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.

User talk:Jimbo Wales libelous characterization of Roman Polanski

User:Dream Focus has been advised of libelous comments, but is repeating the reinsertion, including ALL CAP version for emphasis.

~~Will add all diffs shortly, but posting this now~~ [Diffs now listed]. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 11:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You advised someone not to do something you didn't like. And of course, like most people, I just try to ignore your nonsense. Stop vandalizing a talk page! The rules here are for articles, not for talk pages, which operate under totally different rules. Dream Focus 11:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please get acquainted with WP:BLP#Non-article space. Sssoul (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User talk:Jimbo Wales is a highly public forum. These are libelous posting in the most visible forum in Wikipedia. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 11:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

We have been through this many times on Roman Polanski. The guilty plea is for "unlawful sexual intercourse" which is not rape (according to L.A. court officials). The shouting (all caps now) of "CHILD RAPIST" is libelous, and I have advised [Dream Focus], then refactored the comments out when the response was to add the all-cap version. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 11:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of this topic Proofreader77 ^(interact) 11:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not censor. We mention what was said in the major media sources, many of which called this rape, and child rape. Dream Focus 11:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for disruptive editing Proofreader77 ^(interact) 12:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose indefinitely blocking Dream Focus, who is blatantly using Wikipedia for purposes unrelated to building an encyclopedia and is by his actions bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. --TS 12:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else brought up the topic there, attacking someone, I then responded. And how does this bring Wikipedia into disrepute? Ignoring all the news media that calls him a child rapist, because you don't want to offend his fans, would damage Wikipedia reputation for accuracy. Dream Focus 12:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scandal rag. --TS 12:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with proposal of block if editor does not immediately agree to cease. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 12:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --TS 12:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editor has been notified of ANI. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 12:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, you're soapboxing through WP:BLP violations. You may not agree that your posts have gone astray of BLP, but consensus will most likely be that they have done. Either way, your soapboxing on the most widely watched user talk page on this website is blatant and isn't allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond at the ANI [4] How is it soapboxing? Is me calling the director a child rapist, and linking to a CNN article where the District Attorney calls him that, and other news source calling him that, a violation of any rule? Dream Focus 12:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked here, I'm giving a short answer here. Public statements by magistrates are often wholly adversarial and meant to be so, you're soapboxing in support of an adversarial position, not an accomplished legal outcome. In doing so, you're also astray of WP:BLP. There's more to it than this, but that's the pith. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statements about Polanski, anywhere within wikipedia, should stick to what he was actually convicted of, which is basically statutory rape, not "child rape". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are making a distinction without a difference. Under the definition of statutory rape. "Different jurisdictions use many different statutory terms for the crime, such as "sexual assault," "rape of a child," "corruption of a minor," "carnal knowledge of a minor," "unlawful carnal knowledge", or simply "carnal knowledge." Thus: "rape of child"...the guilty party would then be a Rapist of child, which in common parlance would be a child rapist. The charged law in California is known as unlawful intercourse with a minor. A minor is a child. The crime must have a child as the victum, which is why you said it was statutory rape. There is no difference between the terms statutory rapist and child rapist, as the condition making them true, is always the age of the victim, which is always a child. The term libel is proper when the statement is a not the truth. While this may be distasteful, it remains what it is. --Tombaker321 (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the exact wording of the reliable source. Anything creative risks a block, if done repetitively against warnings. You've been warned. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me a meaningless warning for discussing a topic in an absolute generic sense (see above). This is simply talking about the definition of a crime. There is no difference in the definition of child rapist and statutory rapist. If you need help, look at the Wikipedia for some standard definitions of words like statutory rape before you go off half-cocked]]. --Tombaker321 (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put another way, a linguistic leap like that is original research, setting a spin which isn't allowed in any article, much less a BLP. As Jehocman says, any wording of this kind must be straightforwardly cited back to a reliable source and moreover, there may be a need to quote and attribute such wording in the article text itself, minding Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise (see also the link there about coatracking). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale I realize you have a vested interest in defending your support of Proofreader77's warnings to Dream Focus, but it does not change the English language and its terms. You are just wrong that its OR or some sort of leap. A person who pleads guilty to having unlawful sex with a minor, has committed the act of statutory rape. Its just the definitions. If something is measured as 60 inches, it can alternatively be said to be 5 feet. This topic is about what a different editor said in a talk page, and all the pomp of dreary notions of a slippery sloop, are overdone. Remember this topic is about a talk page, in which you protected Proofreader77 as he edit warred and OWN another users talk page. Sources able to be used are the actual legal documents, the transcripts, the judgments, and the penal code. I started my comments to this thread by saying we have a distinction without a difference and my remarks are confined to this topic thread only. --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to use carefully sourced language in the article. There's probably a need to back away from soapboxing in some parts. I also think that in this situation with this well known, oft debated event, yelling LIBEL everytime someone phrases it differently then his exact plea is also unproductive.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orca Conservancy

I've been concerned about changes made to Springer (orca) and Luna (Orca) for several weeks. Content was recently added and re-added by editors who appear to have a close relationship with a person I'll call M.H.: Babywildfilms (talk · contribs) and Mrjoshuawells (talk · contribs). Much of this is sourced from a document called "The Springer File" which is here: http://www.orcaconservancy.org/ . The Springer File is a mixture of copied newspaper articles and original pieces written by M.H. The parts written by M.H. include extremely POV commentary about named living individuals. See, for example, the section titled "OC TIMELINE: ”THE EVIL DR. NIGHTINGALE”. I would be happy to remove *everything* sourced to the Springer File and all links to it. I've been posting messages for weeks to get more eyes on this article, with little response, but I only just realized the severity of the BLP problem. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've removed all URLs that lead to the website. The website itself contains clear BLP violations. A question for the community is whether this website may be used as a source at all, or whether all material that relies on it must also be removed immediately and without discussion. There are IMHO good reasons to remove it, in addition to BLP. The question is, how urgently does this have to be done? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should fix the BLP violation quickly and do not worry about 3RR. As for the source, if you care to nail it down, I would take it to the RS noticeboard.--Jarhed (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Whittemore

TerryE has placed a BLP tag on Harvey Whittemore, an article I created about one week ago. TerryE states that I have engaged in "deliberate deception" in the following sentence: "Whittemore's lobbying accomplishments include obtaining tax breaks for Steven Wynn, owner of the Bellagio in Las Vegas". Two sources are cited: a New York Times article explaining a tax break bill before the Nevada legislature and Whittemore's role in the lobbying, and a Las Vegas Review Journal article about the passage of the bill. It would appear to me that this sentence is not even a potential BLP violation, but I would appreciate other opinions. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Lobbyist/Attorney. I asked for the removal of this sentence because the nowhere in the (Internet accessible) RS did it state that Whittemore accomplished any tax breaks. This is pure WP:SYNTH or WP:OR of KCACOs part. I asked him to provide the exact quote or remove the comment. In response he added a second reference, implying that this now addressed the text. So I paid my $2.95 to get a copy of the RS and checked. Guess what? still WP:SYNTH or WP:OR but now with obsufscation. See the discussion. I would be happy for some more experience editor could give me the appropriately politically correct Wikipedian expression for this action and apologise if "deliberate deception" is overstepping the mark. -- TerryE (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recently created article (Jan 10, 2010) with three main contributing editors:

Keepcalmandcarryon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The original creator
TerryE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The author of this notice
Ward20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Though there are other editor involved, these three are also the main contributors to the

The main reason for this notice is because of failure to progress some disputes discussed on the talk pages. Examples include:

Lobbyist/Attorney. See also the discussion Another WS:BLP WS:NPOV issue -- Lobbyist/Attorney. The main issue at point here is not that HW is a lawyer that specialised in lobbying but on the inaccuracies (the wording in the article is an inaccurate quote from the RS) and bias of the reporting (these inaccuracies enhance the critical nature of the content; any balancing positive content is omitted).

Coyote Springs section. See also the discussion Talk:Harvey Whittemore#WP:BLP and WP:Coatrack. Coyote Springs is a new development in Nevada by Coyote Springs Land which is a subsidiary of Wingfield Nevada Group of which Harvey Whittemore is the chairman and founder. This section occupies some 65% of the HW content most of this material relates to controversies to do with the development. There is little coverage of the positive issues and not of this material is covered in the Coyote Springs article itself. Whilst I agree that HW is a major player within Coyote Springs Land, the correct place for balanced reporting is in the main article, with a balanced précis here. This content is biased WP:COATRACK material.

I am sorry if I've made any procedural errors in this notice as this is the first time in two years of editing where I haven't been able to resolve issues through amicable discussion on the talk pages. There is a fundamental divide in attitudes and approach to this article by Keepcalmandcarryon vs. TerryE and Ward20. I didn't think that HW was really notable enough to merit an article but it's really hard going when you need to try and source every RS to validate that the included text is actually a verifiable, accurate and neutral summary of the wording in the article. I would like to solicit independent feedback before proceeding further -- TerryE (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for adding a duplicate section. I posted my intent to create this section on the talk page before doing so and Keepcalmandcarryon posted his view in response. Nothing wrong with that but there's no point in having two sections. -- TerryE (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like a bit of 2 plus 2 equals 4 and also like this one event is being given undue weight and has been cherry picked as a single achievement from what is probably a long list, I would remove it or rewrite it to more accurately reflect the citation and add some more achievements so that this chosen one is not given undue weight in the way of.. he had many achievements including this one! Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whittemore does indeed have a long list of accomplishments, most of them relating to casino legislation and his various Nevada business ventures. The section in question here includes several accomplishments as examples, but begins by noting the subject's reputation as a successful and accomplished lobbyist. The arts tax break was chosen as one of these examples because it was featured in the national media, not just local papers. In any case, this issue is clearly, at most, an issue of weight and wording, not a matter of BLP violation (unsourced, poorly sourced, or defamatory statements). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide (here) quotations from the sources backing up the claims made for them. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From The New York Times, 12 April 1999: "Mr. Wynn is hedging his bets. He is lobbying the Nevada Legislature to pass a bill granting tax exemptions on the collection that would amount to a one-time sales-tax break of $18 million on the purchase of the art and $2.7 million each year in property taxes" and: " Harvey Whittemore, a lobbyist for Mirage Resorts, said Mr. Wynn was not trying to wriggle out of paying taxes on the Bellagio collection. The collection, which includes works owned personally by Mr. Wynn (which he leases to the hotel) and others owned by his corporation, is classified as inventory because the works in it are for sale. As such, Mr. Whittemore said, it would already be exempt from sales tax. The interest in passing the law is altruism, Mr. Whittemore said, so that those who buy art will want to show it for the property tax breaks they will get. 'You're trying to encourage the public display of art.'"

See also: Las Vegas Review Journal, 02 April 1999, "Wynn offers Bellagio art show discount for Nevadans", in which "Lobbyist Harvey Whittemore told the Senate Taxation Committee..."; LVRJ, 08 April 1999, "Wynn's tax break compromise gains OK from committee", stating, "During testimony last week, Wynn lobbyist Harvey Whittemore said Wynn has sold..."; LVRJ, 14 May 1999, "Wynns art tax break endorsed by Assembly committee", containing: "After the hearing, Mirage Resorts lobbyist Harvey Whittemore said..."; LVRJ, 04 March 2000, "Art tax exception will proceed", reporting, "Harvey Whittemore, a Reno lawyer who represents Wynn before the Legislature, said the art collection was part of the deal..."; LVRJ, 30 August 2000, "Rules finalized for art tax break": "Wynn attorney Harvey Whittemore said..." These sources may give a general indication of the level of RS support for Whittemore's involvement. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that these comments support the content.."Whittemore's lobbying accomplishments include obtaining tax breaks for Steven Wynn, in fact the citation says that Wittmore said that Wynn was not trying to wriggle out of taxes and Whittmore was not specifically lobbying for a tax break, even if a tax break was the outcome. It is 2 plus 2 equals 4, a bit like saying.. Harry was a lawyer and that made him overweight.. when it wasn't the work as a lawyer that made him fat but the fact that he was paid a lot and he spent all his money on food that made him fat. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would you suggest we summarise this content, which clearly states that Harvey Whittemore was the representative of Steven Wynn/Mirage in lobbying something related to taxes (whether it's a "tax exception", a "tax break", or a "tax break compromise" as stated by reliable sources)? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, as it is disputed and the current comment is not supported by the citations I would just suggest just taking it out. There are plenty of other links in the article connecting him to the casinos, if that is the value to the reader and objective of the content. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for keeping this going, but I'm not at all excited about removal of reliably-sourced information from Wikipedia articles, especially when the information involves one of the most prominent episodes related to the subject, and would prefer an alternative formulation of what these sources contain. I have asked at the article, and I now ask here, which of the following statements, supported by multiple RS, are in dispute:

Whittemore was the Wynn/Mirage lobbyist (NYT, four Las Vegas articles)
Whittemore testified before the Nevada legislature in this matter (four Las Vegas articles)
the goal and/or outcome of the Wynn/Whittemore proposals was a tax cut (NYT and Las Vegas articles).

