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.

Ken Ham

• Ken Ham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP is turning into a biased attack piece, spearheaded by an editor who insists that when editing a biography of a deeply religious person, it's okay to take the position that "Scientists do have facts, what religious people have is faith" and describe the subject's beliefs as "this particular religious nonsense" [1] Assistance is requested. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This same editor also asserts that the article subject "believes his fiction is reality" [2]. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

So I'm "spearheading" a coordinated attack on Ken Ham? I feel so important now :P

I welcome any editor to stop by the talk page and revise the article, I'm not the only editor making edits and discussing them in the TP by a long shot. And I stand by my comments: scientists have facts, religious people have faith and claiming the Earth is 6000 years old is nonsense to the full extent of the word. That's pretty much common sense I'd say. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 00:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Editors who are absolutely sure the person is a "loon" should step back for a minute or two and recognize that we can only use the opinions directly expressed in reliable sources, and cited as opinions. The problem is that some editors are absolutely sure that Ham has a hole in his head and therefore Wikipedia must state he has a hole in his head. The real issue is that Ham believes in the "literal inerrancy of the Bible" and we are seeing the classic intersection of science and religion once again on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"we can only use the opinions directly expressed in reliable sources", agree 100% "and cited as opinions" disagree to some extent. WP:ASSERT is clear on stating undisputed facts as such and WP:UNDUE prevents us from putting WP:FRINGE nonsense on the same level as hard facts as if they were two sides of the same coin. Whether an editor believes Ham is a loon or not is immaterial if said editor does not let it affect its editing. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

But that's exactly the problem, isn't it? The belief that science is fact and religion is fiction is a POV, not The Truth. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, only as science are Ham's beliefs fringe. As religion, they're shared by rather large number of Christians. WP:SPOV was rejected for a reason. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And this an encyclopedia, not a religious pamphlet so science facts are facts and religious claims are, at best, unprovable & unfalsifiable claims. In this particular case Ham's religious claims are also WP:FRINGE utter nonsense. I'm sorry but this isn't Conservapedia and we do not give equal weight to what religion might say about scientific facts about the real world we live in. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ASSERT is not a policy, folks. And it clearly states that opinions must be stated as opinions. When people say they wish to state something as a fact because of WP:ASSERT it means they did not read it much at all. (when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution. ) Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It also clearly states that "When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ..." which this case fits precisely. There is absolutely no serious dispute (keyword: serious) about the age of the Earth.

The status of WP:ASSERT might not be a policy but it is directly related to a very important one: WP:NPOV. We could discuss its importance as a stand-alone section, but that's a whole different issue. If you think we should go around WP attributing all known and undisputed facts to the "scientific community" then this would look like a terribly different encyclopedia. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Such attribution would be superfluous in a purely scientific context, where only the scientific POV is relevant. When we're dealing with the nexus of science and religion, as in this article, attribution becomes necessary to avoid taking sides by implying that science = truth and religion = fantasy, as indeed you are claiming. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• This page is to discuss BLP problems, not claims about other editors. Please provide a brief outline of what text in the article is a BLP problem, or what text should be added to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  The lead gives undue weight to Bill Nye's comments and does not attribute the mainstream scientific view of Ham's beliefs as the mainstream scientific view, but simply asserts that they are unqualifiedly inconsistent with the available evidence. The lead also uses "former high school science teacher" as a derogatory epithet. The reception section is comprised entirely of negative material. And that's just for starters. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  Re "attribute the mainstream scientific view": what edit is proposed? Surely you do not think an article needs to say "according to X the universe is older than 6000 years"? It would be silly to require attribution for such the sky is blue statements. Science makes planes fly and provides the infrastructure used by Wikipedia—it's a different kind of "belief" than when someone declares the world is 6000 years old. Problems on articles like this often come from each side trying to push the article too far. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  The proposed attribution is [3], for reasons explained above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  Of course, if you take only the most positive aspects of science and the most negative aspects of religion into account, something along the lines of "science makes planes fly and religion makes planes fly into buildings", the result will be very skewed. Is that in fact Wikipedia's house POV? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  That diff shows the insertion of "The mainstream scientific view of" which carries the suggestion that there is some doubt concerning whether there is any physical evidence to support biblical literalism, presumably on the basis that one person's opinion is as good as another's. There is no BLP problem shown in that diff, and there is no need to suggest that there is something called a "mainstream scientific view". Sometimes there is scientific disagreement about details, and it may occasionally be appropriate to refer to a mainstream view, but there is absolutely no difference of opinion regarding the text shown in that diff—it's just FRINGE vs. reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  I agree. DavidLeighEllis claims are just bizarre (being called a "former high school science teacher" is derogatory...since when? Should I be ashamed of having taught science in my life now?). I would understand moving Bill Nye quote from the lead to somewhere else in the article, but apart from that, facts are facts, and any dilution of the utter clash between Ham's views and reality would be pushing pro-creationist fringe POV. --cyclopia^speak! 11:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. We don't need to "attribute" that fact to the "scientific community". It would sound ridiculous to say that the Earth is round, or that it revolves around the sun, "according to the scientific community". It sounds just as ridiculous here. These are widely accepted objective realities, and as a reality-based encyclopedia we convey them as such. Where a specific individual (for instance, Ham) holds beliefs which conflict with objective reality, then we can respectfully describe those beliefs without calling him names. But we cannot pretend or imply that there is any serious dispute about the objective reality of the Earth's age. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV we acknowledge any prominent controversies in the lead. Ham's notability lies entirely in his controversial advocacy of pushing utter fringe non-science into the classrooms, and particularly science classrooms, on an equivalent basis as science. Nye's comments are fully representative of the mainstream academic views of the controversies surrounding Ham and Ham's advocacy of promoting non-science nonsense as science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Having just skimmed the BLP policy, I don't really see a violation of that policy here. Describing him a former high-school science teacher doesn't seem derogatory at all, and is relevent. If I understand the BLP policy correctly, the main thrust to eliminate risk of defamation. What is potentially defamatory in the article? Howunusual (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

note: as of this point, the following is in the lead of the BLP:

His claim that the universe is 6,000 years old, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is contradicted by evidence from astronomy and from the Earth's fossil and geological records.[3][4][n 2] According to an article in the Courier-Journal, Ham's rejection of established science during the debate with Bill Nye was a "harm [to] the education of children and hamper[ing] the nation's ability to innovate."[6]

so the issues are: Is this a fair summary of the article? and Is this material neutrally worded per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.

One earlier version read as:

His claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is considered incorrect by the scientific community as it is contradicted by all physical evidence found in the Earth's fossil, biological and geological records

And earlier yet was:

His claims about the young age of the earth have been condemned by virtually all members of the scientific community.[4][5][6][7]

So one may note the evolution of the last part of the lead. Collect (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer something simple and factual, like: "Ham argues, based on his belief in the literal truth of the Bible, that the Earth is 6,000 years old rather than its actual age of approximately 4.5 billion years." Is that a problem? MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If that is all that is in the lead, then yes it is problematical in that it fails to identify why Ham is notable - that he is promoting non science as science and has been at the center of much controversy for doing so. per WP:LEAD / WP:NPOV / WP:BLP.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Editors may find that Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat#1. Personalisation is of some relevance to this case. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the current language does not adequately reinforce the magnitude of evidence against Young Earth Creationism. What about an alteration of the version above:

"His claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is contradicted by the scientific community's overwhelming consensus on evidence from astronomy and from the Earth's fossil and geological records."

