However being children of a public figure, it should be a surprise to no one that their names are a matter of public knowledge, published in reliable sources, which makes your argument that adding their names to the article "could put their lives at risk" rather naive. Those horses have left the barn. There is a quite a bit of difference between some chance and extremely unlikely chance. And not so much of a spread between extremely unlikely and zero chance. And on a closing note, you should avoid ad-hominem arguments as well. In other words, keep your opinions about my character to yourself, got it? Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

the kids are not notable on their own. there is no actual value in their names. there is no reason to include them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The point of bringing the issue here is determine whether it violates BLP, not to find out if other people agree that there is reason enough to include the names. -- Irn (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Irn. If you want to discuss whether they should be included (and perhaps they shouldn't for the reason pointed out by RedPen), then do that at the article.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

At least one of the children plays an important role in the campaign, and there should be any issue to mention her in the article. --Soman (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no dog in this particular fight, but I feel compelled to comment on this statement: " I dont believe taking info from sources in a poor, small, developing non-English speaking country and introducing them to a whole new readership on the English wikipedia can be helpful to the encyclopedia."

This has got to be one of the most mind-numbingly bizarre arguments I've seen. First of all, it is paternalistic in the extreme. It smacks of: "Oh, those poor peoples just don't know journalism, we need to protect them from their own ignorance." Even if such a reading was not implied intentionally, it still says: "I don't believe in sharing verified information from reliable sources in Wikipedia." Isn't that exactly what articles are supposed to have, or have I been wrong about the entire point of Wikipedia all this time?--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As this has been sitting idle for a few days now, is it safe to say that no one else sees mentioning these names as a violation of WP:BLP? -- Irn (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a correct assumption. See also [25], the Xiomara campaign hardly tries to shield her children from the public. --Soman (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Royce White

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

I am having trouble determining if I am putting in too much negative content or if more should be included.

Not included

1. 5 baby mamas
2. an imminent baby kept him from taking a basketball scholarship

Included

1. Dismissed from high school
2. Two theft incidents in college
3. Suspended in college
4. Anxiety disorder kept him from the NBA

I am trying to determine if I am putting in too much negative content or omitting too much. Advice welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A one sentence mention in the Personal section would be OK. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

For which of the above excluded items?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the other ones, but "anxiety disorder kept him from the NBA" is no more negative than "arthritis kept him from the NBA". Joefromrandb (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

C.L.V. Jayathilake - Spelling suggestion

Please be kind enough to change the name of the article as C.L.V. Jayatilleke or the most commonly known name "Lakshman Jayatilleke". His name is mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Royal_College_Colombo_alumni#Public_commissions_.26_corporations as well. He is an Old boy from my Alma Mater and the head of my University whom I personally know. Therefore, I assure this information is correct.

Thanks and regards, Navaka (navakawiki)

Thank you for posting, and thank you for your contributions to the article. Unfortunately, these changes, particularly the spelling of the gentleman's name, are not supported by any sources. The sources that are currently linked to the article both agree on the Jayathilake spelling. Your personal knowledge may contradict this, but we have no way of verifying this information. For the time being, therefore, I've restored the version of the article immediately prior to your changes. You are welcome to make these changes again if you can cite them. You may also want to read the policies about biographies of living persons (A/K/A: BLP). Feel free to use the talk page of the article to ask questions about your edits to this article. Thanks again. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking time to provide me with a comprehensive response. However, I'm afraid that I have no better evidence than the official websites. Usually, our government websites just serve the purpose - may be lesser - and do not carry personal profiles and most of the time it's Wikipedia comes to help when it comes to personal information and biographies. That's why I updated the information knowing that he is a prominent figure and the information was wrong. If you really need to confirm, I can provide his personal e mail address and even the contact number but again, if we go into 'that' extent, it might also be 'false'. :) I'm editing Facebook places and Google Maps too where I face the same issue. To maintain a comprehensive, large source like this, you should to some extent rely on others, right? Considering the amount of false edits, done, yes, it is indeed a headache. Therefore, I would suggest you to take this as a complain on the credibility of information and contact one of the verified Sri Lankan users - I don't know them personally - and do the needful. Thanks. :)

Woody Harrelson's arm injury in Cheers (season 5)

I found this article from Los Angeles Times about Toyota Pro-Celebrity Grand Prix 1988. When I read it, I found Harrelson's 1987 (not 1988) arm injury that was shown onscreen in Cheers. It claimed that he had two arm injuries: one in fist fight, other in car racing accident. But according to the Philadelphia Inquirer article, the race was scheduled to occur on April 4, 1987. (Every annual Grand Prix has been scheduled for every April.) And his character Woody Boyd explained his "thumb" injury in one episode that aired on February 12, 1987. I assumed that the real-life fist fight incorporated Boyd's "thumb" injury. I know it couldn't have been the July 1986 fistfight. But I'm still searching. In the meantime, how do I include the "arm cast" thing and Boyd's "thumb" injury in Cheers (season 5) (instead of Woody Harrelson) without violating policies (well, guidelines I can either ignore or obey)? --George Ho (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I think, George, that you would need to find a reliable source that discusses both incidents (i.e. the Woody Boyd character appeared with a thumb-injury because actor Woody Harrelson injured his arm doing "x"). Otherwise, it seems to be WP:SYNTH. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Can I at least write, "Harrelson's arm injury was incorporated into Boyd's injury," without explaining the cause of injury? --George Ho (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It's one of those things that's benign enough that it probably shouldn't raise many concerns, at least as far as WP:BLP goes. The worst that could happen is someone will revert and you can discuss it further. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I added Boyd's injury and Harrelson's. No complications, and no issues? George Ho (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Frank Riggs

I am the subject of this biography which contains a number of inaccuracies. The First Congressional District I was elected to in 1990 and represented from 1991-92 (in the 102nd Congress) ran from Sonoma County up the California northcoast to the Oregon border and inland through Napa and Lake Counties (my district office was located in Santa Rosa, the county seat of Sonoma County). The First District was redistricted in 1992 based on the 1990 Census to include all of Napa County and a portion of Solano County incuding Fairfield and Travis Air Force Base. I won election from that district in 1994 and represented it from 1995-98 (in the 104th and 105th Congresses).

For years, my biography has mentioned a "fraud and conspiracy" civil lawsuit. As noted, I was serving in Congress at the time and was not active in managing the partnership known as Haystack Landing Associates. The lawsuit was brought against the partnership by a disgruntled individual who named me because of my high-profile position. The lawsuit was inflamatory and frivilous and was dismissed without any proceedings in Sonoma County Superior Court. This can be verified by the court records of Sonoma County Superior Court. If the mention is to remain, it should note that the lawsuit was dismissed and that my partners and I continued to own the property without any controversy for several years thereafter.

Lastly, the suggestion that I believed I faced "certain defeat" in a race against State Senator Thompson is absolutely specious. I had just won reelection in the presidential election year of 1996. President Clinton received far more votes than Sen. Bob Dole in the presidential election from voters in the First District, but in the next race on the ballot, I won reelection with a handy majority, attracting the votes of thousands of voters who had voted for Clinton and then "crossed over" to vote for me. My strong showing would have bode well for another relection bid. I pursued the U.S. Senate race because I felt I had helped accomplished the goals that motivated me to run for Congress, namely the first balanced federal budgets and tax cuts in a generation and fundamental welfare reform, leading to strong and sustained economic prosperity. I've inserted my bio below but I would appreciate greater care and conscientiousness with respect to the information you use for my biography on your website.

collapsing article text

Frank Riggs Frank Riggs retired as the President and founding CEO of the Charter Schools Development Corporation (CSDC) at the end of 2012, after a decade-plus of service to that organization, to start his new company, Duncan Development Co., LLC. "Duncan Devco" provides "one-stop shop" financing and real estate development services to high-performing charter school organizations for their turnkey facility needs. Riggs joined the CSDC Board in 1999, and from September 2000 to February 2002 served as CSDC's Executive Vice President. He became President and CEO of CSDC and its affiliates in August, 2004, and served in that capacity through 2012. Riggs was instrumental in building CSDC from a start-up nonprofit to the national leader in financing and developing educational facilities for public charter schools, with $125M+ in assets, and a record of providing, procuring and leveraging private capital for facility acquisitions and improvements worth $680M. Riggs' visionary and strategic leadership resulted in CSDC and its subsidiaries and affiliates financing and developing over four million square feet of modern and affordable educational facilities for 235 charter schools in 25 states. Under Riggs' stewardship, CSDC was the leading financial intermediary and credit enhancement provider to charter school organizations, the largest nonprofit developer of charter school campuses, and the 2011 Wachovia Wells Fargo NEXT Award recipient for "demonstrated excellence in financing" as a direct lender and community development financial institution (the only CDFI in the country focused on the facility and capital financing needs of charter schools serving predominantly low-income student populations). CSDC achieved consistent annual growth and success as measured by the year-over-year increases of the new and renovated facilities financed and developed by CSDC, and of the student enrollment and new classroom seats added to those facilities. Riggs has been a national leader of the fast growing charter school movement that has created 5,600-plus charter schools in the U.S. serving over two million students, with approximately 600,000 families on charter school waiting lists nationwide. Riggs has substantial private-sector business experience in real estate development and finance, and in education services. Prior to becoming CEO of CSDC, he was the CEO of ABS School Services of Phoenix, AZ (a provider of financial accounting and business management services to approximately 200 school district, charter, private and federal grant school clients with 156 employees) and the Vice President of Government Relations and Business Development for Educate Inc. (Sylvan Education Solutions and Connections Academy). Riggs was also a consultant to Sylvan Ventures prior to joining Educate Inc. Riggs is a former three-term (six-year) United States Congressman who represented California’s First Congressional District (the North Coast, Wine Country and Northern San Francisco Bay Area) from 1991-93 and again from 1995-1999 in the 102nd, 104th and 105th Congresses. While in Congress, Riggs served on the House Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning and on the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, and chaired the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families in the 105th Congress. In the latter capacity, Riggs was the principal House author of the updated and reauthorized federal special education law (IDEA), and the lead author and sponsor of the Charter School Expansion Act of 1998 providing federal start-up grants to newly formed charter school organizations. Riggs' congressional service afforded him the opportunity to serve on the three congressional subcommittees with jurisdiction and oversight responsibility for preK-20 federal education policies, programs and funding. According to the Heritage Foundation, "Representative Riggs spearheaded many cutting edge initiatives like school choice and charter schools." He was also recognized for his dedication to children with disabilities and by both the National and California Head Start Associations as “Legislator of the Year.” Riggs was the principal architect and proponent of the federal Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Program, which started as a demonstration program in 2000 with a $25M appropriation, and has grown to almost $250M in appropriations since, leveraging $2.74B in private capital for the acquisition, construction, renovation and leasing of charter school facilities. Mr. Riggs, an Army veteran, former police officer, and past school board president, holds a Bachelor of Arts in Administration of Justice, summa cum laude, from Golden Gate University in San Francisco and received the University’s 'Associates Award' in 1980 as the outstanding graduate in the College of Business and Public Administration.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.157.70 (talk • contribs) 19:11, November 16, 2013‎