If, as I maintain, they are not in dispute, how can we best summarise them accurately? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was the source I perhaps should have included when I opted for the more prominent New York Times: Las Vegas Review-Journal, 02 May 1999, Ed Vogel: Harvey Whittemore "lobbied the Senate Taxation Committee to kill Sen. Joe Neal's bill to impose a 2 percentage point increase in the gaming tax. Then he persuaded the Senate to vote 14-7 for a bill that gives Mirage Resorts Chairman Steve Wynn tax breaks on his $300 million art collection." Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There it is in big letters, the lobbying for whatever is what he did, one of the outcomes was..bla bla..we shouldn't remove the middle bit, if fact we don't even need the end bit, the article is about Whittmore, not how some casino boss benefited from his actions, just take it out, it is unsupported by the citations. take it out and you will see that it is not even important, the article is as good and as informative without it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, an interesting discussion. As far as an RS has said X and we repeat it or précis it in such a way as not to alter its meaning then Wikipedia is safe. My understanding is that the presumption is that if the subject had a problem with the content then he or she would seek remedy from the RS; all Wikipedia is doing to attribute X to the RS. However, synthesis oversteps this mark. So quoting a verifiable RS is fine by me if the editor finds an appropriate source. When an editor are introduces potentially contentious wording from a printed source (and provide the URI when online copies are available, then it would greatly help others if the originating editor quoted the exact extract in the discussion. I am not a professional researcher and I have to pay to verify such sources.

I also think that balance or neutrality is orthogonal to verifiability. When picking a couple of sentences from a few thousand line article, we should be asking the question "have we maintained the overall balance?" and not seeking the two most juicy quotes which underline a specific POV. I also think that we've lost site of this in the HW article, and not yet covered it in this discussion. -- TerryE (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the phrase "Whittemore's lobbying accomplishments include obtaining tax breaks for Steven Wynn, owner of the Bellagio in Las Vegas" was an inappropriate summary of the sources. --JN466 14:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some feedback on my original post or suggestions on how to proceed. Here is the timeline to date:

17:57, 17 January 2010 -- TerryE announces his intent to raise BLPN on talk page [5]
18:15, 17 January 2010 -- Keepcalmandcarryon raises a BLPN issue [6] "Harvey Whittemore"
18:50, 17 January 2010 -- In parallel TerryE raises a BLPN issue [7] "Harvey Whittemore".
On review TerryE realises that there are now two issues as Keepcalmandcarryon has acted on his "intent" post and raised his/her own issue whilst he was drafting his. So for simplicity the he merges the two into a single issue [8]
The following discussion now focuses on Keepcalmandcarryon's initial point, culminating with Keepcalmandcarryon posting on an extra reference which addresses his/her original point at 22:02, 17 January 2010 [9]
01:11, 18 January 2010 -- TerryE's content is not discussed, so TerryE then posts a comment that this discussion has not closed his original issue. [10]
23:57, 22 January 2010 -- Keepcalmandcarryon posts on HW talk intent to remove BLPN dispute tag. [11]
16:06, 23 January 2010 -- TerryE points out that the dispute is not closed [12].
16:29, 23 January 2010 -- Keepcalmandcarryon repeats that dispute is closed[13] and removes the tag [14].

I, TerryE, have now undone this removal. What I am asking is how do we proceed in these circumstances? I believe that Keepcalmandcarryon feels that he/she is entitled to close the issue as the "originator". However, it was my original flag and intent to raise an incident that triggered this in the first place. The whole article is very WP:NPOV and some 75% of the content really belongs in other articles, Coyote Springs and Whittemore Peterson Institute. -- TerryE (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me posting back again, but I would really like some neutral third party review of this issue. It's just that one of the editors involved in this has decided that this dispute has "timed out" and decided to remove the dispute and NPOV flags. I have reverted this, but I fear that this could descend into an edit war without mediation. -- TerryE (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a main contributing editor to the Harvey Whittemore article, and after reviewing many sources the last few days here are the present issues as I perceive them. The article contains too much weight on Coyote Springs. The details about a 30 billion dollar project in the middle of the desert are complex and the regulatory issues vast. Much of the material is peripheral to HW. The article is more negative and concentrates on development issues that have been resolved than two of the summary news pieces used as sources.[15][16]. The news sources that deal totally on Whittemore in the article talk about his critics and his supporters,[17][18] but the WP article seems one sided about only describing his critics. Another major issue is how the material from the sources is biased. I will pick a few examples but there are many more throughout the article. The article states, "According to the Los Angeles Times, Whittemore helped advance the careers of two sons, including Leif Reid, Whittemore's personal attorney. Responding to allegations of favouritism, Reid's office stated that the Senator's behaviour had been "legal, proper and appropriate"."[19] There must be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR because the material is not in the source. Similarly, "Judicial Watch alleged that Harry Reid and other Nevada politicians may have applied pressure improperly on behalf of Whittemore."[20] The source actually states that Judicial Watch sued the Bureau of Land Management for documents to find out if undue pressure was exerted on the federal government on behalf of HW, not that it was alleged. Going though each sentence and every source to find this type of bias is tedious. Ward20 (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences on Whittemore and Reid are reliably sourced to the LA Times:

"Whittemore also helped advance the legal careers of two of Reid's four sons. One of the two, Leif Reid, who is Whittemore's personal lawyer, has represented the developer throughout the Coyote Springs project, including in negotiations with federal officials" (LA Times, 20 August 2006)

"Earlier this month, the Los Angeles Times reported on Reid's role in assisting Whittemore in getting necessary federal approvals for parts of the project. Reid's office said his involvement was legal, proper and appropriate" (LA Times, 29 August 2006)

Similarly, "Judicial Watch alleged that Harry Reid and other Nevada politicians may have applied pressure improperly on behalf of Whittemore" is completely consistent with all available sources, including the Pittsburgh source and the following:

"A conservative group said Tuesday it is suing the Bureau of Land Management for records about any role Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Nevada politicians had in a real estate development project in the state" (MSNBC, 19 September 2007)

"Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed an open records lawsuit on September 5 against the Bureau of Land Management as part of its investigation of Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and his role in a massive real estate development project in Coyote Springs, Nevada. At the heart of Judicial Watch's investigation is whether or not Senator Reid improperly used his influence on Capitol Hill to pave the way for the development project in exchange for campaign contributions and other favors from lobbyist and long-time friend, Harvey Whittemore." (Market Wire (DC), 18 September 2007)

"A conservative watchdog group said Tuesday it is suing the Bureau of Land Management seeking documents that might link Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and two other Nevada lawmakers to approvals for the massive Coyote Springs real estate development. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the group was focusing on reported actions by Reid, the Senate majority leader, in moving along the project headed by Reno attorney and developer Harvey Whittemore" A quote from Judicial Watch is included: "If Senator Reid sold his public office to advance a development project that would financially benefit his friend and a member of his own family, he should be held accountable to the full extent of the law" (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 19 September 2007)

If the language used in the article were somehow objectionable (i.e., if reliable sources indicated that Judicial Watch did not suggest that Reid and others had improperly aided Whittemore and that Judicial Watch was suing the BLM just for the hell of it), it would be a simple matter to change the wording to "Judicial Watch sued to find out if..." That Ward20 and other editors present no such sources, object to researching the issue, and elect to portray such trivial differences as an NPOV dispute, a matter for the BLP noticeboard or indication of personal bias on my part is, quite frankly, a bit curious. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Caton

Greg Caton has a number of challengable statements and someone saying it has legal probs. eyes would be appreciated. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sure did, editor User:Threeafterthree had a good look at it and its a fair bit better now, feel free to add it to your watchlists and keep it in a similar state. Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the improvements to the Greg Caton article. Jettparmer (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Hollingsworth

What I am amazed at is that I, the subject, made an attempt to do a wikipedia entry and it was rejected. But now I see a few weeks later there is a factually incorrect page under my real name. I want the whole thing removed in 48 hours. Otherwise the lawyers will be put onto it. You have just entered details about someone who was in witness protection, and if I end up dead, well, they know who is to blame, your stupid site listing personal information without even checking with the living person. GET IT ALL OFF!!!! Kim Hollingsworth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.177.119 (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC) IF YOU WANT AN ENTRY IN THIS WELL I WILL GIVE YOU ONE, BUT THIS INFORMATION IS PUTTING MY LIFE IN DANGER. ALL OF IT- OFF! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.177.119 (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kim Hollingsworth seems to be well sourced. If that's you sorry it doesn't look like much can be done about it. If not then understand that there are many people who share the same name. Both of these are fairly common. Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"if I end up dead, well, they know who is to blame". Well, that sounds more like Pauline Hanson ("if you are seeing me now, it means I have been murdered"). Melodrama aside, please advise (with references) what information is incorrect and it can be corrected. Also, please see Wikipedia:No legal threats. WWGB (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the individual in question lives publicly, including posting her name and phone number for an animal-rights rally, I don't believe the OP. Oh, by the way, it's very easy to see that the IP geolocates to an ISP in Sydney, Australia, so it wouldn't be too smart for a person in protection to be posting here without a login! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you have problems regarding content in a biography that you claim to be yours you need to contact the OTRS team, if you visit this page Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem you will find an explanation of the process, with a direct link for contacting people able to assist with biographical issues like this one. I know they are open to consider requests from living people to remove content that may be damaging or demeaning to that person. Since you have expressed a very high level of concern, I think this would be a good route for you to take, and may well get you more satisfaction than attempts to edit the article or discussion here, regards, feel free to comment further here or on my talkpage if you have any other questions regarding this that I can perhaps help you with. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madness at several little watched BLPs

Someone is trying to connect the BLP articles Eric Daniels with the unrelated BLP articles Paul Daniels and Debbie McGee as well as the article 52 Pickup. The user has inserted claims that Eric Daniels, a Lloyds TSB executive in the US and son of German/Chinese immigrants, is the brother of Paul Daniels, a British magician who was born in the UK, to parents with English names, and that Eric Daniels also "studied magic from an early age" and invented the practical joke 52 Pickup.

The user has so far been operating with the following SPAs:

The IPs resolve to Lloyds TSB in London and to a British broadband provider.

Could an admin please verify that I am not seeing things and block the hoaxter and do whatever else needs doing. Thanks. Hans Adler 14:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hans, I blocked the account indefinitely and the IPs for 24 hours. The Lloyds IP has, oddly, been involved in a lot of disruptive editing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) As I recall the game from about 1952, and it was old then, the claims seem to verge on vandalism. Someone act on those folks, please! Thanks, SV! (added)Collect (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bored brokers vandalizing. If it crops up again, a note to their IT dept might stir something up. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or an increase in their taxes? Collect (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all! Hans Adler 16:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:George Stephanopoulos

There is a mention that he was arrested in 1995 for leaving the scene of the accident. Did he plea bargain? Or was the charge dropped? Or he was fined? Or found not guilty? If not guilty, then BLP requires we mention this because to omit this would be a smear. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[21] is RS for the arrest. [22] for the charges being dropped, other than the ones of driving with expired license and expired registration. The rationale appears to be that while he left the parking space where the accident happened, he was still in the same parking garage. Collect (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Turek

Alan Grayson

This US politician article seems on someone's muck list. It was reasonably ok a month ago but has degraded again with a hitlist controversy section. I've tagged it for NPOV and would appreciate anyone willing to have a go. Even fresh eyes to see if there are some easy fixes would be lovely. -- Banjeboi 20:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This BLP has been under attack by opposition forces for a while now, why not just revert it back to when it was half decent and lets get it locked up. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to that, this version seems acceptable to me. Anyone else? -- Banjeboi 21:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, flagged revisions is not in action yet but when an article is under attack as that one has been, if it is semi protected at least we it will be easy to keep decent. Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not marking as resolved, and not watching BLPN or Grayson's page, but I've semi-protected for 2 weeks, which should help matters. tedder (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- Banjeboi 21:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

alan callan - editorial request

Resolved

– stubbed and cited.