This references the controversial nature of his notability, rather than presenting his beliefs as possessing an (even remotely) equal footing with science, or even average Christian beliefs. Finally, coming from an educational background, there is absolutely nothing defamatory about referring to him as a high school teacher. Granted, if he also happened to have worked at CERN then that should take precedence, but in the meantime... The Cap'n (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Deny science

• List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is a list of scientists who have expressed some differences of opinions with the mainstream understanding of global warming. For example, one of the scientists on the list is Judith Curry, widely recognized as one of the leading experts in the field, and currently the "chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology". In this edit User:Ronz states:

Let's be clear, these scientists are like creationists in that they deny science.

While there may be a creationist in the list, the remark is not limited in any way, and cast aspersions on all entries on that list. IMO, to claim that a scientist denies science is not acceptable (save very solid evidence, which is not supplied). I hoped this was just a rhetorical excess, and the editor would remove if asked. I asked (with the intention of removing my own quote) if the editor would revert, but the editor declined to remove the remark and claims it is supported. These are all scientists, who have expressed reservations about some aspects of a UN document. To characterize those reservations as "deny[ing] science" is over the top.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a problem, specifically as the editor is trying to insert other creationism items into this list in order to share his (perceived) link between these scientists and creationists. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems that some editors are incapable of reading comments, sources, and related articles. Where shall we start? The main discussion is here. Note that both editors above have claimed that I am saying the entries in the list are of "denialists". In both cases I pointed out that this is (at best) changing the topic of the discussion. I've tried to make it very clear, making initial attempts to provide sources and links to related Wikipedia articles, that clearly show that the entries are scientists who are part of the climate change denial efforts: "Specifically, the denialists find (often paying) people who can be passed off as "experts" to be used to create a sense that there is scientific doubt." So to be even clearer, I'm not saying that each person in the list is a denier, only that each person is important and listed because they are part of the denial efforts in that they are held up as "experts" when they are not. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

So, let's actually focus on improving the article. The content in dispute is the addition to "See also" of a link to Project Steve. The BLP concerns are that: --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Adding the link implies that the people listed are creationists. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Adding the link is insulting to the people listed. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
3. The article is not actually related to science denialism and climate change denialism in any way, much less evolution denialism. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Ronz I agree that the above diff is problematic in relation to Wikipedia's strict policy on BLPs and has a general disrespectful tone that is not appropriate for talk pages involving BLPs. The same disrespectful tone is seen in their next edit about the listed scientists being paid by "denialists" and then passed off as experts. It's important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the right place to sound off how stupid you think some people are or similar. The more controversial the topic is, the more weight should be placed on keeping the discussion formal and correct; avoiding loaded language, insinuations etc. Unfortunately, I have seen also before that there is a problem with this at that particular talk page, as well as with multiple others. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at the sources and related articles, or are you saying it doesn't matter? --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, if it is "tone", do instruct me on how to change the tone while keeping the information and context. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I thank Ronz for posting here, and making clear the lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Many of the editors not familiar with the climate debate may be reading but are not familiar with some of the terminology. Roughly speaking, "skeptics" are those who disagree with some aspects of the mainstream scientific consensus as embodied in the IPCC reports. A small subset of skeptics are those who could be called deniers. They actively and vehemently deny almost all aspect of the climate change issue, sometimes even claiming that CO₂ is not a greenhouse gas. We have an article about climate change denial. The article in question List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is not about the denialists.

There is a tiny bit of overlap, but the climate change denial article talks about the entire effort to deny the scientific consensus, but is not limited to scientists. In fact, most of the major players in the denialist group are not scientists. In contrast, by definition, all the members of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming are scientists and most would not consider themselves denialist. Most accept that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, most accept that the earth has generally been warming over the last century, most accept that human action contributes meaningfully. However, they are not all on board with all of the conclusion in the IPCC reports.

As the talk page will demonstrate, Ronz has been told this many times. Yet Ronz persists in acting as if List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is about denialism.

Most of the members of the list are scientists who spend much of their lives doing science, and applying for grants to do more science. To have them labeled "like creationists in that they deny science" is quite unacceptable, and should be removed. I asked Ronz to remove it voluntarily. I now ask for a consensus that this BLP violation can be removed (I do understand I could remove it, and then debate it, but I'd like to see some others weigh in first).--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Wikipedia is here to provide information, not to make judgments about people or to make such implications about people. Collect (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello? Sources? Related articles? Or just "tone"? --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Ronz. I am not quite sure by which articles and sources you are referring to when you ask if I have looked at them. What I have looked at is for instance this article in a Norwegian newspaper written by holders of the mainstream view who discusses who the climate sceptics are and why they are sceptic. Money is not mentioned at all; nor that there are any "denialists" who lure them into becoming sceptics and then put them forward as experts. What is listed as reasons for scepticism among scientits is age and paradigm shift. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

So you haven't looked at the sources offered, and this isn't about "tone"? As I pointed out, I only offered some initial sources (19:59, 16 April 2014), which have been ignored so far. They are: "The Denial Machine", "The Scientist Deniers", and "The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society" and are currently in the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest reading the entire chapter to better get a sense of the context, but here's the beginning and end of Dunlap, Riley E.; McCright, Aaron M. (2011), "Ch. 10: Organized Climate Change Denial: 2.4 Contrarian Scientists", in Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosber, David (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Oxford University Press, p. 151, ISBN 978-0-19-956660-0 {{citation}}: |editor1-first= missing |editor1-last= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help): --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"From the earliest stages of climate change denial the fossil fuels industry and conservative think tanks, and their fronts groups like GCC, recognized the importance of employing credentialed scientists to manufacture uncertainty concerning climate change (building on the tobacco industry’s success with this strategy—Oreskes and Conway 2010), and they readily found scientists who were eager to assist (Gelbspan 1997; McCright 2007). Some had expertise relevant to climate science (e.g. Patrick Michaels and Fred Singer), but many did not.

...Indeed, Monbiot’s (2007) characterization of the ‘denial industry’ reflects the fact that climate change denial now offers the possibility of a rewarding ‘career’ for contrarian scientists and others eager to work with CTTs, front groups, and conservative media."

I read the chapter. I found zero support for the notion that the list of scientists in the article were like creationists or that they deny science. Do you have other sources making the claim?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad we're finally focusing on the initial sources that I provided.

I am focusing on "deny science" which you have identified as the topic of this discussion. For sources relating evolution denial to climate change denial, I think we should wait, but if you like, start at NCSE's website, the creator's of Project Steve.

The source puts these scientists in the context of climate change denial, correct?