It looks like another user has removed the offending material. It should have been deleted on sight as soon as it was added (years ago). You have every right to expect "greater care and conscientiousness" concerning the material in your biography. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Dispute over redaction of comments

While looking though the WP:FAR page I saw a comment by User:Overagainst in which they quoted a statement made by User:Wehwalt on Talk:Natalee Holloway. The context was that a suspect in the Holloway case had murdered a woman in Lima. The statement suggested that the suspect should instead have murdered another (identified) living person. I regarded this as a grave BLP violation and redacted it (noting BLP as the reason).[26]. I also redacted Overagainst's quotation of the statement (again, saying that quoted statement was a BLP violation).[27]. I then left notes on both users' talk pages.[28][29] Wehwalt reverted both the redactions, claiming that there was no BLP violation.[30][31] I restored my redactions, noting that material removed on BLP grounds should not be restored without consensus.[32][33] Wehwalt against reverted the redactions.[34][35] I again restored the redactions, saying that I was happy to discuss the matter, but that the material must stay out in the meantime per BLP#Restoring deleted content.[36][37] I also posted on Wehwalt's talk page, quoting that section of the BLP policy.[38]

I now bring the matter here for discussion. The statement seems to me a clear BLP violation. Wehwalt states that "offensive is not BLP",[39] but my understanding is that BLP does not allow us to make offensive and derogatory statements about living persons. I note that the section of the policy on Non-Article Space expressly states: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate."[40] This was certainly not related to content choices, and suggesting someone should be murdered is clearly contentious and inflammatory.

I would be grateful for opinions on this. Thanks, Neljack (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of a good-faith reason why a statement of "so-and-so should kill so-and-so", when the subjects are living people, would ever be allowed to stand in this project, but I cannot fathom one. Redaction was appropriate here IMO, as such a comment cannot possibly be a step towards the goal of article improvement, i.e. what talk pages are for. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not the first time we've seen similar distasteful and misogynistic comments from this editor: here he refers to Natalee Holloway as a dead horse. However. The problem in this case is that it will be difficult to demonstrate the pervasive POV present in that article without linking to the inappropriate comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That pervasive POV is called "neutrality", Sandy. Whatever you may think of Wehwalt's sense of humor or lack of it, the article has been carefully watched over by other editors for years, and I'm getting tired of these accusations from you.—Kww(talk) 15:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the article has been carefully owned by three editors, one now gone, replaced by a new third, and comments from a much larger and wider readership have been ignored for at least five years. (See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway/archive2 and article talk.) Perhaps you want to update the maintained template to reflect that Montanabw appeared after AuburnPilot left? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, please stop making false accusations. The article is neutral, having survived review after review. Your desire to bias the article in favor of Natalee and Beth does not prevent the article from being neutral and your constant negativity about the editors responsible for keeping the article neutral is not constructive behaviour.—Kww(talk) 16:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A tasteless joke? Certainly. Probably a candidate for redaction simply for being tasteless and rude? Yes. But a BLP violation? No.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Without commenting on the appropriateness of the "dead horse" bit, I'd note it refers to a common idiom, and probably meant that way. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, no accounting for taste. Or sensitivity to the living relatives of the dead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Aw, gee, another Sandy eruption? I was going to reply substantively … does anyone buy she is not coordinating all this? Is there no end, even after six and a half years, to her obsession with this article? I'm not going to argue over a statement three and a half years old I made in shock over the news of events in Peru. I'm not going to argue at every forum she chooses to start a fight at. Do as you like about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

oh my. When multiple editors (whom I have never even heard of) show up with the same issues raised by boatloads of others in the past, suddenly I am "coordinating it"? You know, Wehwalt, you should be blocked for that assertion and attempted character assassination. Further, neither did I start this nor any of the other discussions in numerous other places. Now, since there has been ZERO off-wiki discussion, coordination, or ANYTHING from me about this issue, I suggest you redact your false accusation. For the record, I have never encountered nor interacted with either this NelJack editor nor the Overagainst editor, nor do I have any idea what brought them to the article. I do, on the other hand, notice that arb Newyorkbrad removed some of the disgusting text as a disgrace to the way Wikipedia treats the living relatives of victims, following an open and public discussion on his talk[41]-- an edit which has now been reverted.[42] As you know, you cannot say the same about your connections to the editors supporting the article. The only connection I can see for the sudden appearance of your associate, Montanbw (a horse editor), on this article, after the departure of AuburnPilot, is the frequent, disgusting and unfortunate reference to dead horses (and more). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, how long ago was the dead horses reference? How many years? Seems to me you are accusing me of the same off-wiki coordination that you deny yourself. Just phrasing it as "you cannot say the same about your connect to the editors supporting the article" doesn't change what is meant. Again, Sandy, you are doing the usual. And when editors show up spouting your standard line, and you follow close in behind them both here and on the FAR page, well, I will simply adopt your phrasing and say " Now, since there has been ZERO off-wiki discussion, coordination, or ANYTHING from me about this issue, I suggest you redact your false accusation."--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are well aware that your assertion will not stand up to evidence. Private emails can be forwarded to ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandy, I think the last time I emailed you was sometime before you resigned as delegate. Aside from that, I have no idea what you are talking about.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(FreeRangeFrog, he used a link of the Natalee Holloway page to the words "filly from Alabama").

I'm not an expert, but if a BLP violation is grounds for redaction of a talk page comment then Neljack and Tarc are right and it should be removed.Overagainst (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You aren't, it isn't one, and it shouldn't be.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

So, let me see: you go to NYB's talk page and knowingly misdescribe the legal description for a no-fault divorce in Alabama as being "negative information", he makes the mistake of trusting your veracity over the topic, and that's anybody's fault but your own? You haven't dropped that particular stick for years, and that's despite the fact that you know it's not negative information. I can't see any positive motivation behind your actions.—Kww(talk) 17:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

And there is a reason I can't join an ongoing conversation about victimization of victims on a public talkpage? I imagine User:Newyorkbrad, an attorney, knows nothing about divorce and had no good reason for removing that text except that the all-powerful SG suggested it was off-topic and victimization of the victims. I also imagine NYB does anything I want and suggest, and buys everything I say. Bzzzt. Try again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No. No reason. It's just that these confrontations are always of your initiation and follow your coming to the page. You notice I never seek you out or visit the various medical pages where you now work. In fact, if you would avoid these confrontations, we would likely have no conflict. As for NYB, I did not see what he did, perhaps I missed that conversation and edit. I am busy with other things, and would like to be more so, if you would just let all of this go after 6+ years.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

False, character assassination again. I have never encountered either Overagainst or the Neljack fellow, and had nothing to do with any initiation of anything. Unless you are suggesting they are socks of someone unknown to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You knowingly made a false statement to him, Sandy. It's been explained to you multiple times that that language refers to no-fault divorce. You know better. Did he respond quickly because he trusted you? Probably. That doesn't reduce your culpability in knowingly making a false statement in an effort to get the article to change in the direction you desire. You have never managed to coherently explain why you think it is negative to indicate that the divorce was a no-fault divorce, and I don't believe that you actually think it is negative. You appear to have centered in on the "scary-looking language" issue as a way to get people that consider the issue quickly to take your side.—Kww(talk) 17:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I am going to cautiously disengage from this conversation, though I will continue to monitor it. However, I would like, Sandy, if we could both go do something else for a few hours and allow all this to cool a a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt, Natalee Holloway was legally declared dead in 2012. You called her 'the filly from Alabama' in 2010, so that was a BLP violation too. How many others?Overagainst (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@Wehwalt, Good idea, me too. But Template:Editnotices/Page/Natalee Holloway has to be dealt with. There is no reason for us to have threatening editnotices on articles, implying editors will get in trouble from admins if they engage the article (except in unusual circumstances, such as when there are arb sanctions in place). That bad idea needs to be addressed on a global level (as in, with respect to all FAs or not, and without the threatening "admin" language). So, we aren't completely done yet. For another day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have blanked the edit notice, which is no longer needed as the article is less active. Would that all our differences were so easily resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I do think that in the New Year, we should hold a discussion in the appropriate place (perhaps WT:FAC) about whether some sort of editnotice should be on FAs, but we are approaching the holiday season, when editors are busy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. Uh-oh, not another post-New Year conversation :). Can we close this? I'm not going to press to have the text restored and the rest has had enough replies.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• I just want to make clear that I have never interacted with SandyGeorgia before this thread, so the suggestion that she put me up to this is completely wrong. As I have said above, I only saw the comment because it was quoted on FAR, which I look through occasionally. Neljack (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Neljack; I would have thought that obvious. Because the BLP concerns at this article are ongoing, and there are what appear to be multiple misunderstandings or varying interpretations of BLP policy in all directions, it would be good if some more experienced BLP eyes would get involved with the article. The errors/issues/whatever we call them are going in all directions. To clean up several outstanding issues above:

1. "The article is neutral, having survived review after review. ...—Kww(talk) 16:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC) I am unaware of any "review after review". The FAC was passed (by me) in 2008 and was largely based on news reports available at the time. It hadn't been sufficiently updated, but that work is now going to proceed, per the FAR. Immediately after it appeared on the main page a few months later, a Featured article review was initiated and closed on procedural grounds (instructions there say that a FAR may not be initiated right after an article has run TFA, which allows editors time to correct issues raised on mainpage day).
2. "... does anyone buy she is not coordinating all this? Is there no end, even after six and a half years, to her obsession with this article? Although these are the kinds of statements that would result in a block for a non-admin, no grudges; I believe it should be apparent by now that I'm not. I'd like to think that If I Ruled The World, a reasonable FAR would have been the result. As to "obsession", the last time I visited the article or its talk page was in 2008. I did not ask for the dead horse comments to occur in 2010, and I was shocked when they did.
3. "You knowingly made a false statement to him, Sandy. It's been explained to you multiple times that that language refers to no-fault divorce. ...—Kww(talk) 17:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC) This is the version before the spurious "divorce" text was removed. It said, "Jug Twitty began divorce proceedings on December 29, 2006, stating the two have "such a complete incompatibility of temperament that the parties can no longer live together." The same version also said, "Beth Holloway reportedly began dating John Bennett Ramsey, the father of JonBenét Ramsey, whom she met at a fundraiser following the death of his wife to ovarian cancer. However, Ramsey downplayed their relationship, stating that they "developed a friendship of respect and admiration" out of common interests related to their children." The article is about the disappearance of Natalee Holloway. The notion that anything related to her mother's divorce or dating life belongs in this article is unsubstantiated, and has never been substantiated, there is no connection anywhere in the text to anything related to "no fault divorce" (that appears to be original research), and whether the mother's divorce was because she was the Wicked Witch of the West or Good Ga-linda has nothing to do with her daughter's death. These statements had no place in the article, and after some edit warring, were removed. Because he said that I "knowingly ma[de] a false statement in an effort to get the article to change", it is not clear to me that KWW agrees at this point that these statements should have been removed, so that is an ongoing BLP concern, should they re-appear. This text creates POV by disparaging the mother of a dead girl. But there are other issues occurring in the article, continued below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"such a complete incompatibility of temperament that the parties can no longer live together" is not only a quote from the source, it is a direct quote from ALA CODE § 30-2-1 : Alabama Code - Section 30-2-1: GROUNDS. Read the code: "such a complete incompatibility of temperament that the parties can no longer live together" is the Alabama language for "no fault divorce". This has been explained to you many times, and it does not portray Beth Holloway in a negative light. It is logically impossible for a statement of "incompatibility" between two people to portray one or the other in a negative light. I have to assume that you understand that, and thus, I have to assume your description of it as a "slur" was an intentionally false statement on your part. The issue as to whether it belongs in the article is reasonably up for discussion, but describing it as a "slur" is simply untrue, nor can it reasonably be read as "disparaging the mother of a dead girl". It was not described as "no-fault divorce" in the article because that would be original research. The article is constrained to using what sources have said, and they all seem to have presumed that their audience would understand that "incompatibility" was a form of no-fault divorce. None of them felt it necessary to explain further, thus, we can not.

As to whether discussion of Beth belongs in the article: of course it does. The recent misnaming of the article is not a reason to start excluding information about the events surrounding the investigation: if accuracy is the goal, then the article should be moved to "Investigation and Intense Media Coverage Surrounding the Unexplained Disappearance of Natalee Holloway", and Beth Holloway is certainly a part of the intense media coverage surrounding the unexplained disappearance of Natalee Holloway. That's the problem with the move to this new title: we know very little about Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. In fact, we know nothing about the disappearance itself. The article is about the investigation and media coverage surrounding that investigation.

As for the notion that the article is slanted towards the perspective of "promiscuous trashy gringas": no. It isn't. What the article does not do is presume that JvdS actually committed any crime, treat the Aruban police as the modern equivalent of the Keystone Kops, or presume sainthood on the part of the victim or any member of her family. It does a good job of balancing a group of different perspectives on a tragic event. Does the article have problems that could use work? Certainly. But repeatedly treating a well-balanced article as if it is a hit piece is not the place the start. —Kww(talk) 01:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Long reply, all bluff: still no connection between the disappearance/death of Holloway and the divorce of her mother, so using the pretext of "no fault" is no reason to include the text. Much less the information about her dating life. I don't believe I've raised anything about "presume[ing] that JvdS actually committed any crime", so I don't know where the rest of your argument is coming from or how it is related. Regardless of what became of Natalee Holloway, the article has a POV that creates BLP issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no "pretext", nor have I objected to the removal of material about Benet. I really wish you would explain why you repeatedly describe this quote as a "slur" and claim that it "disparages" Beth Holloway. The article does not have a POV that creates BLP issues, which is why your complaints about it keep being dismissed. It isn't from an effort to control the article, it's a result of the fact that objective review of your complaints that the article portrays Natalee as a "promiscuous trashy gringa" generally comes to the conclusion that your objections are without merit.—Kww(talk) 02:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

More deflection. There is no my "complaints about it keep being dismissed" nor "generally comes to the conclusion that your objections are without merit", because I haven't been near the article since 2008. Stay on topic; this is the BLP noticeboard. If you want to attempt to discredit me here, at least try to get your facts straight. You have still provided no reason for the statements about the mother that were in the article, nor reason for them to be connected to the disappearance of her daughter. Since they are no longer in the article, it appears that more people agreed with me than disagreed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not deflection to point out that you have knowingly made false statements. I said that the presence of the text in the article was up for debate, and I have made contributions on the talk page seeking compromise wording. Your description of that text as a "slur" that disparaged Beth Holloway was an intentionally false statement on your part, apparently in an effort to disrupt this BLP review and the FAR. It's not straying off-topic to take note of that fact.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's not a deflection; It's a lie and an attempt at character assassination. And if you say it again, KWW, we'll be going up the chain to ArbCom. This case is fetid enough, deep enough, long enough, involves enough different alliances and articles and issues and abuse of admin status, that it wouldn't bother me a bit to air all of it. Last warning. Unless that's the preferred path, do not again accuse me of knowingly making a false statement. IMO, the off-topic, unrelated statements about Beth Twitty's personal life were there for no reason established in the article, and they resulted in a negative slant to the article and on her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for opinion of new comment

Is the bit I redact here acceptable? "Where does it say she was sexually promiscuous? No one says that she, personally, room switched, and the evidence was, she did not. The behavior is clearly attributed to the students in general. And yes, it is relevant what the kids as a group did, because they did what they were supposed to do and partied. Whether that led to her fate or not is not for me to say, and if you give the reader less information, he will have a less informed viewpoint at the end of the day. Holloway was an adult and free to be sexually promiscuous if she deemed it appropriate, anyway. From what I recall, (-redacted-).--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2013 "

It can be found here. Overagainst (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It really seems like you're grasping at straws here. What, exactly, is your objection to the bit you redacted? Joefromrandb (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

They are living people as far as I know. The context of the discussion which was about the following quote in the article "described the behavior of the Mountain Brook students, stating there was "wild partying, a lot of drinking, lots of room switching every night."" which i think is inappropriate innuendo about Natalee Holloway (who is now legally presumed dead ) having been sexually promiscuous. That quote is given in the article without representation of any opposing view BTW.

My request for opinion was because I objected to what Wehwalt said about some of Holloways room-mates having 'room switched'. It seems to me to read as an attribution of sexual promiscuity about living people and overstepping the mark of BLP. They are young women, and although their names are not in the article or given on talk, they are are easily identifiable from other sources. Quite an involved explaination there I am afraid. I just thought I'd ask about it. Anyway, thanks for your trouble. .Overagainst (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

New concerns

• I am not certain that Overagainst understands our BLP policy. The discussion at the FAR was so large and acrimonious that it was redeacted several times, moved to talk in the interest of space, and collapsed. It is a lot to read through, but statements like As he is a living person and has not been convicted of anything in relation to the dissappearance of Natalee Holloway it would be safest to remove the name of Joran van der Sloot from the article completely. As I have already said, we should not mention the names of the brothers as they have not been convicted of anything. The names of the security guards given in the 2005 arrests section as having been arrested as suspects in the case should be removed too, along with the BLP violation of in the text about their alleged reputations. need to be addressed by BLP-knowledgeable people. The FAR has been placed on hold so some of these issues could be worked out at the relevant noticeboards.
• Another BLP matter about http://scrux.com has been raised at ANI, but the argument made there is that this should not have been brought to the "drama boards", so BLP-knowledgeable feedback would be helpful.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"The FAR has been placed on hold so some of these issues could be worked out at the relevant noticeboards." I did not request or agree to any or all of a raft of issues I raised being taken to noticeboards. If you wish to raise issues on your own account at a noticeboard then by all means do so.Overagainst (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"Another BLP matter about http://scrux.com has been raised at ANI, but the argument made there is that this should not have been brought to the "drama boards". I did not take that issue to any notice board.Overagainst (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I was not saying you did, Overagainst, nor am I saying that you are the problem at that article. But there are significant BLP issues going all directions. Your instincts about how the POV in the article furthers BLP issues are correct, but at the same time, you have some misunderstanding of actual BLP policy, which is making it hard to uncover the *real* BLP issues (the slanting of the article towards the notion of promiscuous trashy gringas had it coming or had harm come to them because of drunkenness). The problem for outside observers is that to understand the real BLP issues, they need to consult sources and read the entire article and see how the POV affects living people; it is a non-trivial situation, and some of your BLP misunderstanding is making it harder to sort. I suspect (although it's not what I would have done) that the FAR was put on hold so that some of these issues could be worked on more calmly. We have above two experienced admins making charges against me that would result in a block for anyone else; we need uninvolved eyes on the article long-term, and that includes folks who would be willing to look at sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Arachnophobia

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

This article has a section which lists some notable people who are afraid of spiders. Should these all be sourced? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not sure this is particularly a WP:BLP issue (being falsely accused of being afraid of spiders is hardly something someone is likely to sue over), but per WP:V "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". One would have thought that it was obvious that an assertion that "person X is arachnophobic" was likely to be challenged if no source was cited. Anyway, you've challenged it now... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that the article states that "some statistics show that 50% of women and 10% of men show symptoms" of arachnophobia. If this is indeed the case, I have to question the utility of a list of notable arachnophobes. The list would stand no chance whatsoever of ever being remotely complete. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added {{dynamic list}} to that section. That's what it's there for.--Auric talk 23:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed all the unsourced entries from the list. They shouldn't be there if they're not sourced - it's WP:BLPCAT in reverse. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the picture at the bottom of the article might be frightening to readers who otherwise might be the most interested in reading the article. Maybe a picture of a web instead?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. See also Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars/Images#Arachnophobia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's part of the {{Spider nav}} template. I've added code allowing it to be collapsed to conceal the image.--Auric talk 02:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That technique might be useful for other images too.[43][44] It might also help build consensus to include images that have thus far been too controversial to include in Wikipedia articles. But I digress.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Lin Biviano

Someone out there is determined to edit the Lin Biviano article to read as negatively as possible. There is a Lawrence Welk fanpage (Biviano played trumpet for the Welk band for years) that has a bio on Biviano that is almost entirely made up of allegations of criminal acts, with no sources listed (www.welkshow.com). This website has been credited for most of the recent changes for the Wikipedia article. Also the same person apparently bought www.linbiviano.org in order to post a second copy of the claims. Other changes that have happened to the Wikipedia article: removal of the well-known names from Biviano's bio, removal of the entire discography, addition of rumors of drug and/or alcohol use, addition of a poorly-sourced claim that Biviano has changed professions to either tambourine player or hairdresser, and changing all the links and references to www.welkshow.com. All these changes have been by anonymous users. This is frankly getting tiresome. Mr. Biviano is a real person, and although he probably doesn't have the time or inclination to mess with some silly internet flame war, this is in my mind entering libelous territory. Highnotes4ever (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree re the veracity of the welkshow page. Added some comments on the talk page and will watchlist the page to respond if there are more reversions without discussion. Doesn't seem a particularly fast-paced disagreement, but let's see how it goes. Euryalus (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The linbiviano.org website is viciously defamatory, should be blacklisted, and should never be cited on this encyclopedia. I encourage any editors reading this to add the article to your watch list, to protect it against one or more people determined to defame this musician. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklist requests can be made at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_additions but it's more for websites being spammed across the wiki than for additions to a single page. I've blocked the current anon IP editor for edit-warring by reinserting the link multiple times and against consensus. If it continues the next step would likely be semi-protection. Also watching the page, as you suggest. Euryalus (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Jo Ann Castle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article at Jo Ann Castle also contains assertions that could be defamatory and that are only sourced to the same Web site mentioned above (with a Web redirect from joanncastle.com), which contains even more potentially defamatory information. Jo Ann Castle is at least rumored to be Biviano's long-time girlfriend and more recently his wife. It was edited recently to refer also to Biviano as something other than a trumpet player. This link[45] may or may not be relevant. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Have removed the unsourced allegations in the Jo Ann Castle article as well. The eetimes report is also at PRNewswire and could be worth including subject to a view on undue weight in what is otherwise a very short article. For now I've left it out, but other views welcome. Both articles (Biviano and Castle) have been semi-protected to prevent the re-adding of material sourced to attack pages. Euryalus (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bhushan_Kumar

The entire article seems to be written by someone working for Super cassettes OR Bhushan Kumar, for eg.g Sentences like Bhushan kumar is a visionary, headstrong seem to be strong words used very loosely

The entire article has reference of fact but without mentioning any — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denzy (talk • contribs) 04:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Made a start in pruning back the puffery but there's more to be done and it's late here, so the rest tomorrow. References need checking also - there's multiple claims being made to individual references that support only one of them. Parts of the article also read like a copyvio, but I can't locate the original source and the rewrite to achieve a neutral tone will address this anyway. Anyone with nothing to do in the next eight hours or so is welcome to pick up where I left off for the evening. Euryalus (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

America Ferrera

She was born in Perris California not Paris as in France — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.1.38.126 (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS says Los Angeles, not Perris and not Paris. Thanks for pointing out the mistake. Elizium23 (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I find no sources saying she was born in Perris or Paris, but several saying she was born in Los Angeles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Lawrence Keyte

Please can someone take a look at the latest addition to the biography of Lawrence Keyte. It is all sourced, but does it add undue weight to the bio? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd remove mention of the child pornography charge since it was stayed. I'd add it back if the charge is renewed. The rest of it should stay, since the charges appear to have weight, and appear to have stuck. Since the article is a stub, the spirit of WP:UNDUE would be better served by expanding the rest of the article in order to reduce the weight of the charge of misconduct. --Rawlangs (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Phyllis Schlafly

Phyllis Schlafly comes under repeated attack in the last hour in three postings by an IP source 98.196.232.6 There have been two warnings so far by two editors. Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Another new IP editor 129.7.134.146 (they are both from Houston addresses) now jumps in to copy the original attack, and adds a false personal attack on me (Undid revision 582217558 by Rjensen (talk)undo edit by schlafly employee) the edits in question are the first and only ones by these IP addresses. Rjensen (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It is surely useful to identify the edit that constitutes an "attack": [46]. I'm not at all sure that this is an attack, and I would be careful with relying on a BLP exemption to 3RR (though of course the IP is obviously edit-warring in an inappropriate way). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm providing sourced information. I'm not sure what game RJensen is playing at since he and his friend Edgar refuse to come to the talk page or discuss any specifics. This 20 questions bullshit trying to figure out what they object to is pointless, I've posted the sources and synopsis and they can either respond or admit they are just game playing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.6 (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC) AND NOW it turns out RJensen is having people remove the discussion from the talk page! They are trying to completely block sourced information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.6 (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• RJENSEN and THEREDPENOFDOOM have twice removed the discussion, despite the discussion being created at request of administrator Edgar181. They are plainly trying to block discussion entirely and are uninterested in anything but disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.6 (talk)
• Note: This article was semi-protected by another admin. MastCell ^Talk 21:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Regarding the talk page comment issue: Yes, it seems that the ip is being toyed with "20 questions" style. But if the ip were less bombastic, perhaps they would find others more willing to engage?Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I will admit, this removal was probably a mistake. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • WND is generally not considered a reliable source, and I wonder about rightwingwatch. Salon generally is reliable. I'd be shocked if Schlafly didn't have anti-muslim views but a section that's mostly quotes designed to inflame is not what should be on Wikipedia. A section that says she has views characterized as anti-muslim, appropriately sourced, shouldn't be a problem. Ravensfire (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

George Zimmerman (Again!)

Was arrested today, details unknown. Article could probalby use additional eyes in general based on the new attention this article will likely get, but there are open questions about how WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTNEWS applies (or not). We know he was arrested. Thats it. No charging, don't even know what he was arrested for. Zimmerman probably passes WP:WELLKNOWN now, b ut should this information be included at this point? Discussion ongoing at Talk:George_Zimmerman#Zimmerman_arrested Gaijin42 (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure to be a train wreck. I guarantee it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

He's been officially charged with aggravated assault, battery, and criminal mischief, in an apparent domestic incident ([47]). This event will likely be notable, but I think we should be very cautious here - there's no deadline to put this in the article, and we can wait for more sources (and more accurate details) to become available before going forward. MastCell ^Talk 22:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Still going to be a train wreck going forward, but officially being charged changes the calculus on inclusion probably. I have put in a minimal inclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Would Template:current person be appropriate? Dwpaul ^Talk 22:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that most people who want to add information about the domestic incident want to add it because they think shooting Martin makes him an awful person so they want to put in as much stuff as they can that shows he's an awful person. I think this violates the spirit of WP:COATRACK if not necessarily the letter. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Charles Wang

At Charles Wang, an IP keeps adding in the same unnecessary and unreferenced section, citing a "common misconception" with no evidence of it, and it's just adding clutter. I've reverted 3 times in the past week, left warnings, and the edit summaries are getting more aggressive. More eyes, maybe an IP block? I suspect all 4 IPs, or at least 3 of them, are likely the same person. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure this is a BLP issue since the contentious information is not relevant to the article subject. Keeping the information might violate WP:SUMMARY. Doesn't add anything to the article, but doesn't prejudice the article's subject at all. I've reverted the edit. --Rawlangs (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Any suggestions about where to take this, if not BLP, if this persists? Echoedmyron (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies or Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions if that doesn't work out. The BLPN is typically for issues that violate WP:BLP, but I'd be happy to help if you keep having problems on this page. Shoot me a message on my talk page. --Rawlangs (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Mansoor Ijaz

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

Need to clean-up and/or reduce uncited information. RCRC (talk) (contrib) 18:48, 18 November 2013‎ UTC

Are you advising us of a potential violation of BLP policy, or just an article that requires cleanup? Dwpaul ^Talk 01:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Martin Bashir

Martin Bashir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm concerned about recent additions to Martin Bashir about offensive comments he recently made about Sarah Palin. You can see them at this diff, where I'm removing the section added. My concern is twofold: with reference to Bashir himself, I don't believe that these comments rise to the level of importance to pass WP:UNDUE, though they may well in the future if this has some sort of lasting impact on him. But moreso, I'm concerned that us repeating the actual comments continues the victimization of Sarah Palin. As I've said on the article's talk page, even if we meet WP:UNDUE, I think that we cannot possibly at all justify repeating Bashir's comments, and I've asserted that the issue is so extreme it constitutes a BLP exemption to 3RR. But, I suppose I could be wrong. Could I get the input of some BLP specialists? Also, please note that I've requested full protection of the article to stop the edit warring without the info included while discussion continues. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the diff you gave shows removal of what you intended to remove. That said, I'm not convinced that it should be removed. When notable people make well-sourced extremely disparaging comments about other notable people, Wikipedia tends to include it all, I think. It's not much different from describing a crime, and naming the crime victim. On the other hand, WP:BLP says: "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." The details are revealing about Bashir, but they victimize Palin, so it's a dilemma. Palin is an adult, so that removes some of the difficulty, and she's also a very public figure, which further reduces the difficulty. I'd include it all, but if there is concern about Palin then simply leave out her name and say the comments were about a Republican political figure (readers could get the details from the cited sources).Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized later that I didn't actually remove the whole section like I intended...but I decided that I wouldn't go any further, since it's only the comments about Palin that fall under BLP concerns, so more reverting on the section as a whole would constitute edit warring on my part. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering all of the incindery things that Bashir says on a regular basis I am almost suprised that he finally crossed the line that even the left (media) had to address. I am not seeing the BLP issue here. Arzel (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is not a BLP issue, and consensus for inclusion has already been reached via normal channels. That leaves the matter of "protecting Palin from further victimization", which is a non-starter both because Palin is a public figure, and also because Bashir's comments were not in any way libelous. 97.113.5.118 (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

As of now, the article is fully protected (i.e. totally frozen), and the quote in question is not in this (wrong) version.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing an article and then protecting it is something that should only be done in extreme circumstances. As there seems to be clear consensus both here and at Talk:Martin Bashir that there is no BLP-problem, I've asked User:Ged UK to either explain what problems currently exist, or unprotect the article so that normal WP:BRD-editing can resume. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the editing-then-freezing, which indeed was extraordinary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've submitted an edit request at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Request still pending.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There was nothing unusual, because I firmly believed, and still believe, that this is a BLP violation; admins are actually required when they protect a page that they don't protect (or quickly fix if they weren't aware of them) any BLP or copyvio problems. And if an admin felt I was trying to "win" the revert war, they could simply have reverted to the version before I made the request (which is something I've done when protecting pages myself). Alternatively, they could have even reverted back to before any of the info was added; I would argue the edit war "started" with the bold insertion of info in the first place. There were all sorts of options; the fact that the slightly redacted version is the one that it was left in does not mean that's the "best" version; as the edit request section on the talk page shows, I appear to be in a minority of one, as sick and disgusted as that makes me feel. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would agree that this stuff would not belong at her Wikipedia article. It's in his because it says something about him.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Alexis Reich -- transition and pronouns

About a month ago I raised a question about this BLP. Included (below)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Upon examining a recent edit to this article I noticed the single sentence discussing Karr's transition that read "Reich began hormone replacement therapy and to transition gender identity in early 2010 including a legal name change" and this had one source. Then I noticed this source was Inside Edition which is essentially a tabloid. I questioned this as being a valid source on the article's talk page, and another editor added several more "sources", all of which (including the original Inside Edition link) are included below. "John Mark Karr Gets a Sex Change". Inside Edition. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Barnes, Ed (May, 24, 2010). "John Mark Karr Re-Emerges to Form a JonBenet Cult". Fox News. Retrieved 24 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Boone, Christian (July 6, 2011). "The enigma formerly known as John Mark Karr is now a piece of art". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved 24 October 2013. Rossen, Jeff (June 2, 2010). "Ex-fiancee: Karr wants to form child sex cult". Today. Retrieved 24 October 2013. "John Mark Karr Gets Sex Change: Report". Huffington post. May 29, 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013. Harrell, Ashley (May 24, 2010). "Report: John Mark Karr, Reputed Pedophile, Formed Cult of JonBenet Lookalikes". SF Weekly. Retrieved 24 October 2013. Grace, Nancy (May 25, 2010). "Man Who Claimed JonBenet Ramsey Killing Accused of Cyber-Stalking". CNN. Retrieved 24 October 2013. De Yoanna, Michael (March 30, 2010). "Is John Mark Karr Now a Woman?". 5280 Magazine. Retrieved 24 October 2013. "http://ksfm.cbslocal.com/2010/05/13/jonbenet-ramseys-fake-killer-is-now-living-as-a-woman/". KSFM. May 13, 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help) Rowson, Kevin (June 8, 2010). "John Mark Karr: New Name, New Troubles". 11 Alive. Retrieved 24 October 2013. Lavietes, Bryan (August 23, 2012). "Pedro Hernandez: Killer, Crazy or Both?". TruTV. Retrieved 24 October 2013. Burke, Alafair (June 8, 2010). "They're Baa-aaaaack!". Alafair Burke. Retrieved 24 October 2013. However there is a big problem here. All of the sources included either explicitly reference the Inside Edition claim (one article uses a nebulous "it's been reported") or they don't even support the statement being made. If the Inside Edition article isn't reliable, neither are the rest of the sources that refer to it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC) I went ahead and removed all of the sources and the information it was supporting.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Seems a bit hasty. I went to two of your links at random, the one from CNN and the one from Today, and can't see Inside Edition being mentioned in either one. --GRuban (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Please read what I said again. Either the sources cited IE or they don't even support the statement being made. The CNN and Today links fall under the latter category. Read the articles again, then ask yourself if they support the statement "Reich began hormone replacement therapy and to transition gender identity in early 2010 including a legal name change". Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC) The CNN source says "Court documents show Karr legally changed his name to Alexis Reich in 2008." The Today source says "Today, he's living as a woman, going by the name Alexis Reich". They don't say anything about the hormone replacement therapy or the 2010 date, but they do support the transition gender identity and the legal name change. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC) I appreciate you watching/reading that. The CNN source does confirm a name change, however the Today clip is basing gender transition claim off of reporting done Diane Diamond from this Daily Beast article. While Ms. Diamond is probably reliable (if it weren't for her stint at NPR I'd probably think otherwise), the Today show video does not appear to be doing any original reporting. I still don't think we've reached the bar of having multiple reliable sources for anything but the legal name change.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC) On second thought, I don't think we should touch the CNN source with a 10-foot pole. A) Nancy Grace? Considering this is the BLP board let me just say I seriously question whether or not she is credible. B) This source is a "rush transcript". I'm only speculating, but it probably didn't have much of an editorial review C) The "source" for this transcript is an "unidentified male" from a video of unidentified origin.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Some time ago an editor asserted Karr was a trans-woman. I started examining the proffered sources and noticed that either the source was unreliable, the source was based upon another source, or the source didn't mention anything about Karr being trans whatsoever. Here is each source, followed by my comments in bold. Please remember these sources have been claimed by others to support the statement that Karr is a trans-woman.

1. "Horrifying 'Little Girl Sex Cult'". The Daily Beast.Possibly reliable
2. "John Mark Karr Gets a Sex Change". Inside Edition. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Tabloid journalism, not a RS
3. Barnes, Ed (May, 24, 2010). "John Mark Karr Re-Emerges to Form a JonBenet Cult". Fox News. Retrieved 24 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Does not support the claim being made
4. Boone, Christian (July 6, 2011). "The enigma formerly known as John Mark Karr is now a piece of art". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved 24 October 2013. Does not support the claim being made
5. Rossen, Jeff (June 2, 2010). "Ex-fiancee: Karr wants to form child sex cult". Today. Retrieved 24 October 2013.Not an original story. Story based upon the reporting of Diane Dimond
6. "John Mark Karr Gets Sex Change: Report". Huffington post. May 29, 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013. Based off of Inside Edition story
7. Harrell, Ashley (May 24, 2010). "Report: John Mark Karr, Reputed Pedophile, Formed Cult of JonBenet Lookalikes". SF Weekly. Retrieved 24 October 2013. Based off of Fox News story
8. Grace, Nancy (May 25, 2010). "Man Who Claimed JonBenet Ramsey Killing Accused of Cyber-Stalking". CNN. Retrieved 24 October 2013. Nancy Grace is a dubious source. Furthermore the source for this story is an unidentified male on an unidentified video
9. De Yoanna, Michael (March 30, 2010). "Is John Mark Karr Now a Woman?". 5280 Magazine. Retrieved 24 October 2013.Based off of Inside Edition story
10. "http://ksfm.cbslocal.com/2010/05/13/jonbenet-ramseys-fake-killer-is-now-living-as-a-woman/". KSFM. May 13, 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)Based off of Inside Edition story
11. Rowson, Kevin (June 8, 2010). "John Mark Karr: New Name, New Troubles". 11 Alive. Retrieved 24 October 2013. Makes no mention whatsoever of transition
12. Lavietes, Bryan (August 23, 2012). "Pedro Hernandez: Killer, Crazy or Both?". TruTV. Retrieved 24 October 2013.Unreliable source
13. Burke, Alafair (June 8, 2010). "They're Baa-aaaaack!". Alafair Burke. Retrieved 24 October 2013.Unreliable source

Now out of all the sources presented this far, only one of them (IMO) is even approaching a "reliable source", and that is the Diane Dimond piece at The Daily Beast. The rest of the sources either unreliable, parrot the tabloid Inside Edition (hey, we aren't saying it, IE is) or doesn't make the claim that Karr is trans. The only exception is the "Today" story, however that uses Diane Dimond, which makes it another duplicative source.

This issue was also raised at RSN, however no one was able or willing to provide better sources for this statement.

I submit to you these two postulates:

1. John Mark Karr(aka Alexis Reich) is a living person
2. John Mark Karr is a limited public figure

This is what the BLP policy says about WP:WELLKNOWN people (bold emphasis added).

“ In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. ”

Not only do we not have multiple reliable third-party sources, we barely even have one (IMO Diane Dimond is somewhat questionable considering she always skirts the area of tabloid journalism). Per the BLP policy, the claim cannot be reliably sourced to multiple reliable sources. Therefore I have removed the claim and have reverted all the pronouns in the article back to male pronouns.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that. It was certainly the right thing to do, but editors have so far been successful in using a "who cares what the sources say?" argument to defy policy at that article. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't realized there was all this discussion, but I support using the female pronoun, and making it clear that John Karr is a birth name. Someone rapidly reverted me [48] but I was persuaded by the Daily Beast and another article in Queerty [49] that cites a broken link to AJC and also a Fox News article [50]. I am content to follow the sourcing and use the birth name for all the existing historical content in the article, but we should still signify in the lead, which is in the present tense, that we are aware of the new legal name and sex and are up to date with it. Wnt (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The legal name is sourced. The gender is not sourced. I suggest you read that Fox News article again and notice its ambiguity. Maybe there are other sources out there that support this claim but I haven't found them. The vast majority of the sources point to the IE article. The other instances cite Dimomd.Two kinds of pork (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The "gender change" isn't sourced because it isn't real. Please don't confuse this person's antics with legitimate changes of gender such as Chelsea Manning. I won't go into much detail here, for BLP reasons, but anyone reading the article and following the sources will easily see why Karr wants to pretend he's a woman; it isn't pretty. Any bullshit about "misgendering" this person is a slap in the face to actual transgendered people. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Farhad Ahmed Dockrat and Junaid Ismail Dockrat

Farhad Ahmed Dockrat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article, and the article for his cousin Junaid Ismail Dockrat, both claim that the two men are terrorists. The only supporting references are almost the same, a 2007 newspaper article where both men dispute the claims made by the USA. The first link is dead. I'm sure this falls well short of reliable sources for such a serious accusation. --Dmol (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The accusations from the first link were repeated here. This link reports that the "The South African government has been in contact with the United States regarding two SA citizens with suspected links to al-Qaeda, the Department of Foreign Affairs". The entry as it stands says they are accused of being terrorists (which they apparently are). I don't see a BLP issue here. The subjects are notable only for this accusation. --Rawlangs (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I don't mean to say they're apparently terrorists, I mean to say they've apparently been accused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawlangs (talk • contribs) 00:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Bernhard Goetz on Bernhard Goetz

More eyes would be welcomed on this article as Goetz is disputing Time Magazine as a reliable source [51] and tag bombing a paragraph. [52] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

With Mr. Goetz now explicitly threatening to edit war, it might be time for an uninvolved admin to have a look. LHM 09:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've protected this for a week, hopefully others will get involved (I doubt I'll do more). Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be protected, and NeilN appears to have done an admirable job.

I do however have some commentary for NeilN. Remember to assume good faith, even where you suspect a conflict of interest. WP:BLPEDIT states "Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves [...]. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. [...] Edits like this by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, 'the subject should be invited to explain their concerns'."

You're doing the right thing by engaging the subject on the talk page and bringing the discussion here, but replies like "I'm not interested in entertaining your conspiracy theories especially with your conflict of interest." seem purpose-written to spark anger in the subject (even if you think he deserves it).

Otherwise, as before, admirable job. Keep it up. --Rawlangs (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Rawlangs I'll keep that in mind but honestly, I wanted to shut down that particular conversation as soon as possible. Implying the current Editor in Chief of Time Magazine got his position by practicing dubious journalism is also a BLP violation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Linda Miller

I was reading her biography and she was credited with being in the film King Kong Escapes. However, it is wrong. The Linda Miller who appeared in that film is not Jackie Gleason's daughter. That Linda Miller was an American model living in Japan at the time the movie was filmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:47BE:DCE9:21D9:DF8:89AB:5C5A (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it looks like you've already changed the article, but you should cite a source or you're likely to be reverted. --Rawlangs (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Scope of WP:BLP? Advice needed

Does this addition [[53]] about Rob Ford to the "joke page" WP:Still more Best of BJAODN by User:Jack Cox violate WP:BLP? Obviously i think, it does (i.e. the policy's first intro paragraph) and reverted the change for now. But additional advice and opinions would be appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The entire series of BJAODN articles are juvenile idiocy, but if they are to be kept, then one standard that really needs to be enforced is no entries of articles that are covered by WP:BLP. Vandalism to people's biographies has the potential for harm to the subject, and should not be the butt of a Wikipedians' humor. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Diarmuid Connolly Gaelic footballer

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

Diarmuid is not a scumbag Diarmuid does not hold any "red card record" Most of the article is false and libellous! Previously it was factual but clearly someone with a grudge against him has change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.48.49 (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like vandalism. I'll see if I can revert to a verifiable state. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this further, I think that it will need the attention of someone familiar with Gaelic football, and with Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Connolly seems to be a controversial figure, and it may be difficult to strike the right balance. I'll reduce the article to a stub for now, and leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gaelic games asking for assistance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously someone was using the article to run a hatchet job on the subject. I tend to get tripped by the various sport notability criteria (which in my opinion should not exist), but maybe this is AFD material §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Carol Rosin

Carol Rosin

My main concern is only that decisions against deletion seem one-off and irrevocable thereafter. At least none of the links on the talk page lead me to where I can reopen discussion or give support for deletion.

I have no personal grudge against this person, but I strongly suspect this is a self-promoting living bio without substance.

Everything on the page, possibly bar a Bachelor's degree and being president of an obscure society, is unsubstantiated. I would like to post support for deleting living bio pages where this is the case. But I can find no place to suggest it.

HenrikErlandsson (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If you believe an article is non-notable then please follow WP:AFDHOWTO. GiantSnowman 20:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion. --Rawlangs (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both for help. I used the AfD How-To, but it seems step III is done for you now; at least the log already contained the 3rd nomination from the previous step, but I blindly followed the guide. (User:Thomas.W corrected the duplicate entry in seconds - I'm impressed.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrikErlandsson (talk • contribs) 22:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Tarun Tejpal

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

Subject is in middle of sexual assault controversy. Anmol.2k4 (talk · contribs) keeps adding excessive details without a regard for WP:BLP. I am reporting here so I won't be going in for WP:3RR. Expect someone to cleanup soon. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evano1van (talk • contribs)

Per WP:BLPCRIME, we tend to keep that sort of thing off bios unless and until there is some greater impact that can be considered not undue in relation to the rest of the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There have been serious violations of WP:BLP policy in the article - I suggest that everyone involved reads it before editing further. Extra eyes would also be welcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks @FreeRangeFrog:,@AndyTheGrump:. Although I am not sure if blanking is okay as the subject has accepted the allegation and stepped aside from editorship of national magazine and reliable sources in the country have covered the fact. I was uncomfortable with excessive detailing and undue coverage to the incident. I think the mention of the controversy would be inevitable over a period of time, but it may need very tight wording which can only be written as more facts emerge. Thanks for helping out. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 20:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Waiting for facts is good. If this incident has long-term significance, it will probably merit inclusion in the article. It certainly doesn't need to be slapped into the middle of the lede, and then repeated in overwhelming detail in the article body... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

a) Enough facts have already emerged in credible sources in Indian Media(all are major national newspapers/news channels/news magazines):-

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/accused-of-sexual-assault-by-staffer-tehelka-founder-steps-down-for-6-months/1197545/ http://news.oneindia.in/new-delhi/tehelka-shock-tarun-tejpal-steps-down-on-charges-sexual-harassment-1345038.html

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/370141/tarun-tejpal-quits-tehelka.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Tehelkas-editor-Tarun-Tejpal-steps-aside-after-incident-with-woman-journalist/articleshow/26112145.cms?

http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/tarun-tejpal-steps-down-for-6-months-as-editor-of-tehelka-113112000997_1.html

http://blogs.outlookindia.com/default.aspx?ddm=10&pid=3084&eid=31

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/tarun-tejpal-steps-down-as-tehelka-s-editor-for-six-months-over-alleged-sexual-assault-448746?curl=1384978956

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/tejpal-steps-down-as-tehelka-editor-for-six-months/article1-1153778.aspx

http://www.livemint.com/Consumer/l7JU2uIFUeILFLuv2vgyeL/Tarun-Tejpal-steps-down-as-Tehelka-editor-for-6-months.html

http://www.indileak.com/tehelkas-editor-tarun-tejpal-quits-after-sexual-assault-charge/

http://www.exchange4media.com/53529_tarun-tejpal-steps-down-as-tehelka-editor-for-six-months.html

b) Man in question have accepted the charges and have apologized for same, he is also stepping down from his role in Tehelka

c) Considering that this is sexual assault there will be criminal proceeding against accused, it does have long-term significance.

Anmol.2k4 (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

@Anmol.2k4: I would once again request you to read WP:BLP completely on why such excessive detailing was unacceptable. I agree there has to be a mention of the controversy, but it has to be in line with rest of the article. (I will wait for @FreeRangeFrog:'s opinion as he has cited WP:BLPCRIME and is of opinion its not worthy to find a place in article at all.) When I said 'need more facts', I meant more consequences, details come out directly from involved parties. The above long list of reports are mostly based on one email which was wildly spreading over twitter. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 21:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Another father in prison

Last time I included the fact that a BLPs father had recently been in prison, I was told to remove it. Should it be in George Campbell (American football)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

What relevance does that information to the subject of the entry? Why would it belong there instead of, say, an article about the subject's father? Not strictly a BLP issue since the information doesn't bear directly on the subject, but WP:BLP does state "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". This information might fall into the sensationalist or titillating category. I'd exclude. --Rawlangs (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Claims of death

Sylvia Browne is said to have died today. Initially reported by tabloid TMZ, it has also now been reported by CNN based solely on the fact that her web page says she has died]. Given the ease of hacking websites, do we require better confirmation before the article says she is dead? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd post it. Celebrity deaths are often reported to the media via spokespeople and I don't see how this is different. If you're worried about reliability, don't overstate your source. --Rawlangs (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Now also reported by USA Today, FWIW. http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2013/11/21/renowned-psychic-sylvia-browne-dies-at-77/3662067/ --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954)

The article Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) says in the lead that he is the "claimant to the thrones of the former Kingdom of Hanover and the former Duchy of Brunswick. ". "Claimant" links to "pretender" and "pretender" may sound negative, but that is the word that is used, neutrally, to describe a person who would be the holder of a royal title if there still were one. A "pretender" often occupies that position merely by having been born as who they are, they do not have to take any active steps to "regain their throne" or even be aware that there ever was one. "Claimant" is not the word which is used, technically and neutrally, to describe such a person and makes it sound like he is such a dolt that he is claiming non-existent thrones. I think it could be seen as potentially libellous. I tried to change "claimant" to the neutral "pretender" but was reverted. Input appreciated.Smeat75 (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

See below. Again, the article title is wrong, he is not Prince Ernst etc, the article title should be his legal name. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

He indeed was a prince of the UK, so yes the title is correct. All Hanoverian "pretenders" are still descended from George I of the UK who was also elector of Hanover.Camelbinky (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and he's married to a princess, though I am unfamiliar with Monégasque royal customs on whether he can be called prince or not, that should be looked into instead of just basing all this on German laws.Camelbinky (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, be aware that his wife, the heir apparent to Monaco is styled correctly in her article at her article as the Princess of Hanover per[[54]]

His wife is "only" heir presumptive, but is getting closer and closer to becoming a monarch every day. Regardless, Prince Ernst August of Hanover is called Prince Ernst August of Hanover because he is known as such in English. He is not known as Ernst August Prinz von Hannover, or whatever his legal name is, much like Queen Latifah is not known as Dana Elaine Owens. Use common names. Surtsicna (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

ryan tedder

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

His wife's name is Genevieve not Ashley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.231.12 (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup. You seem to be right. [55] I've corrected the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Prussian royal family" box in various articles about living people, article titles

There is a discussion about this at WP:NPOVN#"Prussian royal family" box in various articles about living people. Looking at the discussion, there are apparently several issues. One is the use of the infobox "Prussian Royal Family". Another is the use of "HRH" and HI&RH" prefixes, and a third would be the use of royal titles in the titles of the articles. There is no longer a Prussian Royal Family or any nobiklity in German although it seems that "House of Hohenzollern" is what should be used. We have for instance Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia which suggests is he Prince of Prussia, whereas if you read the first sentence his legal name is "Georg Friedrich Ferdinand Prinz von Preußen" as he was able to make Prince of Prussia his last name. The comma there makes a large difference. I'm not copying over the material from there as I haven't asked the editors for their permission, but I think it is more of a BLP issue than an NPOV so far as it applies to living people. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I copied over the material that I put on the NPOV noticeboard below.Smeat75 (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no such place as Prussia any more and all royal titles in Germany were abolished in 1919. Nevertheless there are quite a few English WP articles with a box "Prussian royal family", see for instance Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, which lists living members of a non-existent royal family in a non-existent place. The box calls this person "HI&RH The Prince", that is an abbreviation for "His Imperial and Royal Highness" and that is false, he is not, all such titles have been abolished for nearly a hundred years. Some foolish people may still call him that, but that is a mere caprice with no more validity than if I were to call my cat that, and more to the point for WP, it is not sourced. This box links to a list of other "Royal Highnesses" who are no such thing, it is misleading and deceptive and none of it is sourced. If you look at the article on this man on the German WP [56], there is no such box of phoney Royal Highnesses, that is because in Germany they are very well aware that such things do not exist in their country any more. There are a lot of similar boxes with "Royal Highnesses" who are no any such thing any more from former German monarchies such as Bavaria, Hanover, so on and so on, but this one seems particularly silly as there is not even such a place as Prussia any more, never mind Kings and Queens and Princes of it.The German WP article on the person English WP calls Franz, Duke of Bavaria but they call Franz von Bayern [57] says with reference to his "royal title" ""Der Titel „Herzog von Bayern, Franken und in Schwaben, Pfalzgraf bei Rhein“[5] wird noch traditionell verwendet, entspricht jedoch nicht dem amtlichen Namen. Das dem Namen vorangestellte Prädikat „Königliche Hoheit (K.H.)“ bzw. „Seine Königliche Hoheit (S.K.H.)“ wird ebenfalls noch im gesellschaftlichen Umfeld verwendet, ist jedoch ebenso eine reine Höflichkeitsform ohne rechtliche Relevanz" which more or less means "people call him "Your Royal Highness" to his face sometimes just to be nice, but it doesn't mean anything" and that is the situation with all former German royal and noble titles, they were abolished, they do not exist, it is exactly the same as if I said "I think it would be nice if people called me 'Your Royal Highness Mickey the Mouse'"' and some people were silly enough to do that, WP should not be misleading readers into thinking that these abolished royal titles have any validity at all, they do not.In Germany when the royal titles were abolished, they were and are still are allowed to legally change their names to "Joe Princeofsomewherethatdoesn'tevenexistanymore". So "Prince of Prussia" is actually his legal last name, but it does not carry a prefix such as "HI&RH" or "HRH", those were abolished, and there is no such thing as a "Prussian royal family" today.Smeat75 (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

See German nobility. This isn't an uncommon problem. I've just removed titles, etc from David Bagration of Mukhrani (where the lead and infobox made it clear he was a pretender). There's been no Georgian monarchy since 1800. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dougweller there are going to be lots and lots of articles with these phoney royal titles to alter, thousands probably. For example here is a section of the German WP article on a member of a German family that had titles before 1919 -[58], it just calls the children of the subject of the article by their plain names. The article in the English WP on the same person [59] calls his children (and some of his grandchildren)"Prince" or "Princess" and gives them prefixes of "HH" or "HSH" which is His/Her Highness or His/Her Serene Highness, I think all such articles should have these non-existent "styles and titles" for members of abolished royal dynasties removed, the English WP should be like the German one in this matter. Do you agree? ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

With no particular opinion on German nobility or royalty, I do want to make sure you are all aware that due to the once personal union between the Kingdom of Hanover and the UK that the current "pretenders to the throne" are still, by British law, eligible to be titled prince and/or other noble titles; and as pretenders to a throne we can not violate NPOV by declaring "this person is NOT a prince though they claim it", unless we attribute that statement to a source as the source's words, not ours. See- Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) as a good example of how to correctly portray German royalty in the instance of Hanover. Hanover is a special case though and may not work with the circumstances of Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Hesse, etc. I just don't want a witch hunt started in Germany (I'm Jewish I know how those work out) that then Hanover gets caught up in and things are messed. But of course I now see it has drawn attention to this anti-German-nobility witch hunt and fear that the article will soon not be a good example.Camelbinky (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't want a witchhunt started but you are accusing me of starting one? And just how isn't that a personal attack? And a link to the British law would be helpful. If that's right, it's an exception, not a precedent. Dougweller (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Dr Maryanne Demasi

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

Dr Maryanne Demasi has had her page edited more than once to remove positive and balanced comments, leaving only defamatory remarks. I am trying to keep an even handed approach in the article, though it is continuously edited to represent Dr Demasi in a negative light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulumartin1981 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Lulumartin1981 I cannot see any defamatory remarks in the IP's version and it seems to me you are under-emphasizing how strongly Demasi was criticized for her program. Also, you have not replied to the IP on the article's talk page. There may be a case for undue weight but being accused of journalistic misconduct should appear in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

IP version looks basically fine to me too. I would suggest attemtping constructive discussions on the talk page (the IP account has started a section, albeit with an unfortunate title) before bringing things here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

IP version is fine. I also note that the reporting editor has only made edits to the reported page. Given the above comments about "defamatory remarks", there's very probably a WP:COISELF issue here. --Rawlangs (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Stephanie Sheh

• Stephanie Sheh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just looking at this makes my teeth hurt. If anyone has the inclination to cut, here's a lengthy bio with endless voice-over credits, and no sources. JNW (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

An IP has made over 1300 edits to the page over the last two years. Possible violation of WP:COS. Consider opening a parallel discussion at WP:COIN. --Rawlangs (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do. Scissors are needed here. This article is completely unsourced!Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't need scissors, it needs industrial shears. I've started taking out the worst of the fancruft and CV info, and will get to endless lists of companies and also the opinion pieces. --Dmol (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Just finished a major gutting.--Dmol (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh my. Here's another one suffering from the same issues. Kari WahlgrenTwo kinds of pork (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for a look see from the folks at the Film Project. I'll put the scissors back in my pocket for now.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Kudos to you both. Great work, JNW (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

John J. Donovan

On the John J. Donovan page, there is a paragraph that details allegations that Donovan sexually abused one of his daughters. While it is true that his daughter alleged that Donovan molested her, no charges were ever filed in the case. The Wall Street Journal, among other outlets have also cast doubt on the allegations. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB114566432213333081

The inclusion of the daughter’s allegations looks to be a clear violation of wp:BLPCRIME, especially since no legal action was taken in regards to the case. Jppcap (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this as a clear violation. WP:BLPCRIME has two core guidelines. First, accused are innocent until proven guilty. Second, "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured". The first guideline is met since the entry's wording is careful to point out that Donovan has not been found guilty, and that the events are purported, not proved. The entry also suggests motives for falsely accusing Donovan. I think the second guideline is also currently met. Donovan is known for reasons other than this allegation. In fact, he's notable for a different crime entirely (elaborately framing his son for attempted murder). I don't consider him to be "relatively unknown" given that major publications have written about him. I'd leave the article be. --Rawlangs (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Bańska Niżna article

Got a WP:BLP matter at this article, if the person exists. See Mehow27 (talk · contribs). It's very likely that Mehow27 is referring to himself; in addition to insisting that this material be in that article, also notice how the username is a play on the man's name. Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Non-constructive edits to a non-biographical article. Consider reporting the user to WP:AIV to have him blocked. --Rawlangs (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Josip Šimunić

I added a paragraph regarding Šimunić's actions after the Croatia-Iceland world cup qualifier game as I believed his behaviour was worthy of being included in the article. I note that 93.138.50.215 has removed this paragraph three times and has not at any time cited the reason for doing so. While the paragraph was about his actions with a controversial topic "Croatian Ultra-Nationalism", the paragraph included Šimunić's own reported justification of his actions in a reputable source and therefore is as objective as is possible in these circumstances. I did not believe the langauge I used was emotive or inflammatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.164.238 (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you're in the right here and have replaced the content. I know you are an anonymous editor, but if this continues you should request page protection. If you do that, neither you nor the other IP editor will be able to change content until the block expires. --Rawlangs (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP continued to revert the edits. I requested page protection and it was granted. If there are edits you would like to add, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page and I would be happy to make them for you. You could also register an account and do some simple edits on other pages to have it auto-confirmed. --Rawlangs (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Bernard Parmegiani

Somebody has added a death date for Bernard Parmegiani but there's no source given and I can't find any news reports to confirm this. Shouldn't Wikipedia wait until there's a report to refer to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.231.18 (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Google just indexed a report of his death here. I updated the page with the citation, and did some other minor stuff. --Rawlangs (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.231.18 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Shais Taub

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

A particular user is repeatedly editing this article with malicious intent (please see history)

1. The university where Shais Taub's parents received their psychology degrees is irrelevant to Shais Taub's credibility, and the insinuation implied is libelous to both him and his parents. 2. Inserting Shais Taub's original birth name is an intrusion of privacy. Shais Taub's public career only materialized after his legal name change and that is the only name he uses. (As per Wikipedia's guidelines for BLP, information solely from public records should not be used within articles).

These issues have turned into an edit war. Please intervene. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.181.57 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Material removed and article protected. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, FreeRangeFrog, for protecting the page. I'm curious, though, why you left in the birth name - where the only source is public records. Isn't this a privacy issue? Interestingly, the source link (Public Information, Maplewood NJ) for this information addresses it as "Also Known As" - but all current usages are Shais Taub. Additionally, the phrase "Also Known As" actually isn't a proof for his birth name! Thanks again - I'm a novice here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.181.57 (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Frederick M. Dolan

• Frederick M. Dolan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP inserted defamatory information that has now been revdel'ed. A few more eyes would be good in case they return. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

david ortiz

David Ortiz Reference number 18 on this page does not lead to a link and is possibly vandalism

 Done Simple vandalism. I fixed it.--Auric talk 01:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Reich (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

|I redacted part of a comment by User:Joefromrandb on this AfD as a BLP violation.[60] The comment used very strong (negative) language towards a living person and, worse, contained a thinly-veiled implication of extremely grave criminal conduct or purposes. I left a note on his talk page explaining my action.[61] He has since repeatedly edit-warred to reinstate the redacted material, despite me repeatedly pointing out that material deleted on BLP reasons should not be restored without consensus (per BLP#Restoring deleted content) and offering to discuss the matter.

I am therefore bringing the matter here for discussion. Comments regarding whether the statement is a BLP violation would be appreciated, as would the edit-warring being dealt with if it continues while the matter is under discussion. Thanks, Neljack (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess Neljack has given up harassing Wehwalt and moved on to me. I took great pains to ensure that my post was BLP-compliant. Neljack is operating on some kind of bizarre assumption that removing edits he doesn't like bears the finality of a WMF office-action. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to harass anyone. I am just trying to ensure that the BLP policy is complied with. I certainly do not suggest that my actions are final - that is why I have brought the matter here for discussion. All I have said is that policy requires that the disputed material stay out while discussion is occurring, since it can only be restored by consensus when it has been removed on BLP grounds. See this from BLP: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first..."[62] I hope we can have a constructive and civil discussion about the material in issue. Neljack (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are, and yes, you have. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Please calm down. I don't know how else "this so-called "gender change" was done for one of the most disgusting reasons humanly imaginable" can be read as anything else as but a BLP violation. But Joe, since you've said you crafted this statement carefully to avoid BLP, can you please explain that rationale now?Two kinds of pork (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake. You just repeated the sentence word-for-word, yet I don't see Neljack trolling your comments. The alternative is for me to actually spell out why Karr has done this. As Someguy says below, I have instead urged editors to read the article and follow the links. Anyone who does that, and still wishes to defend Karr is obviously WP:NOTHERE. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

If you read the article, and you read the alleged reason that Alexis Reich had a change of gender identity, you will understand what would lead someone to believe what Joe does. But however repulsive someone finds a living person's alleged motives, those feelings have no place in pretty much any discussion on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite aware. However I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he could somehow convince others that it's not a BLP violation, because he says he crafted that statement carefully to avoid BLP. I don't see any other way to look at it, but I'm willing to listen. But he's not speaking up.Two kinds of pork (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained it again and again. Having been shown the door at the Natalee Holloway FAR he was disrupting, Neljack has obviously moved on to continue harassing others elsewhere. He is under some bizarre belief that he maintains right-of-first-refusal to all edits to the Karr AfD. He also has the bizarre belief that if he doesn't like something, he can simply call it "a BLP violation", and that his opinion alone stands as "unrevertable". Bzzzt. Error. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP removed, Joe blocked, so I guess this is done.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Todd Matthew Burns

Todd Matthew Burns currently redirects to the Todd Burns article. It has been nominated for deletion because the nominator could not find evidence that the subject's middle name is "Matthew". The sole contributor to the discussion has found indirect evidence supporting the middle name and has recommended keeping the redirect. I have relisted the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 23#Todd Matthew Burns where your comments would be appreciated. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Shaheer_Sheikh

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

in Shaheer_Sheikh wikipedia his given twitter id is real ? https://twitter.com/Shaheer_S is this id real? please tell me . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karshia (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia editors who respond to violations of Biography of Living Persons policy reported on this page have no reason to know whether the Twitter account mentioned is official or not. The link ostensibly to the subject's Twitter account is not a violation of policy.

 Done Dwpaul ^Talk 19:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That is a horrible answer. It is very much a BLP concern to be sure that links to personal websites or twitter accounts are verified. I have no idea in this case, but your answer is simply incorrect. --Onorem (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

How exactly would you propose that all links from Wikipedia articles to Twitter accounts be verified as authentic? Dwpaul ^Talk 19:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

And note please that I did not say a link that falsely claimed to be authentic would not be a BLP violation (nor did the editor who made the inquiry suggest that this was the case); I said a) we have no reason to know if the link here is authentic and b) the simple placement of a link to a Twitter account isn't a BLP violation. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to verify each link. I do know that it is a BLP concern. Your previous edit summary indicated it was not. --Onorem (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

When you come up with a way, please get back to me. In the meantime, unless someone provides information that a linked Twitter account is bogus, the existence of that link cannot be considered a BLP issue, even if (as is typical) someone other than the subject placed it in the article. Nothing more sinister seemed to be at work in this case. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Temporary removal of BLP violating material

Wikipedia:BLP#Balance reads ... Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content....The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

I have at Talk:Thomas_DiLorenzo#List_of_BLP_problems_in_article listed more than a dozen problems with lack of balance, WP:OR, very nasty advocacy group sourcing alleging incidents with no evidence and which the subject denies, lack of adequate replies by him from WP:RS news source, and a great deal of guilt by association.

However, at this diff one editor not only refuses to discuss even one of these more than a dozen issues, he calls my attempts to make the article comply with BLP "White wash" and demands I come up with the alternative before the questionable material is removed. Editors Users:SPECIFICO, Steeletrap and MilesMoney have reverted attempts to deal with the issues in editing existing material.

So I now believe that all the relevant material should be removed until I or other editors can properly source it and write it in the next couple days. It would be helpful if an uninvolved editor could do so.

Note that this article is under Austrian economics community sanctions and the two editors given notice which have been logged in regarding this BLP matter, per Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Carol on the BLP policy. This was last confirmed by ArbCom in the Mannning naming case: "The policy on biographies of living persons requires that non-compliant material be removed if the non-compliance cannot readily be rectified. [...] Once material about a living person has been removed on the basis of a good-faith assertion that such material is non-compliant, the policy requires that consensus be obtained prior to restoring the material. On the other side, the material can be reinserted when there is a consensus to do so, even if one or more editors oppose the material. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The situation here is that the article fully complies with BLP and Carol's objections are specious. She has no consensus for removal and no grounding in policy. Unfortunately, you made the mistake of believing her summary without seeing for yourself, so you were led astray. MilesMoney (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)