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

i have been reviewing the biography of alan callan, and others, for a few years. i have noticed there are regular libellous and other unsupported attacks made. the subsequent editorial entries that i know of can be verified and the page seems to be in transition so that in depth sources and links are being produced - this may eventually prove especially helpful to people suffering from multiple myeloma. it appears therefore the recent request to delete the page may also be entirely malicious.

a recent discussion with the lawyer representing alan callan resulted in the lawyer suggesting a request be placed to lock the page in order to prevent malice. it seems so curious that after many years, as the links and information improve that a deletion request should suddenly appear. a muzick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuzick (talk • contribs) 23:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion prod was not malicious, it is part of an attempt to clean up wikipedia from unreferenced articles like this one. Is his cancer really so notable that it needs over half of the 19kB of prose? Martin451 (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Malloy

This man gained a bit more notoriety by claiming right-wing talk show hosts were guilty in the September 11th attacks. It will surely get more attention. As is, the page is an unsourced nightmare. I don't want to touch it right now without some form of consensus. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some quite controversial content there, some of it uncited for long time, and the 3 citations that are there don't look very good, one is the brad blog another is Green 960 pages, blog neither of which is imo a wikipedia reliable source and the last one is the subjects own Mike Malloy Show site? so it's not a good independent source either, imo the uncited stuff that is in any way controversial needs removing straight away, I would remove the blog citations and stub the article back to a couple of lines and add the Mike Malloy show site as an external link and either work to improve it with new citations or add a uncited blp template and then as is going on around prod it . Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed it back leaving only a few simple details, and tagged it as uncited, if someone is interested in the topic, it is in need of a copy edit and a couple of references. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Álvaro Uribe

Resolved

- 2/0 (cont.) 20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a month - this is far from the worst BLP-violation magnet, but there appear to be relatively few people watching the article relative to the prominence of the subject. If vandalism resumes after protection expires, please use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and just mention BLP as required. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Solomon

I just protected that article for editwarring over a new addition; most recent reversion. It is stated that the quality of the sourcing falls below that required by WP:BLP, but I would like to request review as I am not sure that any violation is egregious enough to invoke the BLP-hammer. If any uninvolved party concludes that this is warranted, please revert through the protection. The current discussion is at Talk:Lawrence Solomon#Environmentalist (2). - 2/0 (cont.) 19:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any real BLP reasons for concern. Specifically anyway all of the arguably weakly sourced material is positive about the living person so we are in peacock and undue territory nowhere near a defamation. --BozMo talk 10:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Blanchard

Resolved

– New editor moved to discussion, article watchlisted Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possltd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user keeps re-adding unreferenced information to the article about Gerald Blanchard, a notable criminal. In fact, the user claims[23] to be the subject of the article himself and keeps adding details of the crimes (e.g. the bit about parachuting) not mentioned in the references cited in the article. I am not sure what to make of all of this, but I think a look by another editor or two would be helpful, as maybe I am overreacting here. // Nsk92 (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite an interesting story, he is not adding anything derogatory just uncited, could be the subject, I have left him a friendly note to try to get him to see that adding uncited content because he knows its true is not the way it works, hopefully he won't need to be blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

W. V. Grant

W. V. Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm requesting help in resolving a long dispute. I figure that if we can get an expert in that will mediate it it should help some. I'm about ready to just send it to Afd and see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenlor (talk • contribs) 09:06, 23 January 2010

An article such as this one will never be neutral. On one hand it is currently unbalanced in the amount of coverage it gives his crimes and detractors. OTOH the whitewash version created by the WP:SPAs is simply unencyclopedic. Martin451 (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kelley (artist)

Anon editors reinserting promotional material, starting with "Since the passing of Warhol, Kelley's sublime creations have vaulted him to the forefront of the global art scene".[24] Ty 12:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "notable" tag. He seems to be far less known than Mr. Warhol. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the notable tag: Kelley is notable. That he's less well-known than Warhol is not a notability issue (fame and notability are quite different). The article is sourced and his notability is asserted and sourced. The article could use more references and should be expanded, but I don't think notability is the issue here. What Ty is mentioning above is POV pushing: Kelley is "big" as far as these things go, but "the forefront of the global art scene" is questionable. I'm sure most visual arts editors on Wikipedia could name a few more at the the "forefront" whatever the hell that is. (Where is this forefront and how do I get there?) As far as "sublime creations", well I think we know where that can go. Kelley's work is a lot of things, but sublime it is not. We just need to be vigilant here with those kinds of edits. freshacconci talktalk 13:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Vaulted to the forefront" is purple and florid, but on the other hand, please try not to remove writing flair for no reason, especially on an artistic entry. Artists tend to write artistically.Jarhed (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Bucko

Michal Bucko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - In my opinion, after reading the article, the notability of this person should be questioned. Additionally, the sources point to the company similar to others in Poland (with no notable achievements), a Polish language newspaper, the person's profile on milw0rm, a Polish version of the page of a product being created by the person in question, an article in a Polish security-related magazine, and a link to a Polish high-school web site. Additionally, the vulnerabilities are interesting, but are they notable enough for Wikipedia? Even if the person is considered as notable by other Wiki reviewers, it should be changed, hence the lack of proper sources. // 87.105.185.61 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to AFD. It is certainly worth discussing deletion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article author keeps deleting the changes made to the article (my notability tag and someone's else WP:PROD) - please check the history: [25]. Could someone take a look at this, I'm afraid I do not have sufficient Wiki-management knowledge to handle this case. 87.105.185.61 (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the sources, and done a google news and scholar search, I can't see any third party sources that establish his notability, so have sent it to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michal Bucko Martin451 (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, refer to links from Notable Security Input section (and to vendors' web sites). When it comes to Google Scholar search, one might find: "Central human-enhancement facility for human quality management" thesis, "Against Code Injection with System Call Randomization" (quotation) and possibly "Short review of modern vulnerability research" whitepaper. When it comes to Google News, one can find information from heise.de. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.163.128 (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, user 87.105.185.61, I left now only very credible 3rd party sources (Microsoft, VMware, IT Underground, IEEE (in discussion), and Mr Bucko's company as well as his notable projects). Thank You for help. In my humble opinion the article contains much credible information, since it's important due to the fact that it's a bio of a living person. Hope it is enough well written to be valuable to Wikipedia. There are also other credible sources such as Gazeta Prawna (link provided) or Polish TV appearances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 87.105.185.61, for Eleyt's notable achievements, please refer to the following: http://eleytt.com/research.html, then to Microsoft's or VMware's web site. When it comes to sources, I think I have added many sources and may provide even more. Please, refer to IEEE's "Against Code Injection with System Call Randomization, Zhaohui Liang; Bin Liang; Luping Li; Wei Chen; Qingqing Kang; Yingqin Gu". Thank You again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. However I am afraid that the page is malfunctioning, and the advisory links do not work (they all point to the research.html file). Additionally, most of these vulnerabilities are DoS class. Additionally, after entering the "Gadu-Gadu emots.txt Remote Code Execution Vulnerability" into google, I've got this link [26], which credits a person called "j00ru", which after entering in google, gave me this advisory [27] - as I understand, this is the same vulnerability, and it does not state anything related to the eleytt company. In this case, I cannot agree that Eleytt is a notable company, hence lack of innovative or notable work. 87.105.185.61 (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, refer to facts and links in Notable Security Input, or refer directly to companies involved to ask. I do not comment on business-related elements nor defend the article. I tried my best to make it valuable and provide many credible 3rd party sources. Let anyone judge by his understanding of the facts. Thank You for insightful tips, which in some way helped me to improve the article. Btw. I am not in IT security field, more in business.

I've expressed my opinion enough, and I will leave the decision to the Wikipedia contributors that are willing to vote in the articles AfD. Please note that I appreciate your contribution to the Wikipedia, however I cannot agree about the person in question being notable. 87.105.185.61 (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yours sincerely, Dr. Kamil Borkowski —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now significantly improved the document, provided many notable sources, removed many external links and made a section with ext links (everything based on the AfD discussion). I have given short notes describing links, removed less interesting part of paper. Hope now it is a valuable article. Sincerely Yours, Dr. Kamil Borkowski —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Daroff

The article and the image within are a hint that William Daroff and the uploader of the image User:Repjew might be the same person. Can somebody with more clue on this kind of topic have a look.--Stone (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any wiki bio that doesn't have any criticism at all is unusual indeed, I have tagged it with COI and NPOV template and left him a message asking about it, the article is well cited and not over bad, just a bit one sided, I really dislike lists like this though...He has also been widely quoted in leading news outlets, including The New York Times[14], The Washington Post[15], USA Today[16], The Los Angeles Times[17], Newsweek[18], The International Herald-Tribune, Slate[19], The Jerusalem Post[20], Ha’aretz[21], The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)[22], The Forward[23], and newspapers around the world. He has also made frequent radio and television appearances[24] Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the questions. I do not know Daroff. It is my intent to write entries on Jewish political leaders, and this was my first attempt. I wanted to say that he's often quoted in the news media to show that he's newsworthy. I figured that the laundry list of articles would serve as a sufficient way of showing that. Since I think his being quoted in the media is relevant, how should I cite that? Also, I included his twitter feed since that's how I learned he existed and because the newservice JTA called him among the most influential Jewish twitterers in the world. So, his twitter url seems relevant. Should I make it an external link at the bottom? Also, do I really need to find something bad about the subject to make this a complete entry? Thanks for your help - as a newbie, I appreciate it. Repjew (talk • contribs) 05:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Would it be appropriate to include links to the webpages of a notable living person's business interests in the external links section of an article? I ask in relation to Kwong Wing Lam. Simonm223 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good read here Wikipedia:External links Off2riorob (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and an external link was flagged as an attack site, I removed all the externals and prodded the article. Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julianne Moore, atheism and sourcing

Resolved

– Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an issue arise about WP:BLP and a contention based on a response Moore gave on Inside the Actors Studio. Earlier in the week an editor came through and added "atheist" to a number of articles based on sourcing to the user-driven website celebatheist.com. That website claimed Moore said she was atheist in her response to the questionnaire given on the Actors Studio. The exchange went: If there is a God, when you arrive at the Pearly Gates, what is the first thing you'll say to him? Moore's response was "Wow, I was wrong, you really do exist." That was put forth as an admission of being an atheist, although the discussion did not include that specific answer. It was removed based on WP:RS. The issue now is that another editor has returned the same contention and cited the same questionnaire response as a basis to say she is an atheist and gave a cite to the San Francisco Examiner. Two of us contend that in either case, extrapolating that conclusion based on that response is synthesis. The editor who added said that the synthesis is on the part of the reporter who wrote the article. We still contend that to include such a claim in the Wikipedia article, in order to satisfy WP:BLP, a more definitive source is required, not the Actors Studio response, such as a interview in which she says "Yeah, I'm an atheist." More eyes and opinions on this are needed. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "San Francisco Examiner" should pass RS anyway. It is nothing more than a collection of local writers who enjoy writing and they get paid on a "per-view" basis. They aren't employees and Examiner.com does no fact checking. I currently write for them and have never had anything fact checked. They review articles posted, but don't really verify anything unless it becomes an issue. They were booted from Google news search results for a while and just recently got put back on the search results after agreeing to watch what they call news a little more closely. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answering that to the question is not a good reference to tag them as an Atheist for the rest of their life. At the Category Atheist it reads as a condition of inclusion..

This category contains Atheists,

who have expressed being an atheist,
and of whom it is known how they define their atheism.

She has done neither of these things clearly has not expressed her Atheism in any clear way. So she does not belong in the cat, you could if you had a reliable citation and thought it a valuable addition, add the reply she made to the question in the body of the article, personally I wouldn't bother adding the reply or the question as it is simply pretty vague. Off2riorob (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you, Niteshift36. I did not know that the Examiner had fallen so low in the way you describe. My promotion of that source is at an end—the writer's conclusion about Moore never got the approval of the usual newspaper editorial staff. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is not only the sourcing. Wikipedia was making a completely unambiguous statement - "Moore is an atheist", and I think the danger lies our assertion of this as a fact. Regardless of how well Moore's Inside the Actor's Studio comment is sourced, and I don't doubt that she has been quoted correctly, any interpretation of that statement is an interpretation. Even if a reliable source can be found to have synthesised Moore's reply to a one word label, we still have to be careful about how we include the information in this article, if we choose to include it all. Unless Moore makes a clear statement one way or another, the best we can hope for is "According to such-and-such reliable source, Moore is an atheist", even if the "such-and-such reliable source" turns out to be the Pope. Nobody but Moore is in the position to make it an absolute statement. Rossrs (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally support that position Rossrs, she was asked a silly question and gave a silly answer, it in no way asserts that she is affiliated and sees herself as an atheist. The comment is not worth adding at all, no matter where it is cited to. Off2riorob (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything here and I just wanted to add that a few months ago I initiated a discussion on the RS noticeboard about examiner.com. The outcome of the discussion was that the source has about the same reliability as a blog with the same rules for citation.--Jarhed (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Bernanke's Picture Title

Resolved

– Another IP fixed it. Ray^Talk 21:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never done edits before on Wikipedia, but could someone please remove the racist remark over Ben S. Bernanke's picture titled "smirk jew". I don't agree with his current policy approach but there is no need to reference his religion or make remarks about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.92.113 (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jules de Martino of the Tin Tins

thanks Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was not born in 1977. He was born in 1968/69 as I went to school with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.15.242 (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Weisbrot