The source states the scientists are being used to manufacture uncertainty concerning climate change, correct? --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it is appropriate to start with the National Center for Science Education website

1. It is a primary source, which can be used with caution as a reference for the NCSE article.
2. It is an organization primarily in the business of education re creationism (have you read our article, it is almost solely about creationism?) and only recently has it undertaken to do some work on the climate field, a subject matter which is barely recognized in the article.
3. It isn't a reference to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which is the article in question.

Do you have sources used in the article supporting your claim?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

So you are withdrawing your concerns about "deny science" and moving on to "these scientists are like creationists"? If so, I'm happy to offer sources rather than confusing people with suggesting they look for them starting with NCSE's website. --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I withdrew nothing. Please try posting responsibly. The claim you made is quoted in the fourth line of this section. It is a BLP violation, unless you can provide acceptable sources to support it. You have not. I'm tried of the obfuscation. Not a single contributor has supported your position. I've removing it, and you can see if you can get a consensus to restore it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Then lets focus on "deny science". --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"The source puts these scientists in the context of climate change denial, correct?"

"The source states the scientists are being used to manufacture uncertainty concerning climate change, correct?" --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You are making the claim. You cite the source and show it supports your claim. Please. If you can.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Since the other editors involved in this dispute don't appear interested in examining the sources, or at least responding to questions about them, let's just forget context for a moment.

• These scientists object to the scientific consensus because they are on the list. Correct?
• Objecting to scientific consensus means they deny the science. Correct? (Strikeout: Because we are specifically ignoring the context of their objections, we simply don't know. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC))
• Other well known groups that deny science are creationists and the tobacco industry. Correct?
• These scientists are like the scientists that the creationists and tobacco industry have listed in their various lists. Correct? --Ronz (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please wp:FOC and avoid characterizing the motives of other editors. Thank-you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your first statement is an overly simplistic summary. These people are on the list because they challenge some aspects of the consensus. It is at least misleading to baldly state they object to the scientific [consensus]. However, the real key is the second statement. One can object to some aspect of a scientific consensus without denying science. This isn't a small or technical point, it is quite common. For example Judith Curry largely buys into the mean projections of temperature, but believes the confidence expressed in the estimates is too high. This is a subject in my wheelhouse, but it is fairly obvious to anyone with scientific training. It is reasonably straightforward to calculate confidence intervals around artificial experiments, such as coin tossing or dice outcomes. It is significantly more complicated to do the same exercise with even simple models of reality, and climate models are far removed from simple models. Subjective assumptions must be made and reasonable experts can reach different conclusions about how to make such assumptions. That is an issue with a single climate model, but there are dozens, and the results need to be combined. That process isn't mathematically rigorous, and well-meaning scientists sit together and reach some conclusions. Not a single person would come up with exactly the same results if they calculated on their own, but presumably, they reach a conclusion that all in the room can accept. However, scientist not in the room may reach a different conclusion, and it might be sufficiently different that they are not willing to state that they share all aspects of the consensus. This is the way science works. They aren't denying science. (Creationism is denying science, but that's a different kettle of fish.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stop wasting our time here. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

One note about the assertion "Objecting to scientific consensus means they deny the science" - this is completely false as a general assertion. Objecting to scientific consensus is an important part of science, if made through reasoned arguments subject to peer review. So holding a contrarian posture does not necessarily make these scientists denialists. Diego (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Please someone kick me the next time I try to summarize something specifically out of context.

If a person places their name on a petition like the ones identified, they're either a denier or ignorant of what they're doing. As the article in question removes the people from the context of their statements, we simply don't know which applies. However, this is at best unrelated to any content changes being discussed, nor are the discussions on the article talk page violations violations of BLP. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the compromise of "like creationists, they reject overwhelming scientific consensus." That establishes that they are considered inherently disreputable as scientific sources while not entering the quagmire of whether scientists can dispute scientific consensus and retain the title (they can, IMHO; though most of the lists of denying scientists make me doubt their qualifications/ethics, that's OR). The Cap'n (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, though this isn't related to any content being considered for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

A procedural question

Ronz states content in dispute is the addition to "See also" of a link to Project Steve. . That is the subject of the talk page discussion but not the subject here. The attempt by Ronz to insert that link has been reverted, on BLP and other grounds. This discussion is about the BLP violation on the talk page added by Ronz (and quoted above). It just occurred to me that it might be a more efficient process to remove it as a BLP violation, and then discuss it here only if Ronz retries to revert it back in. I apologize for asking; even though I've been around for years, I think this is my first BLP issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"See Also" is for links to material directly on point to the topic. "Project Steve" is not relevant in that manner. And all talk pages must also conform to WP:BLP which means if something is a BLP violation in an article, it is also one on a talk page. Collect (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

We'll need more than a simple assertion to determine consensus. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is about adding the link to See also, but we might just want to focus on what is and are not BLP violations on the talk page first. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. If you would like to start a separate section about that issue feel free. This discussion is about your claim that the scientists in the list are denying science.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

As I suggested, we agree to focus on what are and are not BLP violations on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You have not addressed the BLP concerns here. Adding refs (apparently blogs and opinion pieces)to support your supposition (that scientists who disagree with the IPCC are like creationists) at the talk page doesn't address the BLP issue raised by multiple editors above. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

BLPTALK

BLPTALK says, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate."

The comment in dispute is on the talk page, in a discussion about content choices, as part of the explanation for including content to the article. Correct? --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:BLP is that most of the rules, and especially those relating to mentioning contentious materials, apply only to the article itself. It's unfeasible to restrict what content can be discussed on the talk page in such a broad way. The talk page is where controversial comments and perspectives belong, so they can be discussed and vetted. If things veer into personal attacks or WP:UNCIVIL that's another matter, but I've seen far, far worse than an unflattering simile on WP talk pages without it becoming a BLP issue. The comment in question would be hard to justify in the article itself without a direct, significant source, but seems perfectly at home in discussion on the talk page. The Cap'n (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Russell Targ

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

I am the subject of a Wikipedia biography. I am an 80 year old retired physicist. I have two issues: 1. From 1956 to 1972 I was involved in the development of the first lasers, working closely with laser patent holder Gordon Gould at TRG Inc. From 1985 to 1997 I worked at Lockheed and NASA on high-power lasers, laser communication and airborne wind-shear detection with lasers (LIDAR). Three review articles in Applied Optics. My numerous publications are continually expunged from my Wiki page. Why is this? My life's work is 25 years with lasers and 10 years with parapsychology. I am well known in the laser field. Why is all reference to my laser work erased. 2. In 1972 I was co-founder of an applied ESP program with Harold Puthoff at Stanford Research Institute. We were supported by the CIA to find American hostages, downed Russian airplanes, report of Chinese A-bomb tests. We found the kidnap car from the Patricia Hearst kidnapping, etc. Why am I not allowed to say that we had a "23 year, $20 million" program? That is well known to be true. Our remote viewing is widely replicated internationally. It is also criticized. But the CIA and NASA considered the criticisms bogus. I am willing for Wiki to feature the criticisms. But I feel it is unfair to erase my responses. We also made $120,000 forecasting changes in the silver commodity market in 1982. Widely published, Wall Street Journal, etc. Ex-CIA director Robert Gates said on television that we didn't provide any useful information to the CIA during our 25 year tenure. That's a lie. Why would they continue to give us $1 million a year for 23 years, if we didn't give them anything useful. Signed: Russell Targ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torgownik (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Targ (if you are really him) you have a history of deleting criticism from your article. You also have a history of edit warring and inserting original research (and personal commentary) into your article. You need to read up on Wikipedia policies. You say you are "well known in the laser field" but no reliable secondary sources indicate this (you have cited none). You claim your remote viewing was widely replicated but you give no references for this claim either. You need to cite reliable secondary sources if you are going to add material on Wikipedia. Adding in your your own papers is not recommended because they have not been mentioned in reliable secondary sources (if they have then feel free to cite references) but other users such as myself have looked and there are not any, that is why the primary papers that you published were deleted. The references that are on the article seem to indicate you are well known for your paranormal claims, not scientific work. Goblin Face (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Where has he had more impact?