Some recent editing at Mark Weisbrot (a left US economist) sought to characterise him as "a vocal supporter of Hugo Chavez in the United States", as the second part of the first sentence, no less.[28] That morphed into this version, where a similar meaning is given in the final sentence of the lead ("an adviser to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and supporter of his policies"). Apart from the question of due weight, there may be issues of synthesis (possibly) from sources not necessarily reliable, and of over-generalising (being an economist, he's mostly written about Venezuela's economic policies). The "Latin America" section seems now also to have developed into an attempt to associate Weisbrot as closely and as negatively as possible with Chavez - which is particularly obvious and questionable in relation to the "South of the Border" film, on which he was an "adviser" to an unspecified degree. The final part of that section, associating Weisbrot with the Venezuela Information Office via a National Review article referring to the organisation he works for, seems again somewhat synthesis. Some additional eyes please. Rd232 ^talk 12:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rd232, I took a look at it. Far from being synthesis, it looks like an accurate summation of information and statements made in reliably sourced articles. It's not just NR here; one of the cites in the introduction is the NYT. SandyGeorgia (the editor introducing this stuff) seems to have a good grip on neutrality and the situation. Ray^Talk 17:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated :) As a side issue, it would be helpful if others would keep an eye on the edit warring of JRSP and Rd232 across Venezuela/Chavez/BLP articles. In this article, they reverted together to exclude this info. Rather than discuss and improve articles, even when text is clearly sourcable, they just remove whatever is inconvenient. In another article, they revert to include a source that did not say what they said it said (the US State Dept never said Chavez was "illegally" detained, but they revert to include that info.)[29] Getting more eyes on these issues across all Chavez/Venezuela articles now would help. It would be helpful if they would learn to collaborate and discuss rather than edit via revert. For example, if Rd232 thinks the current section is an "attempt to associate Weisbrot as closely and as negatively as possible with Chavez", he is welcome to actually work on the article to expand it via editing, not reverting sourcable additions. I already spent ten hours cleaning up the mess that was previously there :) P.S. I didn't "introduce this stuff" :) The text was originally added by another editor, cited to the New York Times,[30] summarily reverted (as is custom across Chavez/Venezuelan articles, even though it's easily sourced),[31] [32] [33] so I began to look at the article and the issues, which led to cleaning up a very poorly written article. Further, Weisbrot's involvement with Chavez is not confined to "economic policy" as Rd232 alleges: for example, the advisor role on Stone's film, and this example (there are many others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pointless to pick out all the inaccuracies in that comment (an obvious one: I said "mostly written about Venezuela's economic policies" just up the page - how does that translate to "confined to"?), though the misrepresentation of the State Dept sourcing issue alluded to verges on libel. Anyhoo, for some reason there is an upswing in interest in Venezuela articles, and I certainly agree with Sandy more people being involved would be excellent. Rd232 ^talk 22:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libel? Excuse me? Is that a legal threat? You added back text that incorrectly represented a citation. Where is the libel in that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting to be a habit, Sandy. What I said was "misrepresentation verging on libel" (and of course it's not a threat). You knew or should have known (and certainly should have checked at this point) that I did not do that deliberately. You removed a word saying it was unsupported by the existing citation, which I didn't originally add. In response I readded the word with an additional source. Prior to that there was a to-and-fro between two different versions, but nobody'd said the word wasn't supported by the existing source. What does any of this have to do with current issues at Mark Weisbrot? Not a damn thing, it's pointless historiography. Rd232 ^talk 09:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do have a habit of verifying sources and supplying diffs which plainly back what I state. Your version above is incorrect: you reverted to text which is not verified by the source given;[34] at that point, I hadn't edited at all. You did it not once, but three times.[35] [36] I didn't edit to remove the word until much later.[37] Your edit history shows you do edit by reverting on Chavez/Venezuela articles quite a bit; when you revert to text that is not backed by the sources supplied, that's the same as adding incorrect info yourself, whether deliberate or not (noting that I never said it was "deliberate", just something that you've done). Editing via revert is bitey, discourages others from participating, and lowers collaboration among editors and the possibility that articles will be accurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs supplied verify what I said. On that one word the text was not supported by the ref; a ref I didn't add and which had been there a long time and which no-one had at the point said didn't support the word. Within minutes of someone (you) pointing that out, I supplied another ref. And again, the prior re-adding of the word was as part of editing back and forth over a number of changes, a fact you conveniently gloss over, enabling you to imply I should have checked the source given for a single contested word (there were lots of changes, and sourcing wasn't the reason given for removal). Why you're trying to paint me as a liar and bad faith manipulator, I do not know; but that you do it repeatedly on a topic irrelevant to the subject in hand is really quite aggravating. Rd232 ^talk 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, back on topic. You requested other input here, and although no one yet who has visited the article or this page has agreed with you, you nonetheless removed fully cited text and continue to claim that it is original research and synthesis. Could you please explain why we don't want Wiki readers to know what reliable sources have to say about Mark Weisbrot, Center for Economic and Policy Research and Venezuela Information Office? Wiki is not censored; please see WP:CONSENSUS, and restore the cited text. And yes, "verging on libel" is clearly a threat, as it could have the effect of silencing someone with whom you disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic (remember that? good) you're quite plainly wrong: user:John Z agreed with me below, and made an edit backing up his comment. Rd232 ^talk 22:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, JohnZ did not agree with you, and removed the one clause that he had a problem with (which, by the way, came from the South of the Border article, as a claim that US critics had a problem with the film). Please do read his response, and refrain from edit warring against consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've commented at WP:ANI#Legal threat, saying that an article is libelous is not a legal threat, just a statement of fact that may be wrong or true. Indeed, one of the principal purposes of WP:BLP is to prevent libel on behalf of Wikipedia. Sandstein 21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, could you please take the time to read the statement again? He did not say the article was libelous; he said my characterization of the edits was verging on libel. That is plain. He is saying I misrepresented his edits with regard to the State Dept sourcing issue, which I plainly did not, as shown by the diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yes, that is indeed more problematic; not a legal threat stricto sensu but such comments should be avoided if only for reasons of collegial courtesy. Sandstein 22:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs show what happened. It's your interpretation thereof which is mispresentation. Rd232 ^talk 22:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Venezuela emphasis does seem a little WP:UNDUE. The statement that "South of the Border,a 2009 film about Chavez which was not well received by US critics", citing mainly negative reviews is a clear case of OR, so I removed it. A statement of expert consensus, particularly in a BLP, must be sourced and preferably quoted, and the relation of the film's reviews to Weisbrot is too tenuous.John Z (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a positive review, by all means, add it. I couldn't find one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis

Comments please re a WP:Synthesis concern explained at Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Synthesis. thanks. Rd232 ^talk 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rd232 is still edit warring to remove the content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm drawing on the BLP exemption for 3RR. For those who can't be bothered to look it up, "Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." I assert that the material is WP:Synth, and I await some additional editors helping to resolve that issue. (Existing editors actually addressing the issue would be nice too.) Rd232 ^talk 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seem you're the only one who sees synthesis here, and you're still reverting. Can you please explain which part is poorly sourced? Wiki isn't censored, we report what reliable sources say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No longer the case with John Z commenting now, so presuming that ain't gonna settle the issue, more input would be helpful. Rd232 ^talk 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize the arguments were still going on here. A general comment. Weisbrot is an economist, not a film-maker or professional co-writer of letters to the editor. I doubt he spends very much time on either activity, and is not notable for either. If he is the "intellectual architect" of the Bank of the South, and an adviser to Hugo Chavez, that is what the "Latin America" section should focus on. A second general comment: Links and sources for an article should generally at least mention and preferably significantly treat the topic; especially in a BLP. If not, they should almost always substantially cover something directly, integrally and particularly connected to the topic, here CEPR or maybe Bank of the South, for explanatory purposes. Otherwise it is almost impossible not to violate OR and UNDUE.John Z (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update

In spite of absolutely no support for his claims, after review on three different dispute resolution forums, Rd232 is still removing reliably sourced content, against all consensus. Is Rd232 immune to being blocked because he's an admin? Multiple diffs of his frequent edit warring and invalid reverts have been given; 3RR warnings are on his talk page; we have evidence of tenditious editing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again, in spite of no agreement or consensus at multiple forums of dispute resolution. The "advisor" statement has two reliable sources. Rd232 is claiming a BLP violation when the sourced statement is even hosted on CEPR.net, where the subject Mark Weisbrot is co-director. If Mark Weisbrot doesn't have a problem with it, why does Wiki have a BLP issue? The page on CEPR.net says "Segun fuentes cercanas, el propio Chavez consulta con cierta frecuencia a Weisbrot ... " (According to close sources, Chavez himself consults Weisbrot with certain frequency ... ). Hosted by Center for Economic and Policy Research, where Weisbrot is co-director. The BLP argument does not hold, and Rd232 is edit warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the article turned an activity - "Chavez himself consults Weisbrot with a certain frequency" into a position: "adviser". I saw that issue before but overlooked it this time, I was distracted by the quote in the footnote referring to the Bank of the South. Rd232 ^talk 18:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you can certainly reword the text if you don't like "described as an advisor", in spite of two sources that back that up, but what you can't do is edit war with the excuse of BLP when Weisbrot himself hosts the information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop multiplying this issue. The discussion is on the article talk page, and I don't want to waste time clarifying issues in multiple places. Rd232 ^talk 20:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not immune. Please don't use BLPN as a forum for these sort of comments. WP:ANI is that way. Rd232 ^talk 18:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update2

More issues arising about sourcing of other contentious claims made (Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Adviser.3F) and ongoing discussion about the other issues. More input on the article talk page please. Rd232 ^talk 18:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Walker

Could people take a look at this article please? IP editors are repeatedly editing the article to claim that the subject has died, without any corroborating sources. This happened in December, and again today. Murray Walker is very famous in the UK - particular in Formula 1 circles - and if he had actually died, sources would be easy to find. Google News finds nothing.

WP:3RR suggests I bring this up here rather than rely on the BLP exception to the rule (which I believe applies) - so that's what I'm doing. Pfainuk talk 20:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations and blatent vandalism are exceptions to 3RR, and unless there is a reliable source saying he is dead, claim that he is dead is BLP vandalism. Martin451 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather what I thought. Thanks. Pfainuk talk 21:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simcha Jacobovici

There may be nothing factually wrong with this article, however I do feel that some of the information provided may be blown up or far fetched. I can definitely tell that whoever wrote this article has ill feelings towards Mr. Jacobovici. I feel that this article is more of a slander page. I feel that Mr. Jacobovici is wonderful at what he does. I am not a professional in any way, but I do have a good bit of knowledge concerning the Bible and history, he does a great job at accurately portraying these events. I do hope that someone can take a look at this. It would be such a shame that just a handful of people's views can taint other's who read this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.137.168 (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit negative, criticism of criticism viewed critically, any takers? Off2riorob (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is kinda in my specialty area, so I will see what I can do. I don't think the BLP issue is a serious one.Jarhed (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Foster

I'd appreciate some input over on Peter Foster.

Brief background: Peter Foster is an Australian who's been jailed in three continents for fraud, false advertising, and other such offences. Media outlets commonly describe him as a 'con man'. According to this Courier-Mail article (as reproduced on PF's website - I have not sighted the original) his mother called him "Ratu Galoot" (King Fool). An ABC piece described him thus:

"Interviewing white collar criminals like Foster is probably the toughest part of this job. They’re harder to talk to than politicians because lying isn’t just a habit for them, it’s a business practice. If they can they’ll try to play you like they play everybody, with a carefully marked deck. The trick is, to recognise the cards. Tonight’s main guest Peter Foster is ultimately in the business of selling himself. He bought [sic]the full deck of cards marked ‘trust me’ to our studio."

The original version of Foster's WP article was created in 2005 by Ratugaloot (user has a total of three edits, all to that article). While it acknowledges his criminal record, it comes across as a puff piece: 'Said to be fiercely intelligent, charming, witty and entertaining, he has also been labelled as “the greatest conman of all time,” in Nigel Blundell’s 2004 book, “The Sting: True Stories of the World's Greatest Conmen”.'

The article was subsequently edited by User:Kingcoconut, an apparent single-purpose account created one day after Foster was released from prison.[38] It has also been edited extensively by anons (see the PF talk page for detail). Both Kingcoconut's edits and the anons' have concentrated on playing up Foster's "celebrity". There have been repeated attempts to emphasise the "international playboy" angle on the strength of a few articles that have used this as a throwaway line - even though those articles give vastly more coverage to his criminal activities.

As discussed on Talk:Peter Foster, many of these edits are unbalanced and poorly cited, and some are hard to see as anything other than bad faith. Examples include 'citations' to sources that do not support the content attributed to them, and to sources that are difficult to check. After hunting down several sources and finding that they had been dishonestly used, I am unwilling to trust any source offered in that article until I've checked it to confirm that the citation is accurate.

When other editors have attempted to rebalance the article, Kingcoconut and anons have complained vociferously about bias etc. (Foster took a similar course of action after an ABC interview turned out less favourably than he had hoped.)

On the one hand, I appreciate that WP:BLP requires us to be careful in how we write about living people, for good reason.

On the other, based on editing style, agenda, etc, I am convinced that Ratugaloot, Kingcoconut, and the anonymous IPs are one and the same person, and would lay good money that that person is none other than Peter Foster. Whether or not I'm correct in that belief, it's clear that they are trying to promote Foster. I don't believe BLP requires us to accept that. However, I get nervous deleting favourable material from a BLP on the grounds of WP:WEIGHT - what's the best way to deal with this issue? --GenericBob (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't accept no fluff...he is not a major criminal though and he is a living person, the article is a bit poor and a bit excessively negative towards him imo, yes I know, all the tabloid style reports are negative so what can we do..what I find is that if you write a decent encyclopedic style article the article will be respected and will stabilize, people will come there and read it and think, yea, that was imformative. Off2riorob (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Gruber (economist)

Several single-purpose accounts are persistently adding large amounts of negative material which is sourced solely to weblog entries and op-ed pieces. The SPAs engage in edit-warring when the material is removed.

— goethean ॐ 04:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's blocked for 24 and a sock farm is under investigation, obama health care issues, awful, I have watchlisted it. Off2riorob (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discounting the fact of the socking, one of the queries is of the sourcing. Does an op-ed from New York Times, etc suffice to add the bit that's trying to be added to the article. NJA (t/c) 08:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's vastly WP:UNDUE for more than the passing mention I've left in; and the sources are either bloggy, partisan, or primary (the Times note is a primary source here). Rd232 ^talk 09:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks Keel

The background information on this page comes word for word from the president's biography at www.georgiasouthern.edu/president . Every external link goes straight to a marketing page for Georgia Southern Very biased information. 141.165.171.60 (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. I have removed the copyvio material and deleted two external links. If the university would like to release the copyright text for use, there are instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you have ongoing concerns about bias you could start a discussion on the article's talk page. - Pointillist (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radu Berceanu

Resolved

– Page semiprotected by User:Angusmclellan. Come back if troubles continue after semiprotection expires. Ray^Talk 23:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having problems with an IP editor who keeps inserting the claim that this (living) politician was born "Arad Bercovici". First of all, Berceanu states on his website that he is an Orthodox Christian and that both his parents were. Second, calling someone a Jew (and "Arad Bercovici" is undoubtedly a Jewish name) is unfortunately a form of slander in certain spheres of Romanian political discourse. Third, the "references" the IP has added are: a forum posting, the press organ of a xenophobic, anti-Semitic political party; and a blog posting. No reliable sources exist to corroborate this claim; it is counteracted by the subject himself; and it is (at least meant to be) defamatory. Could someone please intervene, perhaps to semi-protect the page? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stedman Pearson

I get complaints about this section all the time, the IP has claimed he is the subject or someone close to the subject but there is no comfirmation, this is the section they want removed, I also think it should be removed, the content is not very encyclopedic, it is more tabloid and titilating, it is a minor incident and it was not widely reported and for us to give it global coverage in a small biography of a person who is not even excessively notable is a bit demeaning.. does anyone support removing it? citation one is virgin media [44] Two, is a book, rock movers and shakers and three is an interview with his sister commenting in the guardian.

'In 1990, Pearson was arrested for public indecency following an incident at a public toilet in New Malden in south west London.[1] He later pleaded guilty to the charges and was fined £100 and agreed to be bound over for a period of one year.[2] In an interview in 2008, Pearson's sister Denise (lead singer with Five Star) commented "...Stedman was arrested in a toilet, long before George Michael was - I remember him coming into my room and crying, "I didn't do what they said I did." [3] Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, such trivia is what is meant by "contentious" <g>. If it is not a felony, we whould not be pushing it in any biography. Collect (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The arrest of any public figure (actors, musicians, politicians, authors, etc) is notable information and belongs in an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter how long ago it was, or for what it was for, or whether some people find the subject matter distasteful, it is still notable. Pearson was arrested and the matter went to court. This is not just trivia. Since Steadman Pearson is notable enough to have an article page, then we should not be censoring details about him. As long as the details are adequately sourced (and it is) then it should be included. Judging by the edit-warring and talk page discussions on the article, it seems the only people bothered by it are an anonymous IP user who claims to be acting on behalf of Stedman Pearson himself (and therefore a total violation of WP:COI) and Off2RioRob, who began this report thread. You seem to be exaggerating the matter for your own purposes Rob, since you clearly haven't received complaints about this "all the time" as you claim. Roguana (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My purposes as you call them are the protection of individuals especially living ones from insertions to BLPs that can do them real life damage, this is a very minor crime indeed and actually the wikpedia is for all purposes the only place anyone is going to come across it, we are the propagators of this content, and imo it adds nothing of encyclopedic value at all. I have had requests about this content on my talkpage and it is repeatedly removed and it has been brought up here more than once, COI in this case is nothing more than the subject of the article asking that it be removed, I have a leaning towards supporting that position especially when the content is of little value to the reader. Off2riorob (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have missed the point of Wikipedia, Rob. We do not censor factually accurate, sourced details. Wikipedia is a collection of facts, good and bad - not a PR spin website. It does not matter what the subject was arrested for or whether you consider it to be a "minor crime", the fact is that he was arrested - and prosecuted. This is notable information about any public figure. I am still unconvinced about the alleged many requests on your talk page that you claim to have received, because I can only see one - and that is from the anonymous IP user who has been told off repeatedly for continued edit-warring on the article. As we now know, the IP user has a vested interest. And why they are "requesting" anything from you is beyond me unless they are under the misbelief that you own Wikipedia. In fact, you're not even an administrator. Roguana (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you ask my what my purpose is and you have edited here on only two days and have 14 edits and the first one was to add some gay comment about section 28, it is not hard to see what your purpose here is. Off2riorob (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "some gay comment"? If you turn this discussion into a homophobic rant, you will find yourself being reported. Do I make myself clear? Roguana (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am another editor that wants the section removed, and I do not appreciate your tone. It is extremely contentious to threaten to "report" someone, and do you even know what you are talking about? You seem not to realize that the stance you are taking, that any nasty data should be included in a BLP just because you think it should, is a controversial one. I, for example, could not disagree with you more. I would appreciate it if you would try a little harder to be persuasive so that you can win people over to your viewpoint. As it stands now, I hope you get yourself blocked.Jarhed (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just keep talking like that Jarhed, and you'll be the one getting blocked along with your pal Off2RioRob. And if Roguana doesn't do it, I will. Rob has already been reported for incivility on numberous occasions in the past year, not to mention several blocks for misconduct. It's not a pretty picture. Meanwhile, not only has Rob been misleading people on this noticeboard about "receiving complaints all the time" about the section in question, but when he says that this has also been through the BLP noticeboard before, what he isn't telling you is that he is the one who brought it there [45]. He failed to get it removed then so now he's having another go with a different set of punters. In addition, at least three separate editors on the article's talk page have also told Rob that the section is appropriate for the article and is well sourced. As stated above, we do not censor Wikipedia just because it may not be flattering towards a subject. The section, as is, is at the foot of the article and does not give undue weight to the incident, nor is it judgmental or sensationalised. It merely states the facts in a totally impartial manner. At the time when the incident occured, Stedman Pearson was in one of the most successful British bands of the era. His arrest is notable information, much like George Michael who was arrested for the same thing in 1998. Pearson's was widely reported in the national press and on television at the time. There is even a video on You Tube from a TV show in 2003 in which he discusses it. If we start censoring Wikipedia just because celebrities, fans, or anybody else want unflattering details removed, then Wikipedia stops being an encyclopedia and becomes little more than a biased fansite, and its value diminishes. I suspect O2RRob's motives for continually trying to delete this information though are for other, more personal reasons. MassassiUK 12:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if everyone would calm down. I appreciate that everyone has emotions and agendas on this particular article. My only agenda is to help with the BLP issue. I haven't even looked at the article in question, and I do not have a problem with any reliably sourced edit. My problem is the bullying attitude that is being displayed. I have just as much to say about this edit as you do, and I would appreciate it if someone would explain the issue succinctly and without resorting to personal attacks. Now, if you want to continue to throw around threats about getting me blocked, please be my guest to do so.Jarhed (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You admit you haven't even looked at the article in question and yet you are demanding that a section of it be removed? If you haven't read it then you have no business taking part in this discussion, and it is obvious you are here solely to support your pal Off2RioRob. And don't ever accuse anyone of making personal attacks after the way in which you spoke to another editor above. The only people who have stepped out of line in this thread are you and Rob. The latter of which does not surprise me in the least. MassassiUK 06:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pearson is a lesser known singer, there are only 4 citations on the article that is not much more than a stub, the toilet story makes up almost half the content and uses three of the four citation that support the whole content, I assure you, there is no comparrison with George Michael. The toilet incident is of no value to anybody and it is clearly upsetting the subject that it is on his bio, I agree with him that it should be removed, it is not a massive issue, it is a tiny offense I fail to see why a few people think it is such valuable content because it isn't. If I brought it here before that is highly possible I Don't see the content has any encyclopedia value at all. Coming here and gong on about my block record and such won't change anything, don't worry too much we are only talking about it. Off2riorob (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal, and my main reason for this is the obvious agenda pushing by a couple of editors here. I want to assume good faith, but they have already shown that they are not amenable to reasonable discussion.--Jarhed (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little too late for either of you to be trying to take the high road I'm afraid. It makes no difference if he is a lesser known singer, he is still notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The content in question does not take up nearly half of the article at all, so stop trying to mislead people again. It is currently three and a half lines. It is sourced. It is notable. It is neutrally written. It is not your place to decide whether or not it is of value to anybody. And it is completely irrelevant if the subject of the article (or somebody claiming to act on his behalf) wants it removed. As long as it is factually accurate and sourced, we do not censor Wikipedia for anybody. You have made your opinion quite clear, but I'm afraid you have still failed to make your case. Now move along. MassassiUK 09:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Join the discussion on the article talk page.Jarhed (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Riplinger

Resolved

– Several editors are watching the article

Could someone please take a look at the Gail Riplinger article? There is a large unsourced "controversy" section which is larger than the rest of the article information combined, both of the references in the article are from the individual's own writings, and the external links section is a link farm divided into "support" and "criticism". Also, most of the edits are being done by an SPA...Should the article just be stubbed to what can be reliably sourced? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I blew away the linkfarm. It's still in the history if somebody wants to use any of the previously linked material for sourcing. Ray^Talk 23:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's back again, but I don't feel like edit warring today. Kevin (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed resolved tag--reasonable edits were reverted.--Jarhed (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Iglesias

Article needs quite a bit of work, he went triple platinum and is pretty damn popular. Article... not so much. Comes off with an informal tone, reads like it was written with a giant bias and is poorly worded. "fat" might be replaced with "obese" or "over-weight" in a lot of instances, capitalization is lacking, and there's a lot of poor formatting. The notable works is outdated, references don't exist, etc...

Any of that may be true about this or many articles, but I see no BLP issues.Jarhed (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Resolved

– New picture found, provided by Monckton himself

I would like to raise for discussion the use of an image in the lead of the above article. The image was added December 14 by User:ChrisO.[46] It was removed on December 30 by User:GoRight, and has been a source of controversy since. It was removed by User:Wereon on January 2,[47] as a “highly unflattering, POV picture,” and was replaced by User:Kittybrewster without explanation.[48] It was removed twice by GoRight as a WP:BLPSPS violation on January 9,[49][50] and replaced by User:Neilj, User:William M. Connolley and User:ChrisO.[51][52][53] It was removed again by User:Off2riorob,[54] and the page was protected. Following protection it was replaced by Kittybrewster,[55] and then by User:Peterlewis, User:ChrisO, and User:Beyond My Ken against a User:Qichina who stated that it was a “derogatory representation of a living person.” [56][57][58][59][60][61] It was again removed by User:Alexh19740110,[62] an IP,[63] User:Unitanode,[64] and then by myself,[65] before the page was again protected in its current state. The image has been the source of repeated and extensive disagreement on the talk page in the short time since it was added.

I see the image as a clear violation of WP:BLP, in that it presents the subject out of context and in a disparaging light. See WP:MUG for WP:BLP on images. It is out of context primarily in that it was put up on Flickr as showing Monckton while he was being “confronted,” and his event “disrupted” by youth activists,[66] yet this context is not provided. It is disparaging in that Monckton looks strained and uncomfortable, which is classically the type of image that is used for attack pieces, negative advertisements and the like. Here are a couple of examples with others. Here is another example with John McCain.

The image has repeatedly been defended on the ground that Monckton only looks this way because of a medical condition. I do not see how this is an acceptable argument. Monckton does not look strained in other photos, nor in another photo from the same event.[67] Nothing in the article mentions any medical condition, thus no reader would conclude this. Any medical condition is also missing context, per WP:MUG, although the context would seem rather profoundly inappropriate in the lead of the article. The image of McCain could equally be used saying that he looks strained due to war injuries, and that we should not hide his injuries.