I've reformatted things, a little. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bit as well Cwobeel (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I can imagine that would be frustrating as all get-out, Torgownik, but we do need sources to back up any statement on WP. That being said, individual editors add in the sources (and thus the statements) that they are familiar with, so skewed perspectives can inadvertently develop that leave out big parts of a given topic. If you have sources (preferably secondary) that mention your work with lasers and ESP successes, please let us know. If you're not familiar with the referencing process, let me know and I'd be happy to help get your page into shape as an accurate, neutral depiction of your life. The Cap'n (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

How much space should be discussing his climate change views? See Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Undue_weight. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Where his views take up two sentences, and the criticisms take up seven paragraphs, there is an eensy chance that UNDUE is being hit - especially since his views as stated do not appear to be sledgehammer-worthy. Collect (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As of right now, Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Climate_change is down to a respectable, undue, size. I suggest semi-protection for a week or so. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC) The indef protection seems to be overkill. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Ta-Nehisi Coates

Ta-Nehisi Coates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article was the subject of edit-warring by a single-purpose account and an RFC which clearly showed consensus to omit all mention of a childhood arrest. The same editor has returned after a block and implemented a version of the article which mentions the arrest, in contravention of this consensus. I have requested that the editor open a new RFC in order to determine whether or not consensus has changed before implementation, and this editor has instead engaged in revert-warring contentious negative material into the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The editor reporting this has made a consistent habit of deriding me and my contributions to Wikipedia ([4]) and mischaracterizing the debate. See my Talk page where I address the SPA issue, which the editor never mentioned. I am trying to edit this article and started an RfC which was immediately deleted by an involved, opposing user, who then reported me on the Vandalism page ([5]) for this edit ([6]) to my own Talk page. As a result, I was banned and the RfC was speedily closed by the same user. I then worked out a compromise with an admin and offered it on the discussion page, where it attracted 4 user comments. Based on that, I made the edit. Now the above editor who was the dissenter from the discussion has again resorted to reporting me, ironically only now saying he thought the edit was mostly ok. It's hardly fair to ignore discussion then run to the noticeboard if you can't handle a debate. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You clearly pass the duck test as an SPA. Don't like it, then maybe you should drop your single-minded fixation on inserting negative material into Ta-Nehisi Coates' biography - 95% of all your edits on the encyclopedia are related to the page. Your bias in this matter was declared way back in February, when you stated your intent to smear Coates as a "criminal." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Again you ignore my Talk page which addresses all this. I just don't edit Wikipedia very often. And I think this is a worthy edit being dismissed by editors acting in bad faith such as yourself. I provided diffs above to give examples. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

On your talk page, you deny being an SPA but your current edit history shows that you have been totally obsessed with painting Ta-Nehisi Coates negatively ever since your very first edit on February 19, using an edit summary calling him a "criminal". Editing actions speak louder than user page words. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

So what? I only have one edit I wanted to make, yet it is impossible because those opposed (like you) won't discuss it, except to revert me. Based on this experience, why would I want to edit anything else? Useitorloseit (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

When the one edit you want to make is not supported by policy nor consensus, that is a HUGE issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

So what? Here's what, Useitorloseit. You came off a block and immediately resumed the same pattern of tendentious editing. Experienced editors here earn respect by neutrally editing a wide range of articles. You zero in on a single article, doggedly determined to make the subject look bad. The "so what" contrast couldn't be any more clear. Many of us are here to build an encyclopedia. It seems clear that you are here for another purpose entirely. Please cease and desist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I happen to believe this fact enhances the reader's understanding of where the subject is coming from, and helps to evaluate his credibility on the issues he writes about. The fact that it's negative is essentially beside the point. he writes about troubled youth; he had a troubled youth; that makes it relevant. You have consistently impugned my motives despite my repeated attempts to focus on content. I don't think you're displaying any of the proper spirit of Wikipedia. Useitorloseit (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Useitorloseit: You have not been able to support your personal belief by providing reliable third party sources that think it is as important as you do. Without such, your single minded insistence on this tiny aspect of a single topic is going to become more and more troublesome as people assess whether you are here to improve the encyclopedia or simply advance your personal agenda against a living person -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who's ever worked in editing knows the battles that can break out over seemingly minor wording. Wikipedia is usually the first thing that comes up when you Google anything now, so it's important to have it be as perfect as possible. I am willing to bet a lot of Wikipedia edits are made by low-volume editors like me. As noted on the Talk page, I have changed usernames several times but only have a few lasting edits total. There's reliable sources for this notable event in the subject's life and I believe it deserves inclusion. It's as simple as that. Useitorloseit (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Shaker Aamer more eyes needed

An editor adds allegations based on 2007 US government assessment document.[7]

Later a US government review finds that allegations in prior assessments are unreliable.

"In 2010 the Guantanamo Review Task Force found that prior detainee assessments to be overstated. Some assessments, for example, contained allegations that were not supported by the underlying source document upon which they relied. Other assessments contained conclusions that were stated categorically even though derived from uncorroborated statements or raw intelligence reporting of undetermined or questionable reliability.[http://www.justice.gov/ag/guantanamo-review-final-report.pdf (p. 9)"

I have added to the allegation section of the BLP that the assessments are unreliable so that the section is balanced, NPOV and conform with BLP.

Another editor who has already bad judgement regarding this BLP keeps removing that the documents are unreliable so that the article is now misleading.

Putting serious allegations into a BLP based on unreliable documents is fine with me.

Not telling the reader that the US government review task force found the allegation documents unreliable seems to me not conform with BLP policy. Right? Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What our supposedly "new" editor is not saying is that I added the comment "if you really want it to stay, then you need to tell the entire paragraph, not a half-truth."

He is not giving the entire meaning of the source's statement. It's one of the most blatant examples of cherry-picking I've seen in a while. I wouldn't mind keeping it if he told the entire truth even thought it's not applicable (as I'll explain).

If you read the entire paragraph he's citing, the source says three things: 1) some of the assessments were good; 2) some of them overstate the threat; and 3) some of them understate the threat. Editor Mautodontha subtilis is pretending that only #2 happened. I said it would be okay if we include #1 and #3 even though it's still meaningless.

The reason it's still meaningless is because the real problem is not only that the source isn't particularly talking about Shaker Aamer (the article subject). The source is actually a report from a group that maintains the conclusion that Shaker Aamer should stay in Gitmo until he is sent to Saudi Arabia.

In other words, the group he's citing agrees with the previous decisions. Shaker Aamer falls into case #1 or #3, not the #2 that the editor tries to pretend is the only case that exists.

The editor is also misrepresenting what I've added before, but that's another subject.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

As a compromise i edited the article text according to the first part of your comment.

The second part of your comment is a Fallacy. There is no way to know for us on what basis the task force made their decision. The threshold is very low under AUMF.

The allegations in Aamer's assessment could easily be overstated. The assessment especially names information from fellow inmates who have been shown utterly unreliable. Some might be true others fiction. No way to know. Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No way to know? Sure there is. The source itself says, "the review participants have decided on the proper disposition—transfer, prosecution, or continued detention—of all 240 detainees subject to the review."

That means the same review panel that found some cases to be overstated also found no reason to change Aamer's status. Remember that this was in the same time period that the habeas hearings were going on. Some judges ruled then that detainees should be sent home based on the same criticisms that you cited, but they, too, didn't apply this to Aamer.

Yes, I'm making an inference here, but it's a lesser one than what you're making. The source doesn't say how it applies to Aamer. We only know that they didn't change his status.

The legal threshold is lower than for a full trial, but it's not "very low" by any means. And since his main supporters are unwilling to say they oppose the enemy's side of the war (and it becomes clearer everyday how much they do support it), it's hard to see why the international laws of war shouldn't apply.

That said, your adjustments do make it better. I think it needs rearranging, but it's not as bad as it was.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You still get it wrong. Not changing his status does not mean all the allegations in the former assessment were true.

The burden for the government is to show that he is "more likely than not" member of the Taliban or al-Qaeda or an associated force. That's all it needs to hold him. (12 years so far). You know any other war in history where any war prisoner has been held for that long? Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Your arguments really do not make sense. Randy2063 do you actually know that the Guantanamo Review Task Force cleared Shaker Aamer for release? It seems to me that you claim the opposite? Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You're twisting the facts. As the sources say, Aamer was only cleared conditionally. Since his country, Saudi Arabia, is willing and able to accept him under these terms, he can go home as soon as he's willing to go. He made the choice. It is a choice that most of his fellow detainees do not have.

You cite the Guantanamo Review Task Force, and yet they have agreed to continue holding him under those same terms based on the very reappraisal that you're trying to make a big deal over.

The fact that Aamer's detention is so long is irrelevant here. It is solely due to the length of the war. If it really bothered Aamer that much then he would have called for Al Qaeda to end their war, which he has not done, and will not do. None of Aamer's supporters are willing to do so in any meaningful sense. (They all support the war in one way or another.)

I think you should take this to the article's regular talk page. I will make more changes but they can be addressed there.

I also think you should make clear whether or not you've edited these articles under a different account.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is clear who is twisting the facts. Could you just explain why they US government does not want to release him to the UK? Because in the UK is a democratic country with a working rule of law and free speech? Whereas in Saudi Arabia he could be subject to arbitrary detention and further abuse. In terms of human rights Saudi Arabia is in the same league as North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Somalia, Iran... [8] just in case you did not know. And by the way the UK government is more than willing and wants him back in the UK as soon as possible. Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Asian Boyz

Named article is about a criminal street gang. At issue is the "own work" image depicting (presumably) living individuals, File:Members_of_ABZ_2014-04-22_21-11.jpg. It is my feeling that this constitutes a BLP violation as its inclusion effectively states that the individuals depicted are members of a criminal organization. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Matis Weinberg article

Eyes and comments are needed on the Matis Weinberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article with regard to this controversy matter. There is back and forth reverting at that article among IPs when it comes that material. Yes, Josve05a and I have reverted at that article, restoring the material, but maybe we should not have. This is my first time truly looking at the controversy material. Flyer22 (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

My removing the material after seeing a "possible BLP issue or vandalism" tag before restoring it minutes ago is what led me to look closer. Flyer22 (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I see this article as highly problematic and encourage other editors to take a close look. The subject is a rabbi and educator who has repeatedly been accused of sexual improprieties, which he has denied vigorously. Charges before a bet din (rabbinical court) were dropped and I don't think he has been arrested or convicted by the justice system. Since his notability is based mostly on material that is controversial from the BLP policy point of view, deletion may be the best solution. What do others think? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan very much in keeping with the wisdom of the community leaders in question. They're surely quite wise, so we can follow their lead without thinking about it too much ourselves. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Please note, Nomoskedasticity, that I asked for ideas from other editors about how to deal with what I see as the serious BLP issues here. I have not nominated the article for deletion though I don't like what I see. I don't do the bidding of Orthodox rabbis here, as a brief glance at my edit history will show. I am aware, as well, of the problems with secretiveness among Haredi Jews. But Wikipedia is not a forum to right great wrongs, and our BLP policy applies to all, including ultra-Orthodox rabbis. How do you think we should deal with such unproven allegations? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian

Need fresh eyes as there are many special interest editors here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronn_Torossian Richielapiock (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is a big mess of poor references. I commented. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Victoria Espinel

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

I reverted an odd and unsourced note that she is not a patent attorney, but then reviewed the article. It looks pretty good except likely out of date - the last sentence appears to suggest that she left the White House job last year. But the lede still describes that in the present tense. I'm too busy today to study it further so I thought I'd flag it here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I sorted that issue for you Jimmy, updated the head and added verification. Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I have the same issues as Jimbo; the article could use additions about the policy initiatives Espinel undertook in office as well. --Doctorow (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I just removed the six-point plan stuff - that belongs somewhere else. There are still some WP:UNDUE and OR concerns with that article. The problem with adding that type of content to a biography is that the article ceases to be a biography and becomes a coatrack for issues instead. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Good idea to remove that, it was copy paste from the internet. Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Kiesza birthdate source twitter synthesis

In the Kiesza article the birthdate is being sourced to a Twitter thread, where somebody thanks somebody for wishing them a happy birthday. That gives the month and day of the birthdate. They then combine that with the age, from a reliable source (the Guardian) to give an exact date, which is not available anywhere else (confirmed by Googling date with name together). --Rob (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed and placed a notice on the user's talk. Cwobeel (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No reliable source, no DOB, period. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sergei Ivanovich Vasiliev

There's a bit of clamoring here about this BLP on a Russian big shot. If someone who knows Russian could have a look at it, that would be even greater. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

peggy noonan

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

The current wiki page for peggy noonan mentions rumors of an affair. One of the two sources is a dead link, the second merely refers to rumors. I tried to delete this text but it was reverted. I think it should be deleted because (a) it is poorly sourced and seemingly libelous (b) because, even if true, it is a personal matter not appropriate for a wiki biography. I note that the other party in the alleged affair has a wiki page that does not mention the incident, which is a dubious double standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:EA00:103:4804:0:0:0:1F (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence about the rumors, and watchlisted the article. Cwobeel (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Eyes on Providence (religious movement) please

There are all sorts of BLP claims and counter-claims being made about the founder of this group. It really needs to attention of a neutral Korean-speaking editor, I suspect, since most of the claims are being made based on Korean-language sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

What is the indication that this article has a BLP problem? It looks well sourced to me, though I do not understand Korean. If you only need more Korean reading eyes then I think the Korean-related noticeboard is a more suitable place than this noticeboard. Andries (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Otabek Mahkamov

Recently I wrote an article about the Uzbek actor and lawyer Otabek Mahkamov. While reading Mahkamov's interviews that have been published in Uzbek tabloids and entertainment journals, I noticed some contradictions in claims Mahkamov has made about his academic qualifications.

Mahkamov has claimed that he studied at the "Central European Legal University/the Central European University of Law" (Uzbek: Markaziy Yevropa huquqshunoslik universiteti), which is ostensibly located in Budapest. I spent two years in Budapest, but I never heard about this university. Moreover, I couldn't find this university on any website that lists universities in Budapest, including this one. When I personally contacted Mahkamov, I got some ambiguous answers. I pointed out to him that there's no university in Budapest that's called "the Central European Legal University/the Central European University of Law," but there's one that's called Central European University which has a department of Legal Studies. Mahkamov's response was: "Then that's the one (I meant)". Not knowing how one's alma mater is properly called is a bit strange, isn't it?

Mahkamov's other claims cast even more doubt on what he has said about his academic qualifications. In some of his interviews, Mahkamov has said that he graduated from the "Central European Legal University/the Central European University of Law" with a PhD! In 2005! Given that he was only 21 in 2005 and it had only been four years since his graduation from high school, this claim is just too unrealistic. Moreover, Mahkamov has also claimed that he has had time to serve in the army. In other interviews Mahkamov has said that he simply completed an internship at the "European University".

One more thing. Mahkamov has often claimed that he has a near native knowledge of English. However, in all of the films in which he has portrayed professional interpreters (and voiced them over), he has spoken in broken English and translated inaccurately. Nevertheless, it seems like he brags about his extraordinary English language skills all the time.

My question is will it be OK if I write about these issues in the article about Mahkamov? For example, something along the lines of:

Otabek Mahkamov claims that in 2005 he graduated from the "Central European University of Law" (Uzbek: Markaziy Yevropa huquqshunoslik universiteti), ostensibly located in Budapest. However, there is no such university in Budapest. Mahkamov has also claimed that he graduated with a PhD from that university. However, that seems unlikely since at that time it had only been four years since Mahkamov’s graduation from high school. Mahkamov has often claimed that he has a near native knowledge of English. However, in all of the films in which he has portrayed professional interpreters (and voiced them over), he has spoken in broken English and translated inaccurately. Nevertheless, he takes much pride in his English-language skills. Mahkamov has also claimed that he knows French, Italian, and German very well.

References

What I wrote above is verifiable. I think it's notable too, since Mahkamov is a relatively well-known person in Uzbekistan and people should know that Mahkamov has made false claims about his academic qualifications (and language skills). However, writing about these issues might be considered original research, since nobody has written anything about them yet. Does this mean I shouldn't write anything about Mahkamov's contradictory claims in the Wikipedia entry about him? Nataev ^talk 09:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Under no circumstances should you add material to any biography of a living person based on your own original research - which is exactly what you describe above. WP:BLP policy is absolutely clear and unambiguous about this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

OK! Nataev ^talk 15:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

David Jang

David Yang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been in the press a number of times, including recently. His BLP was somewhat of a hagiography and still needs work. He's been the subject of a lot of criticism, some more to do with an organisation he is involved with. Needs cleaning up, more pro and con stuff added without the puffery that is still in the article. I removed Christian Council of Korea as a source but I note some media use it. I wouldn't trust it for a BLP. Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

BLPs Quoting Blog Posts By Dana Nuccitelli

These BLP articles quote blog posts by Dana Nuccitelli, on a blog titled "Climate Consensus The 97% By John Abraham And Dana Nuccitelli Hosted By The Guardian": Richard Lindzen, Wiesław Masłowski, Murry Salby, Stephan Lewandowsky. We know that WP:BLPSPS says there is an exception to the blogs-are-unacceptable rule: "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." But that is not the case here. The Guardian itself says that this blog is in a category which is not under the newspaper's full editorial control.

The original proposition for The Guardian's new "environment blogs" explains "editorial support" by linking to the science blogs network page which says:

"Editors have traditionally had complete control over what appears on their pages. Experts and sources can espouse their views, but only within the parameters set by editorial control. The journalist decides which comments make it into their story and which are out. But nearly three years ago, the Guardian's science desk began an experiment to loosen this grip ... They [i.e. the Guardian's original group of science bloggers] were effectively given the keys to the Guardian's site and told they could publish what they wanted, when they wanted. It was a model that no other mainstream newspaper had tried (and to my knowledge that's still the case)"

Further, for The Guardian's list of its blogs in this program (which includes Climate Consensus The 97% etc.) The Guardian says: "... our environment bloggers will have independence to publish without our editorial interference." Nuccitelli described his application to join the Guardian's program here.

Accordingly, I hope for acceptance that BLP references to Nuccitelli's blog posts are WP:BLPSPS violations. To avoid having to repeat the argument for every affected article, I am posting here and putting notifications on the articles' talk pages. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

To the extent that they are "notable opinions" they should be clearly ascribed as opinion. The big problems always occur when people treat opinions as "fact" alas. Collect (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• You make a good case that Nuccitelli's Guardian blog has no editorial control by its host, and hence is not an acceptable RS for BLPs. Thanks for doing the homework. --Pete Tillman (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The idea that there's no editorial control is ostensibly true but substantially limited. If the writers in question started spouting nonsense, theguardian.com would swiftly step in and end their ability to publish on that platform. This is not a license to do anything at all but rather a license to exercise their professional judgment; that judgment is then subject to scrutiny by the owners/editors of the Guardian. Ignoring that point here amounts to naked wikilawyering. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect got it right above: these are at best Nuccitelli's opinions, and should not be presented as facts. It's not at all clear to me that Nuccitelli's opinions are notable, but that's a slightly different debate. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Something like this? (diff) — TPX 10:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I emended it a tad -- the biggest BLP problem was using a single NYT article in several places in the single BLP to be a sledgehammer. Collect (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't there a major difference between editorial control and editorial oversight? Control here is whether or not the newspaper chooses what would be the best thing to put into the newspaper based on their view of what sells, while oversight is the newspapers fact-checking and basic editorial process. The former would be irrelevant for reliability while the latter is imperative for reliability. As far as i can see there is nothing that makes the Guardians blogs different from other WP:NEWSBLOGs. Or am i completely off the hocker? --Kim D. Petersen 13:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"Full editorial control" is the language at WP:BLPSPS -- if not, use in BLPs is clearly against policy. WP:NEWSBLOG's standards apply to use outside BLPs. Pete Tillman (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that is the literal view of BLPSPS... the letter of the policy, but is it the spirit of the policy? Afaict all newsblogs are written this way, otherwise it would be editorials/columns. --Kim D. Petersen 15:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS is policy and means what it says. Pete Tillman is right here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Dana Nuccitelli has a degree in astrophysics and describes himself as a "hobbyist" regarding climate change. Though personally I find his blog interesting and useful, I do not think that it is an acceptable source for BLPs of climate scientists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I want to assure Kim D. Petersen that the objection to this blog does not, and could never, apply in general to blogs hosted by news organizations. (a) it partly depends on The Guardian list which has only 11 blogs, and quotes a Guardian editor that other mainstream news organizations had no similar program; (b) professional Guardian bloggers for example George Monbiot have nothing to do with this program; (c) The initial assumption must be that the blog is under full editorial control -- if one claims otherwise, one must prove otherwise (which is why I had to produce The Guardian's statements). See the discussion in a talk archive in section 'Newspaper columns called "blogs"', initiated by administrator User:SlimVirgin. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Dana Nuccitelli

Seems to be less than a stub, and its sole ref is SPS by the subject. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

In the process of being written afaict. Bit too early to raise as a subject here, is it not? --Kim D. Petersen 15:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It was Wikilinked in an article being discussed above - and in such a case, it is not "too early" IMO. The current solitary ref does not meet WP:RS at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hiya, thanks. There was such a chat about the person I was starting the story, please help to write more, ta Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the story, a user User:Nomoskedasticity was deleting any non positive detail about him, the guy isn't en wikipedia storyworth anyways, I searched a lot, that user deleted the only thing I found - he removed a referenced addition that was clearly stated as the opinion of a en wiki notable person https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Nuccitelli&diff=605908179&oldid=605907056 and yet the same user supported the addition in the previous discussion of keeping the opinions of thios non notable en wiki person - such bias destroys the neutrality of the story. Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to learn some more about how Wikipedia works, in particular WP:AFD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You are simply a revert user - I created the article and blanked it, you had no right to replace my content - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dana_Nuccitelli

Pernilla August

Yeah, this is probably no big deal, and it went unnoticed for a while by other editors, until I just caught it. An IP user 174.22.10.16 (talk) left something written in Arabic in the Persondata/metadata section in the "Date of Death". They also made another vandalistic edit which he/she reverted but not the "Date of Death". This is probably no big deal but as it could remotely be seen as threatening I am mentioning it here. See following diffs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pernilla_August&diff=next&oldid=522439754
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pernilla_August&diff=next&oldid=523440005
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pernilla_August&diff=next&oldid=523440122

Quis separabit? 00:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Erlendur Haraldsson

See talk:Erlendur Haraldsson. This one will solve itself as soon as I have time to add more references, but for the time being I do not have time. Andries (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I added some positive remarks and as far as I am concerned this one is solved. Andries (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Tara Teng

This article is well-sourced, but it's quite full of personal trivia and unencyclopedic info. I feel like a lot of the minor trivia and personal anecdotes from the subject in the article need to be pared down unless multiple sources can be verified (to conform to WP:PUBLICFIGURE), but I'm not well-versed enough in the rules to tackle the project myself. Any assistance would be appreciated. thebogusman (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a Good Article as of now, so any major changes you think should be done to it must be discussed in the talk page with other involved editors. This is not the place to propose cleanups, unless the article contains material that is inappropriate or problematic. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reviewing it. I'm aware it is a GA, however I think that the sheer volume of trivia and minute details in the article might constitute a violation of some of the WP:BLP policies, as I indicated above. So it was my understanding that this would be a place to make those concerns known. thebogusman (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Given 10 of the 15 images in the article at the time it passed GA were later deleted due to failed licensing, it's certainly reasonable to look more closely at this one beyond its GA stamp. DMacks (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux

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

Looks like a puff piece relying on primary sources and non-RS secondary sources. I am inclined to scour it down to RSes. Am I incorrect in this? Other opinions requested - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. The only primary sources are supplemental and near impossible to replace with secondary ones (such as information about the details of his personal life). The secondary sources are reliable and have their own WP pages to establish their notability - Reason (magazine), The Next Web, The Guardian, The Globe and Mail, and RT (TV network), Ludwig von Mises Institute, and Alex Jones (radio host). The article still needs continuing improvement, not a torpedo. -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you just cite Alex Jones as an RS to Wikipedia BLP standards? - David Gerard (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you just gloss over all the others? All I did was point out that we have pages for these sources, so they are notable. Also, biased sources are acceptable per WP:RS, as long as the overall article is NPOV. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Notable sources are not necessarily reliable sources, Netoholic. Both Weekly World News and Der Sturmer were indisputably notable. Neither was reliable for anything as the first was a publication that specialised in sensationalistic lies and the second was an anti-Semitic slander sheet that actively incited mass murder. Alex Jones is also indisputably notable but not by any means a generally reliable source, especially for anything in a BLP. He's reliable for his own opinions in our article about him, and little else. If you can't see that distinction, then perhaps you should study up before continuing to edit Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the only factual claim on the article that relies on Alex Jones' site as a reference is the fact that Molyneux appeared on the Alex Jones Show. This appearance is verifiable and factual, and so is for this limited purpose Alex Jones is a reliable source. Do you see *that* distinction? -- Netoholic @ 04:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra representative. Biographical bias, overtly critical, UNDUE BLP concerns

Not all of this is relevant to all of you so I've created a quick read menu if you want to get to certain things quickly. Sorry its long. I know :/ SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Introduction, why I am here

I am here as a representative of both Dr. Chopra and the archive project he has contributed to in order to address concerns regarding what we believe to be a genuinely misleading and biased article on Deepak Chopra, M.D. This is my job and it’s important to do everything possible to address these problems in accordance with BLP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIOSELF#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself

Beyond my involvement with Dr. Chopra I am also invested as a representative of a newly formed archive. Our responsibility will be to present the subjects or topics that are archived in our repository on Wikipedia and the media. I feel it relevant to explain that none of us are alternative medicine practitioners and hold our positions as researchers and historians due to accredited skill sets, with the consultation of university professors and medical doctors. We have very strong ethics regarding our work and how we represent this knowledge to the world, including this encyclopedia. Neutrality and ad nauseum sourcing is a core ethic we share with Wikipedia. Our mission dictates that we contribute to the encyclopedia in the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We have not made our official announcement yet (more details pending and will be discussed then) but our focus is the Wikipedia GLAM initiative and working with Wikimedia Foundation in the future to make our sources and materials easily accessible and to increase the breadth of knowledge on Wikipedia.

I’m stating the above not only as a courtesy and a part of my transparency as a COI, but to also say - hey guys, I’m here to work it out with you, listen, contribute, assist with proper sources and citation, guide against misframing of a BLP and genuinely work towards the creation of a great article.

I also understand that this particular subject is controversial, and many may have very strong opinions, labels, or associations with Dr. Chopra. I’m not here to sell you on Dr Chopra’s ideas. He is both loved and hated and the article should reflect that where appropriate. The mainstream balance of that dynamic is something I look forward to discussing with you all.

I also want to thank user JPS particularly in this regard and I believe he and I have set a good standard for how a [dialogue can happen.] SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Request

I am hoping to encourage some savvy neutral editors to come in and help, listen to our concerns, share theirs and find a neutral consensus. SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Concerns

My concern here is that a majority of the current editors on the article have stated very strong, diverse suspicions regarding Dr. Chopra and there is a great deal of ambiguity expressed amongst them on how neutrality policies get applied to the article.

1. Regarding what the working definition of “neutral” means, a number of the editors on the page have insisted on what appears to me to be a very peculiar interpretation of neutrality that suggests that the mainstream point of view of Dr. Chopra is that he is a snake oil salesmen/charlatan (or something similar). SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

2. The claim that this opinion of Dr Chopra IS ‘the’ mainstream label for him suggests that the article must be written and framed in this same voice, and editors hands are tied otherwise. As you can imagine, I have a difficult time wrapping my head around the idea that the small number of mainstream critics that have been cited represent the only legitimate voice of a BLP, let alone the suggestion that the article must be this way because Dr. Chopra critics are somehow the best representatives of mainstream opinion. SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

3. We feel we have significant grounds to argue the neutral mainstream opinion is not overtly critical despite the small number of sources they have; many of the detracting citations are from purely online publications, specialized skeptical books, or assertions in articles, many of them tertiary. On the other hand, we have supporting sources that include Time magazine, Bill Clinton (as sitting US President) in speeches to foreign dignitaries, Mikhail Gorbachev addressing a 15 member scientific panel, the American Medical Association, Gallup Inc., the Discovery Channel, National Institute of Health, numerous peer-reviewed medical journals, New York Magazine, University of California San Diego, Heart Failure Society of America, Health Grades, the Huffington Post, and Forbes, to name just a few. SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

4. The reaction to many of these sources has been reminiscent of a slippery slope. World leaders have been discounted as representative of mainstream opinion because they’re not in the medical field, the public’s endorsement of his best-selling books is trivial, associations with major philosophers such as David Chalmers, John Searle, Daniel Dennett at summits are referred to as parapsychology meetings outside of the mainstream, major news and media outlets have been ignored as mouthpieces for Dr. Chopra, while peer-reviewed medical journals are dismissed as apparently not being “peer-reviewed enough” if they came to a noncritical conclusion, i.e. wiki peer reviewing which is something I understand we are guided against. In short, world leaders, the public, the popular media, medical journals, major universities, academic philosophers, M.D.’s and Gallup itself (whose entire job is to determine the mainstream!) are all incapable of representing the mainstream opinion. SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

5. By this stage I have over studied and analyzed BLP and Fringe so much it’s coming out my ears. I get what fringe requires us to do on topic articles - but the idea that a biography is framed solely by critics even when supporters have more mainstream representation does not seem to be what Fringe is asking for. If that is what WP Fringe actually guides us to do, it is awfully problematic since it cancels out neutrality by the very definition of the word and forces UNDUE weight all over the article. SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

6. Given what I hope are very clear issues, I’ve been asking a number of editors to explain their reasoning for dismissing the noncritical perspective, I’m here to listen, understand and negotiate. However, it’s happening more frequently that when I discuss people’s positions, a number of editors retort with aspersions and accusations that I am refusing to accept a variety of broad policies and give me some link to another policy they claim I don’t understand, then hang a AE over my head. I have been upfront, reasonable (I think!) and respectful of both editors and Wikipedia policies. This situation is making things very difficult for me so I hope all of you can help. SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Making things easier for comment and participation

We have plenty more sources coming (I could also use a little help in terms of the best practices of how I can easily list and supply the community with them. I do have my sandbox but any suggestions also helpful) but here are the key topics that could use some help in talk.

What definition of neutrality are we using?

Dr. Chopra is a known practicing endocrinologist.

Guru is often used as a pejorative and is a label only, not something he is or claims to be

Dr. Chopra is notable for his views on consciousness and participates with leading names in philosophy and academia.

Thanks in advance.

SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The definition of "neutral point of view" that we are using is the one that you have been pointed to several times. The one located at WP:NPOV and of particular relevance here, its subsections WP:UNDUE / WP:BALASPS and WP:VALID. Chopras non proven claims in the medical field are WP:FRINGE and are not going to be treated as anything other than that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe I addressed that in my opening - I've read all those links, have carefully and meticulously read and applied each one, and can be transparent with you about how I come to my conclusions or how I offer suggestions or compromises. When I request some editors explain 'how' they are applying these things and to share their thinking process - you know be transparent, it doesnt help me get clear on your thinking when I'm just slapped with a bunch of links and claims repeated ad nauseum. Perhaps if you could explain how you're applying these guidelines and specifically HOW critics of a living person are assumed a neutral voice on the article. There's a leap in logic there and I cannot account for the steps anyone has taken to come to that conclusion other than pointing to a webpage with a guideline on it. SAS81 (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That is probably because your conflict of interest is getting in the way. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's great that all these volunteers are just giving their time away free to teach multi-millionare Deepak Chopra's paid representative how Wikipedia works. I love volunteering my time to benefit people who have thousands of times more money than I do! I also need my gutters cleaned. Anyone want to do that for me? Hipocrite (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well you could do something notable, get an article written about you, find serious problems with it, then follow the steps laid on BLP to address these issues and find yourself here too. I'm not getting any treatment here that is not offered to anyone else. Also, let's have a productive conversation. Thank you. SAS81 (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments like that not helping TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom. Admittedly I have an inherent bias because of my responsibilities of archiving and my direct relationship with the subject. I revealed that. Inspite of that, I am able to work towards neutrality, listen to all of you and provide quality sources and navigate the policies and guidelines consistently. Also, as a representative of the subject matter, surely you are not suggesting that when living person's raises direct concerns with what appears to be a misleading article they are unable to address those concerns because of their own conflict of interest?

the "concerns" have been raised ad nauseum on the talk page and they have been answered there. the fact that the article is not promoting Chopra and is instead presenting the mainstream academic view is not an issue. it is what the article is supposed to do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If I believed they were answered there TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, I would not be here. SAS81 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That you didnt like the answers is not surprising, but they were answered, fully, completely and multiple times.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sending me a link to a policy page over and over is not what I call answering a question. Threatening me with an AE, then filing a COI noticeboard is also not answering questions. SAS81 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's WP:FOC, please SAS81 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, SAS81, which parts of Deepak Chopra do you feel are violating WP:NPOV? You're mentioning endocrinology, the words guru and philosopher, while TRPoD is referencing the medical validity of his work. Are you trying to argue that Chopra's approach is medically proven, or that the current page is not neutral/representative of mainstream views of Chopra? If the former, you may be in for a hard time; if the latter, do you have sources to back up your position? Nobody on WP, not me, TRPoD, you or Deepak Chopra, can independently assert what is mainstream or not, but one way or the other the sources will out. The Cap'n (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Date of Birth

In this article she is having to Date of Births. According to one her age is 24 and the other it is 26.. This is for Pallavi Sharda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.119.39.202 (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)