I think the policy is clear, but I also think WP:BLP is clear that the burden is on editors to show that the material is acceptable ("The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."). Many editors have opposed this image, from as early as it received any attention at all. The problem is that editors keep saying that Monckton looks just fine, or alternatively that he only looks odd because of a medical condition that we do not discuss in the article. I think there is much to indicate that this is simply false, and that rather he is quite agitated. I do not believe one should need to establish consensus against a picture that has been so widely contested as a BLP violation, but given that the article is now protected I'd like to ask for other views on the matter here. Mackan79 (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a BLP. It is quite clear that any controversial claims must be fully sourced -- using a photo to source a claim of a medical condition clearly falls into that category. Only direct reliable sources making the claim in text can be used. As the photo is, according to the above, being used to avoid the need for a RS on a medical condition, it is being improperly used per WP:BLP entirely. Collect (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is actually being done Collect, they are not using the picture as a citation to include details of his claimed illness, they are using his claimed illness as an excuse for how bad he looks in the picture and therefore suggesting that the picture is ok to use, there was a fair bit of discussion previously and for certain there was no clear consensus to add the picture, the picture is on someones blog saying how it makes him look awful and yet it has been inserted again, I heard that someone claimed that if you wrote to Monkton he would provide a better picture it is worth a try but I imagine he would rather have his bio deleted if he has read it, it could as a compromise be moved out of the infobox down into the article where the detail that he is being surprised by activists could be added, at least this will minimize the profile of the picture until a better one can be found. Off2riorob (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No the fact of his bulging eyes is something that he acknowledges in his spirited blog. That was not included because ChrisO felt it gave UNDUE WEIGHT. Maybe so. Don't have a view. Perhaps it should be included. Monckton himself won't provide a picture and licence to wikipedia. He dislikes the article. And this event in Copenhagen was one he himself sought out. He told the activists opposed to him (whom he called Hitler youths) they should not have stormed into his meeting on the previous night and their photographs were now all over the world - so live with it. Tough. [68]Meanwhile everybody is content to see the photograph replaced with another with a licence; we just don't have one. Its tough. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a little strained to call this a BLP matter; this has the feel of one of those issues where BLP is being used as a cudgel. That said, the picture doesn't seem especially encyclopedic. It looks amateurish, at best, and detracts from the article. It seems preferable to go with no picture (pending a higher-quality, freely available one), rather than keep a poor-quality picture up, to me anyway. While it's disappointing to see this picture become the latest climate-change battleground, I think there is some credibility to the idea that this picture makes the subject look unduly undignified, and we should aim higher. MastCell ^Talk 07:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the protecting administrator, I would not object if an uninvolved party were to remove the image pending discussion iff you feel that any potential chilling effects are outweighed by any potential harm from leaving the picture in the article pending discussion. Note also that I set the protection to indefinite, as I had protected the article for the same reason scant weeks ago. Please do not unprotect it absent assurance that the edit war will not resume. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re MastCell: I appreciate the sentiment, though probably I should have been clearer that I was quoting WP:BLP quite closely. The policy has two sentences on images, the first of which states that "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." Considering this was taken by youth activists in an ambush (yes, there is a YouTube video showing that they were putting stickers on his back and trying to interrupt him to show live images of the prank), I'd consider that relevant context. Adding in the medical issue only worsens the point. I don't like to make a cudgel of anything, but in my view BLP is quite important here. Mackan79 (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I received a mail from Lord Monckton today, a new image is forthcoming which he has chosen himself. 2/0 to stop further arguing on this issue would you remove the current image until the new one is sorted out. mark nutley (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to put the horse before the cart. The current image should stay in place until the new image is uploaded and vetted. Because it came from Monckton is no guarantee that it is usable on Wikipedia. Does he own the rights to it? If so, then you'll probably need to get Monckton to file an OTRS ticket to verify the rights. This may take time, and in the meantime, there's no reason that the current image can't stay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please retain existing image or replace with Nutley's new one. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I point out that those of you arguing to keep this picture are making no effort to explain its compliance with WP:BLP, which states that images that are taken out of context and disparaging cannot be used? "There's no reason that the current image can't stay," sure, if you have not read any part of this discussion and are completely unfamiliar with policy. Frankly that is why WP:BLP is necessary in cases like this, and should be used more proactively if anything. Editors who show no concern with this type of issue on a WP:BLP should not be editing the article. That is a separate issue, but lacking any rational arguments for how this does not plainly violate WP:BLP in that it is out of context and it is disparaging I'd again ask that it is removed immediately pending any further resolution. Mackan79 (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A photo of LBJ showing him with his gall-bladder surgery scars is about as proper as this photo is. It is clearly being used to enter information for which no proper RS source is being given, It is therefore deletable on sight under BLP policies. The salient part is not the part on images but the part on contentious material -- whether or not it is in an image. Collect (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking resolved now. I would suggest that the article can be unlocked. --FormerIP (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~What do you mean by resolved? Are you in agreement with removing the image?~~ Never mind, I see this has been resolved on the article talk page. And thank you to Mark Nutley for proactively working on a solution. I think that replacing a potentially unflattering picture with one supplied by an article subject is a courtesy we should extend across the board to anyone. MastCell ^Talk 19:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The new picture is much better, thank you Marknutley. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the picture? Mackan79 (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurray: actual problem actually solved. New picture is fine. Rd232 ^talk 21:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YEA, well done mr monkton for coming up with the goods and also to Mark Nutley for doing the needed. Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew de Rothschild

Resolved

– Hoax articles deleted, creator blocked

I don't think Andrew de Rothschild actually exists. Searching this name in Factiva brought up nothing while a Google search brought up nothing substantial. I did a search for his supposed mother "Arianna Vanderbilt" in the New York Times archives and found nothing, although the birth, debut, marriage or death of such a person would have been reported there at some point. I think that the website "Rothschild Estates" (see link in the profile) is phony -- some kind of elaborate gag or perhaps even the work of an imposter, like the French fake Rockefeller from years back.

Andrew de Rothschild, his alleged parents, and his young heir Stefan are all probably fictitious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benf64 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything either, if it is a hoax it is very elaborate, does any other editor have any thoughts or knowledge about this? Off2riorob (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One editor came along on the 10th Jan, 73 edits later and he had created three articles and connecting link to a few more, I can't find any verification, this website is the central detail for the pics and detail, there is a washington post were the company is pledging 2.5 million to haiti, and that press release is also on the web site, this http://www.rothschild-estates.com is the website. They could well be a hoax, or just perhaps private people. Off2riorob (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I sent then to AFD to get some more opinions, Stefan_de_Rothschild and Andrew de Rothschild Off2riorob (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they are so ultra-private, how come they have a website (with statements like "We do not foresee any new development in the Brazilian market in the near future")? There is nothing specific about their supposed assets except for famous vineyards actually owned by other Rothschilds. How come little "Stefan" is allowed to blog publicly? Real Rothschilds would have some kind of news trail. I can find nothing about their holding company "Rothschild Estates" either, or their supposed executives like "Christopher Wolfe" and "Miles Farrar-Hockley." This doesn't smell right. If there was a billionaire named Andrew de Rothschild, I'd probably have heard of him before. Perhaps the individual(s) behind this hoax intend to solicit money or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benf64 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for bringing this to our attention, we have been looking into it and there do appear to be some issues. Off2riorob (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This contact page (hxxp://www.rothschild-estates.com/#/contact/4537695150) is further proof of the fraud. It says to email their New York office "for US, Canadian, Chinese and Brazilean estates". Lol. My guess is that the person (hxxp://www.ted.com/profiles/view/id/416242) blogging as the teenage heir Stefan de Rothschild on Huffington Post (hxxp://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-de-rothschild) is behind it.

I don't think Stefan is a teenager, even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benf64 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right well spotted Benf64 it looks like a hoax. I have been following the trails. As soon as I have concrete confirmation it is a hoax (or someone does this before me) then all of these articles should be speedy deleted. Polargeo (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this all being a rather elaborate hoax. In addition to the 'Rothschild Estates' website, there is also Rothschild Arts which looks dodgy, and probably more. Quite a lot of work has gone into all this. I suggest a speedy delete of all content created by User:Womblethereof. Whatever nefarious activity is going on, wikipedia should try not to be a part of it. Quantpole (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had solid confirmation of the hoax and have made a report on ANI. Polargeo (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serial hoaxer, Stefan Roberts, who began as heir presumptive to various titles, progressed to being Viscount St Pierre complete with fake London Gazette page to show that his father Andrew had been created an Earl, and then became a hedge-fund billionaire with a chateau in France, an art gallery in NY, etc. He has changed his surname this time, but "Baron Stefan de Rothschild" also has a father called Andrew, also was made a director of the family business while still in his teens, and has the same birth date - 2 July 1992. See his pictures here and here. JohnCD (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, thats him, he wants reporting to the police. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look how much work he has put into building up his new persona - four websites:

20/12/09 http://www.rothschild-estates.com/
31/12/09 http://www.rothschildarts.org/
02/01/10 http://www.stefanderothschild.com/
23/01/10 http://www.rothschildglobalfoundation.org/

not to mention his social-networking:

I'm not sure he has actually done anything the police would be interested in, but should we tell the real Rothschilds? JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a (probably pointless) voice message with the New York office of Rothschild North America. Benf64 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if they might send us a delicious bottle of vino. Off2riorob (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I have emailed the (real) Rothschild Foundation. My first thought was the NM Rothschild bank, but their website doesn't give an email address: I asked the foundation to pass it on if they thought necessary. JohnCD (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John, it would be interesting to get a reply. Off2riorob (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zeppelin article

Not a BLP issue. Moved to Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Led Zeppelin article - moved from BLP noticeboard. Onorem ♠Dil 15:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Halvorssen Mendoza

Rd232 again (see Mark Weisbrot thread above). In this edit, Rd232 repeats selective info from Thor Halvorssen Hellum, (Sr. vs. Jr.) in a BLP that now reads as an attempt to smear Thor Jr. with allegations about his father, Thor Sr., although the Thor Sr. article is already linked and info about Thor Sr. belongs in and can be explored in more detail in his article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? As you can see from the diff provided by Sandy, I moved the existing para from one section where it really didn't belong to one where it does (though it may need trimming). And don't you think you might have tried raising this on the talk page before posting here? Or, er, editing? Rd232 ^talk 12:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And frankly claiming the paragraph is an attempt at smearing is fucking funny, excuse my language. Key phrases: "trumped-up charges" and "He was found innocent of all charges." and the bit about Jr is "led the campaign for his father’s release, enlisting the help of Amnesty International". Rd232 ^talk 12:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

collapse off-topicness

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Since your editing of this nature extends across all Venezuela/Chavez-related articles (see ANI, this board, and RSN), and keeping up with all of it is time consuming, I'm more interested in getting impartial observers to weigh in for broader input vis-a-vis the trend. Clean up your language :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think that the only reason you dragged the "legal threat" issue to ANI after I clarified that it was not a threat (not that it was really a reasonable interpretation in the first place) was so that you could mention "ANI" later on. At any rate it was a complete waste of time you were entirely responsible for. Rd232 ^talk 13:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't clarify or apologize until I brought it to ANI; please stay on topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you dare make another false statement and then have the cheek to say "stay on topic" to shut down correction of it. My first response to you when it became clear you were concerned about the remark: on my user talk: 07.57 26 Jan "peruse wikt:threat". Second, here on BLPN: 09.08 26 Jan "of course it's not a threat". Your ANI post: 21.27 26 Jan. Rd232 ^talk 13:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A link to "dictionary" is not a response, and a followup with your definition of a threat isn't either; you didn't respond until I took it to ANI, where it was clarified that, on Wiki, it falls under harassment, not threat. Please stay calm; your posts are becoming increasingly agitated and off-topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I admit my first response was perhaps insufficiently clear (though in context of your seemingly not-terribly-worried comment on my talk page it seemed apposite). But the second "of course it's not a threat" comment in response to your "Is that a legal threat?" question prompted an ANI posting how? And by the by I apologised for the remark; you haven't apologised for the original misrepresentation; rather you repeated it. Rd232 ^talk 14:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a third party could mark this Resolved, if they think appropriate. The original question was a non-issue and the off-topicness is better not pursued. Rd232 ^talk 16:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no the original issue at Thor Halvorssen Mendoza is not at all resolved; in fact, no one has even looked at it yet. We have what looks like a smear in the article, and a thread that was diverted to a discussion of previous harassment, still with incorrect claims about what my diffs clearly showed (four reverts to incorrectly cited text) on a different article. An alternate is to cap off the diversionary posts that started with your post of "I'm starting to think that the only reason you dragged the 'legal threat' ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, four reverts to incorrectly cited text which nobody knew was incorrectly cited, and the minute you pointed it out the issue was addressed. Your persistence with that irrelevant non-issue has crossed the line into disruptive. Rd232 ^talk 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to explain the nature of the "smear"? Or better yet fix it? If it's really a smear, then per BLP you should be removing the offending text, not farting around with BLPN. BLPN comes if discussion on the article talk can't resolve the issue. Rd232 ^talk 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily I am here to help sort this out. I made some changes. The father's arrest and incarceration seem worth including, but I tried focus it more in relation to the son. I also made it a subsection. If it needs to be made clear that the arrest was improper in the thread title, that's okay with me assuming it's supported by sources. I saw in one of the sources the term "frame" is used. Perhaps that would be good to work into the conent? What exactly was he framed for? I put trumped up in quotes, it's fairly colloquial for an encyclopedia. Were the charges found to be fabricated in order to frame him? Maybe it would be best to state that clearly? I also adjusted the "privileged" bit from teh New York Times (although I didn't see a cite for it???). That's a loaded term so I just put that he was well off or something. I'm not sure it needs to be included. The article says his father was a minister so it seems to me to go without saying. As far as the lineage, I'm not really sure what that's about or if it's relevant (I am a direct descendant of the Aristotle and Pinnochio) it seems like it might be an effort to smear him or make him look like an outsider? But if it is to be included it certainly needs to be cited. Please let me know if there are any questions or I can be of further assistance. I am always happy to help, especially two editors whose work I always appreciate, except when they dare to disagree with me. Please keep that in mind. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that seems basically fine and I've added the oddly missing NYT source. But there is now a new problem: WP:UNDUE prominence. When you add a subssection heading for something, it sticks out in the Table of Contents, as well as in the section. I'd leave it in that section without a heading. Unless perhaps more sources can be found to more clearly link the father's arrest with his later activities, which seems very possible. If it can be shown to be important enough, it may deserve a subhead. Rd232 ^talk 11:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that, and I kind of like to have more than one subsection if there are to be subsections. I'm okay with it not being sectioned, but it is a block of content that holds together well and isn't quite in sequence with the rest of the chronological background, which is why I broke it out. As far as undue it does seem that his involvement with human rights groups and his career interests got started from those events, even if there is not yet a source noting a direct connection. As you note, there may well be one, or he may say so in an interview. I haven't looked. So that part of his life does seem quite relevant and important in the direction the rest of his life has taken. Anyway, good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Bell

I am requesting the input of an administrator for a dispute on the megachurch pastor Rob Bell article. In the controversy section of the article I added a few lines detailing a significant criticism that has been made of Rob Bell in at least two leading evangelical sources. One of these sources is the blog of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) which is a leading voice with regard to the criticism at issue. Anyone familiar with the gender debate in the church will recognize CBMW as the leading conservative voice in the matter. The other source is some self-published media of Mars Hill megachurch (Mark Driscoll's not Rob Bell's) which is also a leading news/information outlet in the American evangelical world. These sources contain witness information and also contain comments by leading evangelical Wayne Grudem on his personal involvement in the issue. Given the notability of the sources and the fact that they contain information from witnesses including bible scholar Wayne Grudem himself I thought it deserved a mention in the criticism section of the Rob Bell article. I mentioned it in a responsible manner being careful not to pass criticism off as fact - rather I described it as 'allegations'.

However, an edit war has ensued as two other editors do not want the information to be present and they say Wikipedia rules do not allow a blog to be a source. I have read the relevant part of the rules and I find no categorical prohibition of blogs or self-published media, and given the notability of the sources I think they are valid, especially as they are not mere opinion but contain interviews with witnesses and comments by Wayne Grudem himself. Please would an administrator resolve the issue. I have tried talking to both of the editors on the discussion page, our dialogue can be read here for more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rob_Bell#Controversy_section.3B_Basileias.2C_Henrybish_and_Lyonscc

Thanks--Henrybish (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, 'Controversy' sections are discouraged. They invite people with an axe to grind about the subject and can lead to undue weight being given to certain aspects of a person's biography. Secondly, undue weight should not be given to a particular viewpoint. There is an awful lot out there regarding Rob Bell, and if all there is about this particular issue is a blog post which has been reposted in a couple of partisan sources, then it should be given very little, if any, attention in the article. Thirdly, reliable sources should be used. I have no idea who 'Jeff Robinson', the person who wrote the blog piece is, but blogs are very rarely used as sources, particularly if it is negative information about a living person. In summary, I agree with those who have removed this section, and you should not be edit warring for it to be included. Kudos, for bringing it to this board, but please do not carry on reverting.

If this dispute has been widely covered in other areas, I'm thinking newspapers or magazines such as Christianity Today, then it may have an appropriate place in the article, but not with the current sources. Quantpole (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's not necessary for an administrators opinion. The opinion of any experienced wikipedian, and here's the key bit, founded in policy, is as good as any administrators. In wikipedia, administrators have certain powers (like blocking people and protecting articles) which they can use when things get out of hand, but their voice doesn't count for any more then any other experienced wikipedian. Note that any editor can request the help of an uninvolved administrator as necessary for the same purpose and while quite a few administrators frequent here, it isn't necessarily the best place to get the attention of an administrator when action is needed even on BLPs (it is the best place to get advice as you seek above from wikipedians experienced in BLP matters)

Commenting on the issue now, as others have stated, based on your description (I admit I haven't read the sources), they most definitely aren't good enough. I would note WP:BLP says

"Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. 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."

An additional note, since I read some of your talk page comments, you may want to see WP:AGF. In particular, accusing other editor of trying to keep negative information out of articles, censorship, having a hidden WP:COI or otherwise acting in bad faith should be avoided, particularly if you don't have good evidence.

Finally while I commend you on bringing this here, it's normally a bad idea to edit war when adding information people have disputed for policy based reasons, particular when adding negative information on LPs. Discuss first. If you can't reach an agreement, come here as you've done now. Wait until you've achieved WP:Consensus before adding the disputed information.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, I will respect the decision. I do have one question that still seems to make this verdict seem a bit stringent - the two sources that I used are both leading voices in the evangelical world. I understand that they are both from organizations that hold an opposing view to Rob Bell, but almost all criticism is partisan and surely that does not mean it should not be heard? - especially if it is from prominent sources who use witness information. Wayne Grudem himself is even interviewed in the article. And I did make it clear in the text that is was an allegation rather than a fact, and I kept it short. Regarding the Wiki rules, the last line that was quoted says:

"Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals"

I don't see why my CBMW source does not fulfill this, since CBMW acts as a news organization with regard to the church gender debate - see their statement: http://www.cbmw.org/Why-We-Exist#building. They are a very well known and prominent voice in the evangelical world (see the list of council members: http://www.cbmw.org/Council-Members ) and I would have thought that their criticism deserves to be heard, regardless of whether one disagrees with it. Waiting for Christianity Today to cover the issue - as one of you mentioned, is not really a fair call because they themselves are a predominantly egalitarian (Rob Bell's view), and they can't be expected to cover every single story regarding every megachurch pastor anyway. The fact remains that there are only a few official outlets that critics have, and CBMW is the most prominent of them - its news blog and its journal. It just seems as though it is a little stifling of information to require that criticism is not allowed from the opposition, this is rarely the case elsewhere in Wikipedia. Again, I appreciate your input, and I take on board the comments about refraining from making accusations against other editors unless well supported, and I will respect the decision but I would really like someone to help me understand why CBMW may not be used as a source for making a significant criticism of Rob Bell known. I am really being so unfair in this? Regards--Henrybish (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I have had a closer look through Wiki's rules and here are some quotes:

"Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals"

If you are familiar with the gender debate in the church you will know that CBMW (from whose website one of my sources comes from) is one of the most prominent voices in this field. It is true that they hold a very different view than Rob Bell, but this does not mean that they are untrustworthy. Opposing views deserve to be heard if they are from prominent enough sources (see below). Here are some other quotes from Wiki's rules:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"

Again, CBMW specialize in reporting on the gender debate in the church. See here for what they do: http://www.cbmw.org/Why-We-Exist#building . Also from Wiki's rules:

"Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format."

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author."

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves"

So these would validate expressing Wayne Grudem's own view of Rob Bell's conduct since the source thus validates that the world-famous scholar Wayne Grudem did indeed make these comments about Rob Bell.

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." I did not devoted disproportionate space to the matter (just a few lines) and was careful not to present it as 'fact'.

Is it still unfair for me to use this source? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrybish (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC) --Henrybish (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content about living people should be cited to the strongest possible sources especially if it is controversial, disputed content . Off2riorob (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~It may be acceptable to mention Wayne Grundem's views on Rob Bell in the article on him, using his page as primary source, if that were in some way highly relevant to his biography.~~ (Actually I was never comfortable with this and realised it's dealt with at WP:BLP and the answer is no this isn't acceptable since they deal with a third party.) However it's clearly not acceptable per WP:BLP to use a primary source for mentioning Wayne Grundem's views on the article on Rob Bell since it has not been demonstrated that Wayne Grundem's views are particularly relevant, since it seems no one is particularly interested in them (hence the lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources). Note that you quoted something which said "and Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources" (emphasis added). You seem to have missed the fact that regardless of how much space you devoted to the matter, you were using a self-published blog, which as has been explained isn't acceptable in a BLP. P.S. Looking at the article itself, the quality of sources isn't particularly great. Nevertheless they mostly appear to be better sources then the ones you are trying to use. Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Doniger

Wendy Doniger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Raj2004 is edit warring [69][70][71][72] in order to add highly negative, unbalanced, inaccurate, and poorly-sourced material to the Wendy Doniger article. Wendy Doniger is a highly distinguished professor at the University of Chicago. The added material gives a highly politicized perspective on her career. The material should be removed immediately and a balanced, accurate account of the reception of Doniger's career should be added. — goethean ॐ 21:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the material is at least badly worded; it seems to be written to emphasize sensational stuff about sex. I would suggest perhaps rewriting it to tone it down and get the point that Doniger has been criticized across without the sensationalism. I am not going to try myself, not being an expert on Doniger's work. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too bad now, rude, crude and lewd, I'm no expert but she is into tantra and the traditionalists don't like her, it was worse but bearable now. imo, and appears to be stable, so... Off2riorob (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat more complicated than it looks at first, although the WP policy aspect of it is probably clear. The real issue is that, given the general thrust of WP policy on BLPs, such articles really should not have "Criticism" sections at all. How do you criticise "mainstream" without allowing "fringe" into the picture? And if there is a controversy, would that belong in the BLP or in a separate dedicated article (with a "See Also" in the BLP, at most)? While this justifiably protects notable people from (opportunistic) mudslinging, it also serves to shield the less than worthy (like Doniger -- which is the complication referred to earlier.) But that's just the way the cookie crumbles on WP, the price to pay for sanity. Next case. rudra (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure. Wendy Doniger is "less than worthy." And I'm the pope, up is down, black is white, etc. It's like the Bush years all over again. — goethean ॐ 03:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you are missing the point. That she is no great shakes as a scholar is no surprise, but no estimation, not even one that sings her praises to high heaven, can be suitable material for a BLP unless it is sourced to a work specifically on her scholarship. None such is likely to be found or even forthcoming, so the entire idea of "evaluating" her work is not only moot but also an open invitation to POV-pushing. rudra (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon King

Resolved

I don't know the technical term, but could an admin please wipe the history of this edit? Edit summaries used to personally attack a living person should be summarily wiped. Sadly it appears to be a dynamic IP so there's little value in blocking, but we can at least clean it up. WFCforLife (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but IMO , that is unworthy of oversight, it is a bit rude but not very rude, if we had to go around WP:Oversight -ing edits like that we would be very busy. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Deschanel

I'm in a bit over my (inexperienced) head here and was wondering if someone with a better knowledge of BLP issues (and COI issues) could give me a hand. The page Emily Deschanel has recently undergone a few edits by User talk:Fbeals indicating an official website for Emily Deschanel as seen here. While it's entirely possible that this is the real website, and I hate to not WP:AGF, it just doesn't feel like a professional website, and there isn't enough information posted yet to confirm or deny that this is her official site.

Unfortunately, it appears that User talk:Fbeals is the web designer for this site. This is quite clearly a WP:COI, but I don't think that matter is quite as pressing as the BLP issue: we can't have a website proclaiming to be the official website for a living person when it isn't.

Should I just delete the external link and warn the user? Or does this type of misrepresentation warrant more than a warning? Thank you so much for any help you can offer! Jhfortier (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Further investigation into this user's contributions show that many are addition of links to websites which the user has designed through his own webdesign company. I'll notify the user about NPOV, but would still appreciate some guidance re: possible misrepresentation of an actor's "official" website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhfortier (talk • contribs) 04:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its been removed, I reverted his other not very good edits and gave him a note about that, just forget about it, no harm done and if you see any more poor edits from him let me know. I'll also keep my eye on him. Thanks Off2riorob (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If User talk:Fbeals is persistently linkspamming they should be warned appropriately and if necessary reported to WP:AIV. – ukexpat (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Fbeals has once again added the link to the Emily Deschanel page, although without the proclamation that it is the official website of the actress. I've left a firm note on the user's talk page asking for his reasons for including the link (hopefully we can avoid edit wars and WP:AIV, and instead encourage constructive editing). I'll watch the page carefully, and perhaps keep an eye on the user's other contributions to ensure that no link spamming is occuring. If further issues related to COI or linkspamming arise, they'll be dealt with as well. I'll mark this issue as resolved, since the BLP issue has been dealt with (Many thanks to User:Off2riorob!) Jhfortier (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

User talk:The8thbit

Daniel Tosh asked on his latest episode for everybody to vandalize his wikipedia article which was subsequently locked, this page seems to have been a dumping ground for users to edit instead. It's debateable as the man himself asked for it, but *shrug*, I've posted it here for others to decide. Q ^{T C} 07:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The risk to WP for anything on this page seems extremely remote to me.Jarhed (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Levy

A quote I put inside this article was removed, citing as reason: (→Criticism: delete 8 year old information; no evidence it is still true).

There followed several reverts (not by me) and no agreement on the talk page.

Setreset (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The charge sounds as if it could harm this individual professionally, and I can't tell if the source is reliable. Also, the subject is a journalist, and the editors on the article have a lot of POV.Jarhed (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bacon

Resolved

I am struggling to find reliable citations to the quotes on Kevin Bacon. I found one reference which might be unreliable here, but I don't know what to do with the other quotes. The quotes that need citing are in the Personal life and Acting Career sections. I would be grateful if anyone can help me out. Thanks. Minima c94 (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find a citation delete them, or move them to the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the quotes to the talk page. Good idea. Minima c94 (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Klausner

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

Concerns about tone, and UNDUE WEIGHT. Could use some additional eyes on this one. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted to stop it getting any worse, perhaps she is not a living person at all there are no pictures? Who reads five books a day? Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criminality

I seem to have a difference of opinion with another editor regarding whether calling people "criminals" absent an actual conviction (or even trial) for criminal activity is consistent with our BLP policy. The specific edit in question is here[73] ("the criminals are going to get off on a technicality"). Opinions from uninvolved editors would be appreciated. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the note to this on your talk and proceeded to slog through most of the talk page. Although this is not article space, I think that WP:LIBEL applies, and that those comments and all discussion relating to them should be rapidly removed. Awickert (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is a million miles away from Libel, you should respect other users comments even if you disagree with them, useing weakly claimed libel to remove another users comment is disruptive to the editing environment, if you really think that something libelous has been posted, take it to ANI and see if you get any support to remove it, you should only touch another editors comments in very serious situation, otherwise, leave them alone. Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting Andy and Off2, though I was really hoping to get some input from uninvolved editors. Maybe some will show up in a couple of days? This seems to be a low-traffic board. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who made the original comment that Short Brigade Harvester Boris brings up, I want to point out that no living person is mentioned (or even implied) in my post. Many reliable sources have covered the fact that the UAE violated Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).[74][75][76][77][78]. However, none of these sources (to the best of my knowledge) have identified which specific people are responsible for the FOIA violations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the persons and institutions involved there's no doubt whatsoever that it refers to Phil Jones, though you may not have realized it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not fair. Sure, PJ works for the UAE, but we don't know he's the one they're referring to. Many other people work at the UAE. We simply don't know which person(s) are responsible. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with Short Brigade Harvester Boris: there's no question as to the target of this attack, and as such it clearly violates WP:BLP. I will remove the comment myself if necessary. I also share Boris's concerns that this board has become somewhat of a low-traffic corner of Wikipedia where at least one editor with a disturbing block history and ongoing behaviour issues regularly imposes (or attempts to impose) decisions. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep focused on the content and I rather request that you keep you personal opinions about me to yourself and that rather than throw your accusations around you should rather make a report to any appropriate board, also I would like to point out that I have over eleven thousand edits and almost six months since my last block and that I have on my talkpage two barnstars as regards thanks for my work at this noticeboard, I suspect that your animosity towards me is nothing more than pique because I nominated your article Andrea Whittemore-Goad for deletion and it has been deleted, again, a fact that shows that the community agreed with me. Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, that: a request for focus on the content is followed by a litany of accusation and suspicion directed against another editor. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you just directed "accusation and suspicion" towards me by falsely claiming "there's no question as to the target of this attack" which even Boris didn't do. The fact is that we have no idea who committed the FOIA violations. Ironically, I find myself in the position of defending PJ. It can be anyone at UAE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the comment should be removed - ideally by its author. Referring to people as "criminals" is only appropriate if it is clear that this is what they are. Since the same editor also thinks that the people in question "will get off on a technicality", then there must surely be some doubt as to whether they have broken the law ("get off on a technicality" being roughly equivalent to "what they have done is not actually illegal"). --FormerIP (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already, please read the articles I cited above. The reason why there will be no prosecution(s) is that the statute of limitations has expired. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've explicitly stated that there has been criminal behaviour, but in fact there will be no convictions. Technically, then, you are wrong to refer to anyone as a criminal. Other editors who have read your comments have taken them as referring to PJ. Perhaps this was not your intent. Our BLP policy is clear, however, that we must strive to avoid any potential misunderstandings like this. Since your phrase has now been repeated numerous times by other users, perhaps there's no point in removing it. Nevertheless, you might earn yourself some goodwill by deleting. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I honestly thought that my comment violated WP:BLP, I would remove it immediately . But I don't think that's the case. In a previous discussion, I asked about how WP:BLP applies to unknown individuals and I was told that it was OK if based on reliable sources and no specific person was identified.[79]. The comment in question meets both qualifications. It's based on reliable sources and no specific individual is named. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is you're apparently conflating 2 different cases/examples. The other case referred specifically to unknown or anonymous individuals i.e. individuals who's identity was not known by nearly every and could not be known. In that case, the issue of BLP is questionable since it cannot in any sense reflect negatively on any living person as long as the inviduals remain unknown. As I understand it, in this case we're referring to unspecified but not unknown individuals. The identity of the people who work for the institution in question is public knowledge. The people alleged to have been involved in wrong doing is also public knowledge. While you may not have specified any invidual, a reader could easily interpret your comment to be directed at the specific and known individuals. To use a counter example, if I were to say "the denialists hyping up climategate are very likely guilty of war crimes and should be prosecuted accordingly" that would fall afoul of BLP amongst other things because even though I didn't specify any individuals, it's clearly directed at specific individuals who's identities are publicly known Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

At Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs), Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to insert a WikiProject Socialism template, wich does not corresponds with the biograpyh of a living person who has never defined herself as socialist. The user refuses to give adecuate refs to his libellous claim. See [Hist]// --IANVS (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new talkpage template that is being added to multiple article talkpages, in this case the association is a bit weak imo, the word socialist is not mentioned once in the article, Off2riorob (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gavan McDonell article

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

I am the subject of this article and would be interested in assisting with the two issues listed templates-style, and connections with other articles-by supplying materials/ drafts/ links etc but would not wish to do the editing myself. Would be glad of feedback, please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antlion1932 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make suggestions (or even offer re-writes) on the talk page. Then other editors can consider it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Perroncel

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

I declined the speedy on this article but nonetheless have concerns about it with respect both to WP:BLP1E and the extent to which it is sourced to the British tabloid press. Consequently, I would be grateful if other editors could take a look. CIreland (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns; certainly the tabloid sourcing was sub-standard. However, there are plenty of additional sources in highly respected publication and I have added some from The Daily Telegraph, BBC etc. The way forward is to continue to improve the sourcing. With regard to WP:BLP1E I don't think that this is applicable. She had plenty of publicity in the 2006 FIFA World Cup as one of the England WAGs and there has been other coverage. I would add that this is not someone who has been dragged unwillingly into the public eye. She actively courted publicity, for example as a lingerie model and in her attempts to launch a film career. In the court case, the high court judge described her as "famous", and British judges are not given to hyperbole. Whether this makes her notable is a different matter and that is a question for the AFD. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been sent to AFD for discussion . Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Dad Poor Dad

Rich Dad Poor Dad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ThuranX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At issue is a link to a self-published polemic anti-Kiyosaki site by John T. Reed. The site can be found at http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html. Reed is a competitor of Kiyosaki and hardly a neutral unbiased source. The site clearly make defamatory statements about a living person. It is not simply a book review site as misrepresented by ThuranX. The issue has been discussed here on Talk:Robert Kiyosaki and it was agreed that it should not be linked. I do not believe it should be linked from Rich Dad Poor Dad either. Could someone please take a look into this situation and discuss the WP:BLP policy and the potential legal liability incurred by linking to this site with ThuranX? TIA, Yworo (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, yworo made no effort to demonstrate ANY prior discussion. Second, Reed's review is cited by other critics. Yworo's editing history shows a disturbing amount of work on various products and 'entrepreneurs', to be polite, all of which seeems designed to shine only the most positive and glowing of lights on them. He removed criticism and didn't move it until challenged, and so on. As such, I am quite concerned that he will remove Reed, then use that as leverage to remove any criticism which mentions Reed, thus resulting in a whitewash of the material. Further, the discussion Yworo points to never demonstrated any such consensus to remove the material, and makes good arguments for retaining it. In fact, the only 'conclusion is one editor's statement a full year later, unilaterally deciding the matter, hardly any establishment of consensus. Slightly more salient is the number of search results linking the two, and the content thereof, a number of which, including two used int he RDPD article, cite Reed. ThuranX (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Griffiths

User:B626mrk has removed the "sex scandal" section on Nigel Griffiths a few times (eg: diff), giving an explanation on his talk page. I think the section is supported by the references, but I'd like to ask others to take a look to see if that section is fair. The source is the original News of the World article; other sources in a search are just newspapers reporting on that article without adding anything. More balanced sources would be helpful, but I can't find any (there's no response on his website, for example). --h2g2bob (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sex scandal is a bit of a loaded section header. Off2riorob (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The supporting citation is a bit low brow but quite a titillating saucy read. Off2riorob (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Rosales

Resolved

– Content has been removed.

This edit to Manuel Rosales removed several sources (replacing the references with {{fact}} tags); the validity of the source given is under current dispute at WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis. The edit also removed entirely a highly contentious claim neutrally reported and clearly ascribed inline to the source (Al Jazeera). The edit summary for this was "now, THIS, is what a WP:BLP violation looks like, very poor sources, to a very serious charge, double standards in Ven articles !!!!"

Comments please. Was it a BLP violation? And is it reasonable to delete sources in this way? Rd232 ^talk 09:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that adding that AlJazeera link to their exclusive interview with a hitman , to support this content ..In September 2009, Al Jazeera showed footage of a Colombian police interview with a paramilitary assassin, who claimed that in 1999 Rosales had offered him $25m to assassinate Chavez ....IMO does clearly have some BLP issues, it is a very serious allegation with only the hitmans word for the whole thing?? Yes clear BLP issues. Off2riorob (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information is presented neutrally and factually, and attributed explicitly: it is left to the reader to judge the significance of the claim, taking into account the clearly described sourcing. It could be argued that it's WP:UNDUE given the source (there was one other source given in the article, reporting the Al Jazeera report), and that it doesn't seem to have been covered much. Rd232 ^talk 11:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being funny but you would have to be a blind person not to think that this content has BLP issues. you have a video of an unidentified man who claims that he is a Columbian hitman and he also claims that he was offered 25million by Rosales to kill Chavez, it is totally unsupported by anything at all and is a very very serious claim, my god, of course you should never have added it at all' Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced (explicitly) to Al Jazeera, a well-known news source with a show hosted by Sir David Frost which I place some weight on in terms of suggesting some degree of sensibleness in their general sourcing/editorial policy. That doesn't make this particular claim from the person they interview true (I'm not sure Al Jazeera say it's true either - I haven't watched it), but it does make it non-ridiculous to add. Rd232 ^talk 11:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the start and soon saw enough, RD I am surprised at you, an admin also, you are letting your personal opinions get the better of you here. Off2riorob (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third BLP issue with Rd232 now; he is filling Venezuelan articles and BLPs with tendentious, POV edits sourced to a non-reliable source.[80] I've already gotten Thor Halvorssen Mendoza cleaned up (see thread above), and we've dealt with Mark Weisbrot (see another Rd232 thread here); these cases show a strange double standard that Rd232 applies to BLPs (what's good for pro-Chavez people is apparently not good for anti-Chavez). I've left sources at Talk:Manuel Rosales for replacing the non-reliable sources that Rd232 prefers in BLPs. Rosales is well covered by the mainstream international press, and it's shocking that an admin added such an egregious BLP violation to Wiki. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Venezuelanalysis. This tendentious editing is going on across hundreds of articles, there are few of us who can speak Spanish and know Venezuelan sources and can clean it up, and I'm afraid what I just found on Rosales barely scratches the surface of the cleanup that will be needed. See Center for Public Integrity and National Review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just give you another opportunity to ignore this question: WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM WITH THIS VERSION OF THOR HALVORSSEN MENDOZA, AND WHAT DID THIS EDIT IN WHICH I MOVED SOME TEXT ABOUT HAVE TO DO WITH IT? version, edit. Rd232 ^talk 12:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't respond to being hollered at; Halvorssen has already been cleaned up by another editor, that issue is closed; Weisbrot has been dealt with; but I am now very concerned about what I'm going to find when I start examining all the BLPs you have edited. This is going to take some time to clean up, not to mention the tendentious edits and poor sourcing on other Venezuela articles. And I haven't even looked at Hugo Chavez yet! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So that's a no then. Other editors may judge Sandy's disengenousness for themselves: apparently these edits cleared up the egregious BLP violation in that article! Rd232 ^talk 16:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me this seems pretty unambiguous. It's a BLP violation based on a single interview with no corroborating evidence. AniMate 12:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well yes and no. It's not relying on the interview to make an accusation; it's reporting the claim, with sourcing clearly explained in the text; there's a big difference. But yeah, on reflection after it's pointed out, I see it should not be included. Rd232 ^talk 16:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It is serious BLP violation to add that interview by a channel. Please do not add it again without consensus and Venezuelanalysis is an unreliable source for making allegations against a living person, especially who is actively involved in Venezuelan politics. I am shocked to see this kind of edit was done by an editor who has administrator status. --Defender of torch (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its out now, it was put in in October and sat there for quite a while unchallenged, I think we can close this thread as resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards