Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:38, 28 March 2011 (Archiving 11 thread(s) (older than 5d) to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive112.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

    Additional notes:




    Lyndon LaRouche

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

    There's an RfC on the talk page asking whether the first sentence should say in Wikipedia's voice that Lyndon LaRouche "is an American political activist" or "an American political activist and economist" (emphasis added). Both versions of the lead end the first paragraph with "[he] has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis."

    Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated as this has been raised several times over the last few years, so it would be good to get a clear consensus.

    Arguments in favor: several reliable sources call him an economist, and he reportedly became known as one in South America. Arguments against: he has no qualifications in economics, has never been employed or independently published as one, and most reliable sources describe him in other terms.

    The RfC is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Should the lead say in WP's voice that Lyndon LaRouche is an economist?. Many thanks, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Lyndon LaRouche 2

    SlimVirgin posted a thread here (and at at least three other locations) pointing to an RfC in progress without advising editors on the talk page where the RfC is located of her actions. The effect has been one of WP:CANVASSING, because what she posted above, although she tried to word it neutrally, is factually incorrect. LaRouche has in fact been independently published as an economist.

    LaRouche, under the pen name Lyn Marcus, authored a book, Dialectical economics : an introduction to Marxist political economy (1975) (entry at archive.org), published by D. C. Heath and Company (Lexington, Massachusetts), which was reviewed [1][2] in the American Economic Review, published by the American Economic Association. The review states,

    "NEW Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy Lyn Marcus, Chairman, National Caucus of Labor Committees March 1975 Cloth 544 pages An unprecedented approach to Marx's method and economic theory, this book explains, analyzes, and interprets Marxian economics through an interdisciplinary approach. ..." [3][4]

    That doesn't sound like they're thrashing it as the work of a rank amateur. The book has citations in Google Scholar and in Google Books.

    According to King, who's written a book-length (and fairly hostile) study of LaRouche, he became known in Latin America as "a serious economist and political strategist". That's repeated in a Department of Defense document (which cites King). He had meetings with multiple presidents in Latin America, advising them to take a course against the IMF, which they did to some extent. His writings had an influence on the Malaysian government in 1997/1998, according to the Wall Street Journal, and that government then also took a course against the IMF. If you are reviewed in the AER, and end up influencing multiple governments' economic policy, that makes you an economist, in my book. --JN466 05:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not just add this to the existing thread, above?   Will Beback  talk  05:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Merged. Off2riorob (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not canvassing. This is informing people on relevant noticeboards of an RfC that needed uninvolved eyes. It needed uninvolved eyes because of the large amount of advocacy and FRINGE editing that's going on in that article. So I posted it, laying out the arguments advanced to that point in favour and against. I find Jayen's reaction to this disturbing. He's been posting on the talk pages of people who responded to the RfC, trying to persuade them to change their minds, and in general relying on LaRouche publications to a worrying degree.
    The function of an RfC is to lay out the arguments calmly, inform people in neutral locations in a neutral tone, then let them review the arguments for themselves on the page without being badgered. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 13:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I don't know how it is that you built this rod for own back, probably sentence by sentence over six years, but the problem seems to be that there is far too much about LaRouche than is in any sense warranted.
    Just for fun I had a look at what another encyclopaedia had to say about him. Which seems to be an adequate and fair summary and about all you would wish to know. however, once you have started slinging everything you can into the pot, as it were, there is no stopping. All you have provided is sentence after sentence of coatrack, which people can attack and defend, and attack again. The article is a monster that needs some serious culling, all the rest is just more polishing and tarnishing. --John lilburne (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just unfortunate that you said, in your posts to the four noticeboards, that LaRouche had never been independently published, because that turned out to be wrong, and it wasn't part of the RfC statement. After you posted your note to the various boards, five editors turned up in quick succession at the RfC, all commenting in the same way, based on the info you'd provided. Had you notified editors at the LaRouche talk page beforehand, that mistake could have been ironed out before disseminating it to various locations. But it's water under the bridge now. --JN466 22:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And please stop saying that I rely on LaRouche publications, because it's patently untrue. --JN466 23:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Volunteer Marek has checked the AER issue in question. The Google Books snippets are in fact from an advertisement in the back matter, rather than a review of the book, so that is different, and I've struck the relevant comments above. --JN466 22:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "Death of ..." sections in Lyndon LaRouche BLP

    SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) yesterday reintroduced longstanding section wordings in the Lyndon LaRouche BLP that strike me as potential WP:COATRACKs; both sections are related to suicides by people associated with the LaRouche movement. The sections in question read like this a couple of days ago:

    After SlimVirgin's edits, they read as follows:

    I felt concerned that this presentation of these incidents in LaRouche's BLP was uncomfortably close to presenting the BLP subject as personally responsible for these deaths, and was incompatible with BLP policy demanding that we edit conservatively.

    Talk page discussion: Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Death_of_..._subheadings

    It should be noted that the Death of Jeremiah Duggan, which happened in Germany, went all the way to the German Supreme Court, which denied appeals for further enquiries. The German authorities gave a verdict of suicide, based on eyewitness testimony, which according to them ruled out any third-party involvement in the death. On the other hand, there have been British coroner's inquests over the past few years investigating allegations of foul play raised by Duggan's family; one is currently still underway. None of the sources, to my knowledge, present any evidence linking LaRouche to this death.

    Subsequent edits to these sections: [5][6][7]

    SlimVirgin has asked me to point out that similar or identical versions of these sections had been present in the BLP for a long time (see e.g. this version from late February) until I started editing the article three weeks ago.

    LaRouche is a person widely considered to hold repugnant views. He has earned this reputation. At the same time, a BLP policy is worthless if it is only applied to people about whom there are only nice things to say. While I have no problem with the other articles we have referring to these incidents—I've previously done work on Death of Jeremiah Duggan with SlimVirgin and think it's at least a GA-level article—I am uncomfortable with the way SlimVirgin wishes to present this material in LaRouche's BLP. Implying that someone is responsible for two deaths, in the absence of any legal decision attributing such responsibility, is a weighty matter in a Wikipedia biography, and to me that is what the current presentation does.

    Am I being oversensitive? Are SlimVirgin's edits fully in line with the letter and spirit of BLP policy? Comments welcome. --JN466 14:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I support as more npov and less undue the version without the death in the header - there is nothing at all to connect this living person to those deaths - nothing at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. What do you think about the wordings of the sections in this BLP?
    vs.

    Jayen recently changed that section to remove the header, remove much of the text, remove the sources, and bury it in another section without making clear what the issue was. I therefore restored a version of the previous text. I have no problem with the header being as it currently is (without the word "death" in it). The text is understated, and doesn't elaborate on what the High Court heard might have happened. BLP was never intended to stop us repeating what multiple high-quality sources say about public figures.

    I also object to the forest fires of discussion Jayen keeps starting about this article on multiple boards and user talk pages. It's good to ask on boards for fresh eyes, but the discussions should take place for the most part on the article talk page. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It was yourself who initiated discussions at three noticeboards and one WikiProject a week ago: [8][9][10][11] I did respond to these other threads, but this is the only noticeboard where I have initiated discussion of a new issue related to the article. This issue is quite distinct from the one you raised previously here and at these other locations. I have therefore moved this section back to where it was and restored its title. It is an important matter that can do with input from multiple editors, and I don't want it hidden near the top of this board in among days-old stale discussions. Please leave it in its own section. Thanks. --JN466 19:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I asked only for fresh eyes for an RfC being held on the article talk page. You, on the other hand, are starting discussions on multiple boards and multiple user talk pages, so that no one can keep up, while failing to address issues on the article talk page itself. Please reverse that focus. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone looking at the LaRouche talk page history can see that I have answered each and every one of the points you have raised there. I did follow up on the noticeboard discussions you started a week ago (without advising us on the LaRouche talk page) and made editors who had commented in the RfC in response to your posts aware of both an error of fact in the statement you posted, and new information that came to light after they had voted. I advised them indiscriminately both of information that strengthened my argument, and of information that invalidated my argument.
    Before I started this thread, I advised you of my intention to do so on the article talk page. I did so a day and a half ago, at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Draft_for_BLPN_post. I posted a draft for your review on the article talk page, and made the changes to the wording that you requested before posting it here. So you have had ample notice of this thread, and had an opportunity to check and correct its wording before I posted it. --JN466 20:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an outstanding question from me about what looks like your inappropriate use of academic source material—where you used a source to imply wrongly that LaRouche's absurd alternative theory about HIV-AIDs had support in peer-reviewed journals—so I'd appreciate a response to that here. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I hadn't seen your latest response yet. Replied. --JN466 20:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This post should also note previous discussions: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive22#Worldwide_LaRouche_Youth_Movement_and_Kenneth_Kronberg. It may also be relevant that HK's socks have twice tried to get both articles deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Kronberg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Kronberg (2nd nomination). The Duggan article was also raised by HK in two ArbCom cases, and the ArbCom found no problems. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. It's important for uninvolved editors to know the history of this material.   Will Beback  talk  19:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As I've stated above, I don't have a problem with these other articles. This thread is about the presentation of these materials in the LaRouche BLP. In the Kronberg case, it should be noted that the authorship of the memo which some have said is likely to have triggered the suicide is disputed; some sources say it was written by LaRouche, others say it was written by an associate. Dennis King has a copy of the memo up on his website; it says it is by Tony Papert, a LaRouche associate. While we can speculate that LaRouche may have had a hand in writing it, this is speculation, and as such not conservative. --JN466 19:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything in the current version of the text of the article which even speculates that LaRouche wrote the "morning briefing" in question. However there is probably sufficient sourcing connecting it to LaRouche to justify mentioning the briefing in the article.   Will Beback  talk  20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If he didn't write it, why do we even mention it? We have a perfectly good reason to mention Kronberg's death in LaRouche's BLP: the suit brought by Kronberg's widow. This version does that. I don't mind adding Main article: Kenneth Kronberg to it. But that is all the LaRouche BLP needs. The rest can be and is covered in LaRouche_movement#Members and Kenneth Kronberg. --JN466 22:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We have one reliable source that says he did write it and another that says it was written by his top aide. Further, it reflects views about Baby Boomers that have been expressed by LaRouche and his movement many times before, so it isn't an exceptional claim to say that he wrote it or was responsible for it. But the issue of this material has been discussed many times before, including on this noticeboard. I don't see any new issues here.   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The new issue is that we are discussing how to present this in LaRouche's BLP. Can you live with this wording, with Main article: Kenneth Kronberg added? --JN466 23:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lyndon LaRouche is a public figure who has stood in eight presidential elections, and who whenever he gets a chance pushes himself in front of the media. The BLP policy was never intended to mean that we can't repeat what multiple reliable sources say about such figures, and indeed it's that sort of extreme interpretation that has caused the policy to acquire a bad reputation with some editors. BLP is for the most part simply the application of V, NOR, and NPOV with extra care and common sense; and with additional sensitivity when it comes to borderline notable people, or the private lives of public figures, neither of which applies here.
    And if you're concerned about BLP violations, I'd suggest not using the header "Deaths related to Lyndon LaRouche," which I've tried to change but you (Jayen) keep restoring. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that you're not just writing in these sections what reliable sources have said about LaRouche. You are writing about events whose connection to LaRouche personally is tenuous and unclear. No source to my knowledge states that LaRouche was even aware of Duggan's attendance at the event in Germany. The German authorities point to eye witness statements from multiple members of the public who observed the suicide and who categorically state that no one else was present. The German Supreme Court considered the theory put forward by Duggan's family, that he was killed elsewhere and then taken to the road to make it look like he died there, absurd ("abwegig"). The authorship of the memo that LaRouche critics on the Internet have said must have triggered Kronberg's suicide is unclear, and it is signed by someone else. Now I wholly agree that these events should be discussed in the articles on the LaRouche movement. But I am uncomfortable with the way you are discussing them in his BLP. --JN466 20:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The reliable sources say Duggan became vulnerable because LaRouche fears being assassinated by a British person, dislikes or fears Jews, and also has a conspiracy theory about people who received psychotherapy at the Tavistock Institute being brainwashed spies. Duggan happened to fit all three criteria. Yes, I know it's insane, but these ideas come from LaRouche himself. See for example here. As recently as 1999, he said the British royal family was plotting to kill himl; see here. Into that madness walked Jeremiah Duggan in 2003—British, Jewish, who once had counselling at the Tavistock—to attend a LaRouche conference in Germany that LaRouche and his wife attended. Days later he was dead, having thrown himself in front of three cars "in a state of terror," according to the coroner. The day after his death, LaRouche's wife told the other members there that he might have been an agent sent from London to harm LaRouche, according to the Sunday Times. [12]
    You won't allow it to be explained the article, then you use the lack of explanation to claim the connection is too remote. But the connection to LaRouche's ideas about brainwashed Brits is direct. And the only point that matters here is that the connection has been made by multiple reliable sources in the UK, U.S., and Germany, including the Washington Post, BBC Newsnight, the Guardian, the Observer, the Telegraph, the Independent, and the Sunday Times, over several years; and a coroner recently handed new evidence about it to the London Metropolitan Police's Serious Crime Directorate, and asked them to look into it. What you or I or any other Wikipedian thinks about it is irrelevant. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The present article version is, as you acknowledge, your preferred one, which you restored. It doesn't make LaRouche's personal involvement in this death clear at all. I have certainly not prevented you from adding sourced material stating that LaRouche thought Duggan was a brainwashed assassin sent to kill him, and had him killed instead. I am pretty certain no such sources exist, but I'll look through the above sources, thank you. --JN466 21:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has said that. I don't see the point in starting forest fires of discussion, then misrepresenting what people say so they have to keep correcting you, then raising straw men. It means people have to keep posting and posting pointlessly. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) You have twice now moved this thread to the top of the board, after an editor had alredy replied to it, even though its content is unrelated to whether we should call LaRouche an economist or not. [13][14] I'll not revert again, but I think it's unhelpful for getting the best out of this noticeboard for this issue. I've changed the title of the thread in line with your concern. --JN466 20:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is clearly completely unconnected to this living person and has not place at all in his BLP actually. I just don't understand all the intricacies regarding this person but I think the last thread was a good comment about this la rouche person - our coverage of him is bloated and very likely opinionated. As I understand there are users with very strong personal held feelings about this person which has from what I can see created a similar situation to the Scientology section of articles - undue, bloated and opinionated coverage. As to a solution, I doubt if there is one, multiple users with lengthy historic input with a desire to keep the content reflective as developed over that period. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For a long time, the Kronberg section was illustrated with a picture of Kronberg and his wife: [15] This more than anything gave me the impression that the section's point was to say, He did this. --JN466 21:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that everyone connected with this has made their views clear. Let's let uninvolved editors give their input.   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In such situations imo such articles benefit from users that have created a lot or most of the content over a period of years stepping back, taking the article or section of articles off their watchlists and allowing fresh eyes to work on it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given my view so there's not point in repeating myself. Here's the Duggan section Jayen objects to, in case anyone else wants to comment:

    LaRouche came to widespread public attention over the death in March 2003 of Jeremiah Duggan, a British-Jewish student, at a LaRouche movement cadre school in Germany. The German police ruled the death a suicide—a verdict rejected by a British coroner—and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany turned down the Duggan family's request to reopen the police investigation. Because of continuing controversy over the death, the High Court in London ordered a second inquest in May 2010; the coroner opened and adjourned the inquest, inviting the LaRouche movement to attend later hearings as an interested party. LaRouche has said the controversy originated as a "hoax" perpetrated by supporters of Tony Blair and Dick Cheney.[1]

    1. ^ Witt, April. "No Joke", The Washington Post, October 24, 2004.
    SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The type of wording that we had here (last paragraph of that section) is more appropriate in the BLP. It links to the Death of Jeremiah Duggan article, and focuses on the things LaRouche can rightly be held responsible for: the nature of his movement. The full discussion of Duggan's death can be and is provided in the other articles, i.e. LaRouche_movement#Europe and Death of Jeremiah Duggan. --JN466 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That section is in the entry about Lyndon LaRouche? Why? LaRouche, as an individual, appears to have no direct connection to this event at all. We have a separate entry on Lyndon LaRouche movement, which is clearly more appropriate for the mention of Duggan. Also, there is an entire entry dedicated to Duggan's death, which makes this, and all other longer treatments of the event in LaRouche related entries seem like coatracks. That's my outside view. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The outside views on this issue appear to be unanimous and completely agree with Jayen. Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what I said. Thus, agreed. SilverserenC 07:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see only one independent, uninvolved editor in this thread, Griswaldo. It'd be nice to get more input, but I realize LaRouche-related topics have been noticeboarded to death, so to speak.   Will Beback  talk  07:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect Will, how do you claim that User:Off2riorob and User:Silverseren are "involved" here? I looked through the talk pages and edit histories of the relevant entries and see zero editing by the former, and the only "involvement" by the latter coming days ago, in response to an RSN post about this very issue. When someone responds to a question on a noticeboard without any prior involvement editing or discussing the entry they are by definition uninvolved. They don't magically become "involved" because a similar question is posed again on another noticeboard days later. To echo Cla68, there are three uninvolved editors who appear to agree with Jayen, and zero uninvolved editors who agree with you. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Cla68 and Silverseren have been involved in the topic - there's more than one talk page. Off2riorob and Jayen can describe their connection themselves. But everyone's welcome to comment here. As for "agreeing with me", I don't think anyone has significantly disagreed with my point about the briefing, the only comment I've made in this thread.   Will Beback  talk  17:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not mention Cla68. Do either of those editors edit the article? Are they often on the talk pages arguing for content changes? Please provide evidence of their involvement. I'm not saying you're wrong but from a cursory glance I cannot see it. As an outsider I'd like to know, because to me it looks like you're just trying to dismiss their opinions. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, Cla68 and SlimVirgin seem to have some kind of long-running personal feud, to the point of Cla68 opposing SV's activities in ways that sometimes make no sense at all (e.g. the HK/Obamacare nonsense from a few weeks ago). I'd therefore consider Cla68 "involved" in any dispute where C68 comments on SV's editing, whether C68 has directly been editing the affected articles or not. I've had better things to do than follow their interactions closely, so if both of them say there's no such feud, I'll roll my eyes and believe it. But to this distant observer, the acrimony between them is a hundred feet tall. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, I don't have any personal acrimony towards SlimVirgin. She recently helped me and others out with writing this essay, and I really appreciated her efforts. I've supported her ideas at times over the last year or so in some policy discussions, in expanding a BLP, and attempting to NPOV a certain article which is notorious for long-running NPOV problems. Sometimes me and her agree and sometimes we disagree. Cla68 (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad to hear that, and maybe I had the wrong impression. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am reading the Washington Post article and will comment on the disputed paragraph after I finish. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Working on response. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Getting sleepy, response partially written, complicated, need to think a little more and probably post tomorrow. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • - I am completely uninvolved in this topic user Willbeback's comments are without value at all - I have assessed the issue as an uninvolved reviewer his attempt to assert I am involved are misleading. As he has chosen to claim I am involved - completely falsly , it is well known that user willbeback is an opponent of the living subject and has over years built this BLP into the opinionated bloat that it currently is and he is one of the people that as I said our article about the subject would benefit from him removing the BLP from his watchlist. The days are over that opinionated users came to wikipedia prior to BLP and created attack articles about living people that they are opposed to in real life. Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not an opponent of the subject in question. You're making a lot of unfounded assertions which verge on personal attacks. Number of edits doesn't have any relation to quality of edits, and I haven't seen anyone point to specific problems with my editing of this or any other article.
      • I did not say you were involved with the topic, but rather that you have a connection with the editor who started this thread. I was under the impression that you shared an off-Wiki history with Jayen466. If I'm wrong about that then I apologize. Being "involved" does not mean one is acting in bad faith, or that one's opinion is worthless. I suggest we stick with the issue at hand and avoid getting into tangential topics.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is well known on wiki and also discussed off wiki that you are an opponent of this living person, there is no denying that, please stop attacking me and others and move along, take it off your watchlist and allow new contributors to balance the article up. Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh? Where is this discussed "off-wiki"? Are you a participant in these discussions? How about other contributors this thread - do they participate in discussions of the LaRouche articles off-wiki and decide who is an opponent? Please provide relevant diffs to support your assertions, or stop making them.   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Will, is that really the reason you call Off2riorob "involved"? That is indeed disingenuous. I see Off2riorob consistently commenting on BLP issues on this board and elsewhere. From what I know his treatment of this one seems 100% on par with his general BLP MO. You can ask anyone who frequents this board. I'm quite disappointed in the aspersions you are casting his way, particularly because you did so to invalidate my own perspective as if it was only one lone uninvolved perspective. That's clearly nonsense. Perhaps you're too close to this subject to be objective. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't cast aspersions on anyone here nor did I try to invalidate your input in any way. Please re-read my comments. Let's try to keep this thread on the topic rather than the editors.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Griswaldo's and Off2riorob's concerns are valid, so I'm going to start a thread on it on Will's user talk page. Cla68 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know who's involved and who isn't. I would count as involved anyone who has edited the article, or discussed it on or offwiki, so I'll leave people to decide that for themselves.

    I do know that the aim of LaRouche's employees since 2004 has been to drive away from Wikipedia anyone very familiar with the source material about the movement. They drove away Dennis King, a published expert on LaRouche. They drove away Chip Berlet, a widely cited expert on the far right in America. They tried to drive off Will and me, as we got to know the source material better over the years. They've done this via on and offwiki attacks, some of them vicious, just as they do with anyone they see as an opponent. The movement is well known for this behavior, so I hope no Wikipedian would consider supporting them in it. That's all I'm going to say about it, because even the existence of this thread will delight them.

    What matters is this: LaRouche stood for president of the United States eight times. You don't do that if you're a shrinking violet hoping not to draw attention to yourself. As a result, major newspapers, and a few academics, have written about him a great deal for over 30 years, including long investigative and analysis pieces. We therefore base our article on those articles, giving attention to the issues they give attention to, and summarizing in the way they summarize. So long as we continue to that, there are no BLP issues. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    So, essentially, you've just said that anyone who adds positive information to the article is "supporting them" because positive (and, really, even neutral) information is the kind of things that supporters would add? Thus, in order to edit this article, you should make sure to only add the negative, controversial stuff?
    And, no, the issue is that you are summarizing the sources in the wrong way, sometimes paraphrasing sources in a manner that completely obscures or omits the full meaning of the source. Just a look at the talk page brings up this fact. Jayen has done a good job on the talk page with pointing out sections that have totally misrepresented the sources. Another issue is that, as I say initially, you are only allowing negative sources to be used. Anything that is positive is either unreliable, though only according to you two, or is connected to LaRouche and thus can't be used, even if the connection is a flimsy, transient thing. Also, at the same time, you ignore the Communist, and thus direct, connections between the critics and LaRouche and also try to keep out any information that points out this connection to readers, since that would discredit the critics that harshly attack LaRouche (oftentimes these attacks are valid, other times they are purposely exaggerated and distorted by the critics) SilverserenC 02:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The article contains many positive assertions and is probably as well-balanced as any LaRouche biography in existence. Vague accusations against other editors don't help. If there are specific issues you think need work then this is a good place to discuss them. Which particular secondary sources have been left out that you think should be used?   Will Beback  talk  08:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What matters is this: LaRouche stood for president of the United States eight times. You don't do that if you're a shrinking violet hoping not to draw attention to yourself. screaming Lord Such stood in every General election and pretty much all the by-election too. He even had a political party dissolve itself, and Thatcher changed the law to curb his activities. The point being that the LaRouche articles are far too excessive that they do not reflect on the actual significance of the guy. What you have done as I said before is create a monster, something that now has a life of its own, a target for supporters and anti-supporters to attack alike. IMO the editing activities of 466 and others are doing no good in this article they are simply expanding it and adding further words to argue over. The article should be reduced back to bare bones, giving the essential details and references whether anyone interested (damn few) can go for further research. All the rest of the trivia and crap that happened decades ago removed. John lilburne (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's a problem with the article then let's fix it. SV and JN have been working busily on it, stripping it down to its bare bones and fleshing it out again. The current version bears little resemblance to last year's.[16] I'm sure next year's article will look different too. That's Wikipedia. ;)   Will Beback  talk  12:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you could strip out practically all the 1970s and not lose anything of importance or interest. That section seems to be documenting the internecine wars between various parts of the hard left. Trotskyite splinter groups are called splinter groups for a reason, they are forever undergoing fragmentation, the result being they get into fist fights on street corners and in pubs, some would argue that their behaviour is what split the socialist left in Germany in the early 1930s. That aside non of it is of any interest to anyone except the participants themselves. And yeah the various factions tend to erect a personality cult around the leader. Do yourself a favour and junk the navel gazing. John lilburne (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that input, but that's not how encyclopedia articles should be written. The secondary sources generally devote considerable space to the activities of the subject in the 1970s, so that period receives its due weight in the biography. OTOH, the subject received relatively little attention during the 1990s, so the article devotes less space to that decade. The subject received more attention again in the last few years, so that is covered more fully even at the risk of recentism. Weight issues are never easy to resolve, but the most important factor is the prominence of coverage in independent secondary sources, per WP:WEIGHT.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just my two cents: Leaving aside for a moment those flaming edit wars, the personal attacks and those never-ending internecine (Thanks to John lilburne btw, I did not know this word before) 40% of the article on Larouche are actually very good. To be honest, I do not think that there is anywhere in the world such a massive collection of secondary sources about LaRouche. Yes, ALL of you have contributed something very valuable and I would like to sincerely thank SlimVirgin, Jayen, Will Beback and last but not least HerschelKrustofsky and everyone that has been labeled "HK" for doing this. All of you did a great job in creating the best reference list for LaRouche one can imagine. THANKS! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    that's not how encyclopedia articles should be written really you would know that how? Whatever you think you are doing you aren't building an encyclopaedia biography here, you are documenting the internecine infighting of splinter groups. The media may well have had an interest in their goings on, particularly as one of them was running for president, that doesn't mean that it actually had any real relevance then, and 40 years on it is of no interest to anyone other than the participants (were you one?), or historians of the left. John lilburne (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you really suggesting that EB page as a template? You said above that we shouldn't bother with material from the 1970s, yet that only covers the subject's life up to 1984, and it spends many of its few words to saying he's know for spreading "bizarre economic conspiracy theories". The article in question is from the Britannica's student's encyclopedia.[17] Is that the best model for Wikipedia? I don't think so.   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The EB article is enough. Try this experiment: walk into your local Starbucks and ask for a show of hands as to how many people know who LaRouche is. If anyone raises their hand check that they aren't confusing him with the fellow that won the War of Independence. Of the others tell them just how important he is to the history of American society because he thinks that "Queen Elizabeth II was the head of an international drug-smuggling cartel, and that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was the first strike in a British attempt to take over the United States." Try to get out before they have you sectioned. John lilburne (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If we followed the "Starbucks" test we'd have to delete 99.999% of the articles in Wikipedia, including John Lilburne. ;) People come to encyclopedias to learn about topic they don't already know about.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd walked into a London coffee house in 1680 they'd have known who John Lilburne was. There you have it - 30 years on and not only don't the coffee house clientèle know about LaRouche, even when you tell them about his 70s exploits they won't care. None of that expanse of newsprint from 30 years ago, was about anything of any lasting significance. Determine the bits that were significant and you have your article. All the he said, she said, they said, we said from 30 years ago is one big SO WHAT? John lilburne (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW I have a number of books that mention John Lilburne they are full of the ins and outs of the events of the time, the arguments, rows, and pamphlets, interesting stuff for sure, but that isn't what you want to brain dump into an encyclopaedia article. John lilburne (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If it would help, I can offer an outside opinion since I have no special sympathy or antipathy toward LaRouche, his movement, or any of the editors engaged in this discussion. My opinion is that the deaths should not be mentioned in the LaRouche bio. Accusations or insinuations of complicity in someone's death ought to meet a very high standard for any BLP, regardless of how public or controversial the bio's subject is. If there were an unambiguous resolution of the allegations, and those allegations or their outcome had turned out to significantly impact the narrative of the subject's life, then they would be worthy of treatment in the bio. (An example of this might be O.J. Simpson.) But from what I can tell, the allegations remain in doubt to some extent, as officials from two different countries disagree on the question of LaRouche's involvement, and the allegations do not appear to have altered the fortunes, public behavior, philosophy, or notoriety of LaRouche in a significant way. Thus the informative value of mentioning the deaths in the context of LaRouche's life narrative is low enough to fail to meet the BLP standard. However, I agree with earlier comments that the deaths and circumstances surrounding them are appropriate to address in more focused articles than the main LaRouche biography. alanyst /talk/ 03:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: I have removed both sections in line with comments from outside editors above. --JN466 09:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Should Lyndon LaRouche contain a paragraph about Jeremiah Duggan?

    Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated here on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche to decide an NPOV/BLP issue.

    The issue is whether the Lyndon LaRouche biography should contain a paragraph about the death in 2003 of Jeremiah Duggan. Duggan died in disputed circumstances after running down a busy road, apparently while being recruited to LaRouche's organization. The High Court in London recently ordered a second inquest into the death.

    The article has contained a paragraph about this for several years—currently the third paragraph in this section—but there are now objections to including any reference to it. Arguments against inclusion are that LaRouche is not personally involved in whatever happened to Duggan, and that BLPs must err on the side of caution. Arguments in favour are that multiple high-quality sources have linked the incident directly to LaRouche's ideas, and he has several times responded to the allegations personally. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Editors please note the thread above, where this has been discussed.
    Slim, when I started that thread, you insisted it should be integrated as a subthread of the existing Lyndon LaRouche thread, above. Do you have any objection if I now so integrate this thread, adding it to the existing thread, above? --JN466 16:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's fine with me. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    comment Round, and round, and round we go, and where it will stop, nobody knows. John lilburne (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This question has been answered by several uninvolved editors now. Unequivocally no, Duggan does not belong in the entry for the person LaRouche. Perhaps in the entry for the movement, but not the entry for the person. How many times does this have to be asked?Griswaldo (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I guess we should personally let all of the users that have been involved in this discussion know about this RfC and direct them to the talk page. Comments here clearly aren't going to dissuade Slim, but if it's done firmly in the RfC, then that's that. SilverserenC 19:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Death of Philip Gale → Philip Gale

    Just alerting people to this requested move discussion. Talk:Death of Philip Gale#Requested move. You input would be appreciated.--Scott Mac 09:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Gale died in 1999 and there's nothing obviously BLP-related in the article. Why is this here? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Lynne Spears

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

    I quote wikipedia, "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."

    This is under 'Later Life and Fame.'"The libelous part to be deleted." Also "Delete Footnote 11"

    In 2008, her representative reported to the National Enquirer that in 1975, she was driving her injured brother to the hospital in Kentwood when she accidentally hit and killed the 12-year-old Anthony Winters, who was riding his bicycle. The representative subsequently released a statement: "Anthony Winters and his friend were in the road on a curve on a bicycle. As Lynne rounded the curve she could not avoid the boy in the street as there was oncoming traffic in the opposite lane... Lynne realized the boy was struck immediately and to this day is grieved by the Winters’ loss of their son."[11]

    That 'National Enquirer' and 'The Daily Mail' are tabloid magazines noted for making "libelous" statements that are totally "contentious" and "unsourced" information unsubstantiated by any factual evidence. If I have to hire a attorney and sue you to remove this particular libelous information, I will do just that. This is the attorney representing the Spears family <redacted see below -floq>. If you have any questions, you can call <redacted see below -floq> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.168.231 (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr. <redacted see below -floq>;
    We will attempt to address the issues here; however, please send any future concerns of such a serious nature to info@wikimedia.org, as outlined on Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). This will ensure the problem is handled by the OTRS team, which lends considerably more weight to edits. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a very strict policy against legal threats here - see WP:NLT. Please retract this threat or you will most likely be blocked from editing. For assistance, see Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). Exxolon (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Leaving aside the legal threat we do have a serious problem here. A poorly sourced BLP violation was restored multiple times using Huggle and the IP was eventually blocked for repeatedly deleting it. Exxolon (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • nb I've removed the IP's claim to be a specific attorney; we have no way of verifying that, and I must say I have my suspicions about the claim. As KC says, using OTRS is the way to go if you want to verify your relationship with the article subject. (also, KC, I edited your post too, sorry). That said, I think the legal threat can be safely overlooked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Concur with both. Thanks, Flo. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on my assessment of this sorry sequence, it would appear that nobody bothered to consider WHY the IP was repeatedly removing the section, they just assumed it was vandalism and reacted accordingly. Exxolon (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There's monkey business going on here. There's no reason to believe the IP has any connection to the Spears family or to the named lawyer; the story's been published and republished for years, in more reliable sources than the Enquirer (where it originally appeared), and I can't turn up any trace of any other prior or current claims that it's not true. It's hardly libelous -- kid playing in street killed in auto accident, driver not at fault. The lawyer whose name was used is representing people recently sued by Charlie Sheen, and I suspect a Sheen fan making trouble is more likely than any legitimate communication. RevDel at least the name used, and send the issue to the article talk page -- true or not, I don't see any encyclopedic value to the story, any more than in the horde of embarrassing celebrity events WP regrettably documents. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    S. P. Balasubrahmanyam

    S. P. Balasubrahmanyam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Editor adding blogs, etc as references for S. P. Balasubrahmanyam, including a claim he is in the Guiness Book of Records. As I asked the editor to use http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com as a source, and he has reinserted the claim, I'm asking for eyes on it. Searches of the Guinness site turn up nothing so far as I can find, and a look at the editor's talk page shows a long history of complaints about his edits with not one response from him. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we have a reliable source (Hindu.com, an article, not a blog, in a respected Indian newspaper) which happens to be wrong. I think the Guinness site, which does not list him, trumps the Hindu article, so I will delete the assertion. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor in question has demonstrated problematic behavior on many occasions. He seems to be trying to glorify certain articles and inserting "POV" and other such tags to articles which he apparently do not like. See [18], [19], [20]. He was even blocked by admin SpacemanSpiff for his disruptive editing. Salih (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Actor John Cullum's biography

    Resolved

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

    Mr. Cullum's biography indicates he is "currently appearing on Broadway in "The Scottsboro Boys" (2010). Since the show closed several months ago, this should be amended to read "Mr. Cullum most recently appeared on Broadway in "The Scottsboro Boys." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.20.229 (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Next time, you can edit articles like this one yourself. I'll post some links on your user talk page which will help you to get started. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Linda Morand

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

    Stalker

    Someone whose ip address 173.68.239.236 appears to be is actively stalking Linda Morand printing libelous information about criminal activity. They are misinformed and appear to be targeting someone else with the same name. I am Ms. Morand's official biographer and can assure anyone that these posts are false, defaming and libelous.

    ElaineBender (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

    I edited the offending comments in the talk page. This is the third time this ipp address has attacked this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElaineBender (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Elaine - thank you for bringing this to our attention. The talk page is clear of the BLP violations at the moment and I have added the article to my watchlist in order to ensure it is not restored. I have also added a warning to the IPs talk page which links to our policy on biographies requesting that they desist from adding the contentious information. If you encounter any further problems please leave another note here and we can elevate the warnings and/or apply protection to the article if required. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Amanda Knox

    Heads up for anyone who is interested. There is discussion at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher of creating a biography for Amanda Knox, one of the accused. An early draft can be found here - User:Wikid77/Amanda Knox. As this is as clear of a WP:BLP1E violation as I can possibly imagine I figured I'd alert those interested in BLP matters about the brewing situation. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    See Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#User-space_draft_bio_page_about_Amanda_Knox for further information.Griswaldo (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand where you are coming from, but when someone is imprisoned long enough and there are enough appeals and disputes about the conviction, we eventually cross out of WP:1E into more general notability which might justify a separate bio. Mumia Abu-Jamal is an example. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I take your point in general, and specifically in terms of Mumia, but he was convicted to life in prison for a murder that occurred over 30 years ago now, and as such has sustained coverage in reliable sources, and indeed has become more notable perhaps even since the one event that originally defined his notability. The appeals are still ongoing and Knox has had no opportunity to build notability above and beyond her trial. I just feel that people confuse real enduring notability with current events, and the shock culture of tabloids. We live in an information age where everything sensational that makes the news does so with a splash that perhaps mesmerizes people into thinking it must therefore have enduring meaningfulness when they are in the thick of it. I think the aspects of notability guidelines and BLP1E that emphasize enduring notability ought to be given more weight here. IMO.Griswaldo (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would Support an article for Amanda Knox. She even got a TV-film about her in particular.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So Lifetime movies are now the criteria for pushing a BLP over the BLP1E threshold?Griswaldo (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I also wonder what sources are going to be reliable enough to write her biography with. Sure there has been plenty of coverage of her trial in the news, but where does one get reliable information about her life in general from? Sensationalist books? Made for TV movies?Griswaldo (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not get involved in a never ending dispute that centers around the wikipedia guidelines which can be twisted and turned in any direction. But the facts are that Knox has reached the notability needed and there are plenty of sourcing to provide a good wikipedia article for Knox. End of story!, All ready in 2008 there were enough notability etc etc to justify a article for Knox.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Five years in the New York Times: Per WP:BLP_NewYorkTimes_5_year_coverage, "Anyone appearing in the New York Times for 5 years in a row, automatically gets an article" (just kidding). However, at some point, claiming that Amanda Knox does not have individual notability begins to sound like a Kafkaesque universe. Here are some of those 5 years in the New York Times:
    • Nov. 13, 2007 - "Grisly Murder Case Intrigues Italian University City - New York Times"
    • Sep. 29, 2008 - "Perugia Journal - Details Only Add to Puzzle in Umbrian Murder"
    • Jun. 12, 2009 - "American Testifies in Her Murder Trial in Italy - NYTimes.com"
    • Nov. 21, 2009 - "Life Sentence Sought in Italy for a U.S. Student, Amanda Knox"
    • Dec.  4, 2009 - "Italian Jury Convicts U.S. Student of Murder - NYTimes.com"
    • Nov. 24, 2010 - "Amanda Knox Murder Appeal Begins in Italy - NYTimes.com"
    • Dec. 18, 2010 - "Court in Perugia, Italy, Gives Amanda Knox a Victory - NYTimes.com"
    • Feb. 28, 2011 - "Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy - TV Movie - Cast & Credits"
    Of course, appearing 5 years, in the New York Times, does not confer individual notability, but reading some of those reports helps to access the notability, spanning 5 years. Note how, by 2010, the headlines all say "Amanda Knox" as though everyone in America had been seeing her on TV for years. They had. -Wikid77 02:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Bradley A. Buckles

    Bradley A. Buckles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Name of article: Bradley A. Buckles. Two sentences were added to the end of the second paragraph on February 2, 2011 by an anonymous user that are false, misleading, defamatory and unsourced. Edit reference: 06:16, 2 February 2011 98.71.87.97. While the material has been removed from the current version it continues to appear in the article history and google searches are still displaying the offending language in search returns. Can this material be removed entirely from the edit history so that it is not picked up through google? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryb45 (talk • contribs)

    You would better make this request at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight - Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Karlan

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

    This is a vanity article that appears to have been authored by the subject himself. It lacks a NPOV and reads like an advertisement. I think deletion should be discussed for failing to meet notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainBen (talk • contribs) 18:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've started a deletion discussion here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Karlan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Death of David Kelly

    Death of David Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Is a book review, which is for the most part hidden behind a paywall, and written by an author who is known to be critical of Tony Blair, an acceptable and verifiable source for stating as a fact what happened at a meeting attended neither by the author of the book being reviewed nor by its reviewer? Is it reasonable to state the claims as a proven fact when they contradict the findings of a judicial inquiry, and the evidence given by Tony Blair? (There is no exception in WP:BLP for accusations against Prime Ministers.) Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This has now also been posted on the reliable sources noticeboard.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As invited by Nishidani. I was resistant to do so lest it provoke accusations of forum shopping. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. But I'd hardly ask you to raise it there, and then challenge you for forum-shopping if you had! Even more humorous is you asking a question on this page, and not notifying me!Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick comment without having sifted the underlying material. Articles in the New York Review of Books tend to be much more than reviews--in fact, many of them are highly interesting, deliberate coatracks where the book is used as the mere excuse for a disquisition on the topic. I think a lot of references to NYRB would stand either on the grounds that this prestigious, long standing publication is a reliable source, or, at worst, by analogy to WP:SPS because the authors are almost universally recognized experts in their fields. That said, I think contentious material about living persons sourced only to a NYRB review should either be better sourced or deleted. (I distinguish the smaller number of NYRB articles which are presented as actual reportage of the "letter from Cairo" ilk). Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I spent a little more time reading the thread on the article talk page. If Wheatcroft in NYRB is citing one of the books he read, it seems incumbent on anyone wishing to preserve the content to identify which one and to find and reference the underlying book (assuming it independently is a reliable source). References which state "X says in a book review that Y claimed in a book" are not encyclopedic. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I often endeavour to do this personally, where possible, as a matter of good practice. But where is the wiki ruling that supports your opinion?
    This is amazing. I edit an article on a dead person, David Kelly, and the content of my edit is then construed as offending a living person! Let us stick strictly to the details. Sam is asserting that I or Wheatcroft makes an allegation. Neither I as editor, nor Wheatcroft as cited, or Rawnsley, make allegations in the edits. My edits have carefully chosen only those two elements of the review which provide us with details on what Mr Blair said on an airplane, and what took place on July 8. There is no allegation, there is only Sam's allegation that the inference he draws from these two details constitutes an allegation that is on the page! Come now, gentleman. This is really straightforward.Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like the way this unverified opinion is being presented as if a fact. One journo in his titillating book says this and another journo says is is true - its a double unverification presented as resulting in a positive guarantee of fact. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me. What 'opinion' is unverified?
    Neither Andrew Rawnsley nor Geoffrey Wheatcroft can be casually dismissed by the slightly pejorative slang 'journo'. They are both historians, qualified at respectively at Cambridge and Oxford in modern history in addition to writing for their living. Wheatcroft makes part of his living reviewing historical books from firstrate university presses. It is not customary for the TLS or the NYRB to engage hacks with a slipshod approach to work to review historical books. Both have letters to the editor columns where protests are made if the reviewer misrepresents facts. Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    f. charles brunicardi

    F. Charles Brunicardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    not a noteable person

    someone has simply uploaded a summary of his CV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.48.110 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like there is a bit of copyvio here too. Sections look to be copy\pasted from different online bios. The Interior (Talk) 00:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Gavin Menzies: what are BLP standards for his own statements in reliable sources?

    Questions have come up on the Gavin Menzies talk page relating to BLP standards for statements by the subject of the article that appear in reliable sources. These questions are complicated by allegations that Menzies is habitually untruthful. The life events in question are related to Menzies' career as a controversial bestselling author. Is his own account sufficient? These questions first came up on the talk page here: [[21]], and have continued in subsequent sections of the talk page, especially here: [[22]]. Thanks! --Other Choices (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles created via the Article Wizard

    I'd just like to bring to the attention of this august and noble forum that certain articles created by the Article Wizard (so far I've only seen some articles about Idaho politicians, i.e. Chuck Winder, Shawn Keough) have at least two problems:

    • All have the same date of birth (December 30, 1959) in the Persondata section by default unless changed manually by an editor
    • Have all bare reflinks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ching chong 'Modern usage' section again

    I've been trying to clean up the 'ching chong' section on the Rosie O'Donnell article so feel I am not as objective to help on ching chong, specifically the 'Modern usage' section. The article laboriously details the incidents to what I feel is an WP:Undue amount and it feels soapboxy. I have no sympathy for those who actually use offensive language to belittle others but in the O'Donnell case I know she didn't and all reliable sources confirm that.

    In addition every citation includes unneeded quotes, so the full quote is in the article and then repeated in the reference. I've only known this in the context of where a source is not readily available and editors need to know exactly what was said because the items are not online and available. I feel this is pulling quotes out of context and giving them further weight which may be pushing a point of view. Could other editors take a look and see if my take on the situation seems accurate? Or even clean-up the entries? Each time I've tried it has been undone. Jnast1 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Quotes are acceptable for WP:linkrot. Poster did not mention lengthy discussion I found at Talk:Rosie_O'Donnell#Restoring_.22Chinese_parody.22_section. I'm ok with the comsensus there with Notability by quality and variety of reliable sources 166.205.136.177 (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael W. Allen

    Michael W. Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I prodded this article in January and it went to Afd. There I voted to delete - and it would have been deleted but one person offered to rescue it so I reversed my delete. He has done nothing since - seems he's a strict inclusionist - and I cannot now prod it. I say it's promotional and only notable as such. Opinions please - should it go back to Afd? MarkDask 14:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you take it back to AFD, I will vote "delete". It is basically a marketing brochure full of WP:PEACOCK language. A quick Google search found no confirmation of notability in independent third party sources.Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked the user in question and he is busy but still intents to improve the BLP when he can get the time, so I have redirected it to Macromedia Authorware and then when he finds the time he can get on it easy. Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Off2riorob - job done. MarkDask 15:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, the user has also commented that he is happy with that. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Mehdi Hasan

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

    This chap is a British journalist, senior political editor for the New Statesman, a political magazine associated with the Labour Party and left wing politics. During the past month or two I notice that somebody has been posting a Youtube video in which someone identified as Mehdi Hasan addresses some Muslims and quotes the Koran on non-Muslims (calling them cattle, etc). No context is provided but the person inserting says this has been controversial. Perhaps because he wants to stir up controversy! I've removed the reference for now because no evidence that this has driven controversy is provided. --TS 17:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Good call. – ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Safran Foer

    Jonathan Safran Foer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    in the article it says "he raises his kids vegtarian." this according to foer himself is not true though in an interview he stated"i want my children to be well informed so they can make their owan choices."he then says he occassionally makes meat dishes for them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.21.155.162 (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well we can't use a reference as vague as "an interview" as a source; however the statement about how he raises his kids is also currently unsourced in the article (although one has to do a bit of digging to find that out), so I'm going to remove it until and unless someone can provide a source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wissam Tarif

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

    This page was created & written by the same person whose name is in the page title. The resources & citations are extremely poor, in addition to various mistakes and mis-information. Kindly omit this page to avoid any misuse. Thanks JB — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBlumenstein (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We have no hard-and-fast rule against editing your own article, although it is discouraged. I agree the article seems a bit self-serving; that is a matter for cleanup. On a quick glance there are certainly enough citations to cover an article this size; whether they actually support the statements made is something which only examining each source carefully will tell. I suggest you either edit this article yourself to clean it up and trim it, or you can WP:PROD it or nominate for deletion if you feel the person is not notable. Assertions of notability are made; therefore it cannot be speedied so don't bother trying to tag it for A7. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Keith Fordyce

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

    On 24 March 2011, claims that Fordyce had died were inserted into the piece. The sources for this information were unedited British media message boards, and as of 2330 UTC on 24 March there has not been any such death notice issued by a credible British news organisation. Consideing Fordyce's prominence in British radio and television for several decades, mere message board claims are extremely poor bases for such information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingDaevid (talk • contribs) 22:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How reliable is The Daily Express? They put out a piece saying he died: [23] NW (Talk) 23:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Kellyanne Conway

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

    Violates NPOV and verifiability in that the only references are the subject's own website and that of one of the subject's clients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.167.202 (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The article reads like an advertisement for Conway. I removed some of the worst puffery and then tagged it as lacking sources and advert.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I also updated, trimmed and tagged. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaron Saxton

    Would any editors be available to have a look at the Aaron Saxton BLP? This includes an embedded video, originally self-published as part of a series on YouTube which has been uploaded to Commons (see Commons category). The YouTube video itself is, as far as I am aware, non-notable, in that no reliable sources have commented upon it. It, and the other videos in the series, make statements about third parties, and I am unsure if the embedding of the video in the article is in line with WP:BLPSPS. Views? --JN466 10:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I did notice how the videoes were uploaded to youtube and uploaded from there to here and now removed from youtube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgSWH64wmJE - I wonder if the permission we have is actually verified as the subject in question? I was wondering, if it was him , he will be aware they are all now hosted here and why the uploader to youtube removed them? The uploaders channel has basically been blanked - http://www.youtube.com/user/aaronsaxton1#g/c/B1EB614764CFDF0B - Perhaps someone with OTRS at commons could have a look at https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=4052753 and see who dealt with the original OTRS and what kind of verification of permission is there. As for the notability of the video itself as its self published and discusses other people that would create serious issues or a violation in my mind in regard to SELFPUB.Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take a look. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, permissions seems ok, although no extra effort has been expended to ensure the granter was Saxton, but this is normally done only if someone challenges the copyright, or there is some other reason to expend extraordinary effort. So you'd be back to SEFPUB and other arguments for/against inclusion. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Who dealt with the original OTRS details. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to know that. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) - Seems a bit unnecessarily secretive - So the OTRS permission - was it an email from the copyright holder or was it just that the youtube account was in the name of the person in the video? Is there actually any verification at all? As regards not allowing a question as to who dealt with the original OTRS details, could you direct me to that policy/guideline, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of violating BEANS, I'll simply say I'm concerned about the Wikimedia privacy policy, and leave it at that. The person self-identified and used an email address which would indicate they were who they stated. More was not done, as I have mentioned before. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, well, thanks for looking. Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    - So, its so hard to assess when you are not an OTRS or an administrator, - this video was uploaded to wikipedia commons by User:Cirt on the 19th November 2009 from a youtube account in the name of Aaron Saxton and the next day after a verification email from Aaron Saxton the subject of the video had been received at OTRS, User:Cirt then added the ORTS verified permission template? Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, an OTRS volunteer "verifying" his own uploads... The secret documentation is an effective threshold against copyright challenges. As to the BLP issue, yes, the article is stronly dependent on this self-published source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps its a side issue but the Aaron Saxton BLP was also written by ... User:Cirt - Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Churchill Dass Prince

    Resolved
     – User:KillerChihuahua deleted "Churchill Dass Prince" ‎ (WP:A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)

    I strongly believe that this article is baseless with no evidence and most of the information this article provides are misleading with no valid proof. Thus, this illogical article make Wikipedia readers to believe that Wikipedia is providing these misleading information.So please, kindly allow me to modify the same to make it look more real.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthusamyvelu69 (talk • contribs)

    I have speedy deleted the article as A7, no assertion of notability. The article - more of a curriculum vitae - had three sources. All three said exactly the same thing: Mr. Churchill Dass Prince M, National Law School of India University, Bangalore attended the "Biofuel: Challenges, opportunities and legislation" technical session of the two-day International Conference on New Frontiers in Biofuels. Participating in a technical breakout at a two day conference is not quite sufficient to guarantee notability for inclusion. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Aura Urziceanu

    Resolved
     – article is not hosted on this wikipedia - advice given and a menu of helpful links added to the new users talkpage

    Over a long period of time, some editors of the article Aura Urziceanu repeatedly added information poorly sourced about the alleged ethnic origin of the artist who is a living personality. The artist denied publicly and was offended by such allegation.

    While the article is in Romanian, I do request assistance from the larger Wikipedia community because my repeated attempts to ensure the WP policy for this article is respected failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigi marga (talk • contribs) 13:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest you send an email to OTRS (info@wikimedia.org) and/or bring this up on meta. The English Wikipedia controls only the English Wikipeida. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Thank you. Can you please let me know what (and where) is "meta"? Thank you. Gigi marga (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Minhyong Kim

    Resolved
     – discussed and improved

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

    This article was created by my children without my knowledge, and then, it seems, edited by others. When I found out, I let it stand a few days for their amusement and even made a correction or two. But having thought about it, it clearly violates conventions on creation of biographies by people involved with the subject. I would like to have it deleted, but do not know the procedure. Are there some administrators who can help with this?

    Minhyong Kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.56.118 (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dang it - likely notable enough for an article. [24] , [25], and so on. I see no special problems with COI. Are you sure you wish it deleted? Collect (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there looks like there may be notability enough, ..notable chair at...to perhaps rise above Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - - if the editor requests deletion we can nominate it, but to get more weight they should self identify to the foundation and provide verification which will give the request additional weight in any WP:AFD discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)

    It may not be the standard recommended way of creating an article :), but from having had a quick look at Google Scholar and Google Books, it's possible that you may be notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article on you. For reference, the notability guideline for academics is WP:PROF.
    On the other hand, if you would rather not have an article on yourself here, for reasons of privacy (and worrying what anonymous people might add to it), then I don't think your notability is such that your request for deletion would be refused. Are you sure you want the article gone? --JN466 15:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject does appear to be of marginal note in their field, but recently over the last year at AFD discussion I have seen a rejection of weight towards such requests from unverified editors. As the notability is minimal I recommend the subject contacts info-en-q@wikimedia.org with a link to the article in question as such a verified request will carry more weight. Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done some formatting work on the article. I note his co-author John H. Coates has an article. --JN466 16:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh well, I have no real objection to the article. I'll leave it to the discretion of readers and editors, then. MK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.191.229 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ken Ring (astrologer)

    Ken Ring (astrologer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The article as it stands is not impartial and wrongly denigrates Ken Ring, who has thousands of loyal followers and admirers. A dispute between scientists and alternative theoreticians should not enter the pages of Wikipedia, and the public should be able to make up their own minds, not being told what to think and believe by someone dedicated to the criticism of someone for personal reasons. It is better to say nothing rather than slant the posting negatively. Someone reading the posting for the first time will not form a good judgement. For instance Ken Ring saved many people's lives by warning successfully of the 6.3 earthquake in Christchurch on 22 February, 2011, a week before it happened. That result is fact and has been wrongly omitted. His advice has also saved many farmers from financial ruin. Ken Ring has been Channel Seven's longrange forecaster and presenter for the past 4 years. (Seven is Australia's biggest TV network). Some fairness please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanola51 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's see if I correctly interpret what you're asking: you want to remove sourced criticism of his "predictions" and simply let Wikipedia state that he can predict the future? Do I understand that correctly? Chillllls (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I never heard of this guy, so I went and read the article. In my opinion, it clearly fails the "smell test" for neutrality. To cite three examples:
    1) The statement that Ring believes that weather is caused "solely by the Moon" contradicts the source, which states that weather "is caused mostly by the Moon in its partnership with the Sun."
    2) The speculative and dismissive statement that Ring's predictions "may be shown to be less accurate than random guess" is unsourced.
    3) The unsourced statement that Ring's successful March 20 earthquake prediction "was not outside the scientifically expected pattern" appears to have the sole function of downplaying or dismissing Ring's prediction, and the statement that the prediction "caused significant unwelcome stress amongst local residents" seems to be poorly worded.--Other Choices (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • - note - article has been at AFD for six days and looks like a clear keeper. I resolved via editing the three issues above Off2riorob (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominated this for deletion so was waiting for its outcome before getting too involved in its editing. As Rob points out this is probably going to stay. I have added some sources and info to back up point 3 and will work on bringing the rest up to scratch over the next few days. AIRcorn (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Ring (astrologer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Pat O'Connell

    Resolved
     – link fixed

    Pat O'Connell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Pat O'Connell, surfer, born 1972 is NOT the Pat O'Connell who was a member of the CND Committee of 100. The LINK from the list of committee members to Pat O'Connell is wrong. It should go to and show a female, born in Ireland in the early 1900's and who died in London England in the early 2000's. This Pat O'Connell (Pat, short for Margret?) deserves, in my oppinion, a biography in her own right. Yours John Seager. email redacted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.46.250 (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed the link. See WP:DAB. If the other Pat O'Connell deserves an article, you should register an account and write one! Thanks for pointing out the mislinking. The Interior (Talk) 09:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    BLPs of Politicians

    Hello, I have been dealing with lot of BLPs relating to Indian Politicians. The problem is that (as with any other BLP), IPs come and insert criticism (mostly allegations) into the article. The thing is that their additions are usually well sourced. However, many additions are kind of trivial. If we allow such additions, then it will become nothing but a huge collection of political allegations, many of which are politically motivated. Politician BLPs are very sensitive, probably more than other BLPs. Is there any policy specially addressing these kinds of additions? I have also raised the issue at the Wikiproject politics. Yes Michael? •Talk 15:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:UNDUE means that if something is trivial, it may not be worth remarking. The thing to ask is, is the allegation the type of thing that simply makes a news cycle or did it have enduring significance.--Scott Mac 16:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. WP:UNDUE does say that, but it is not always easy to judge what is trivial, and what is not. Another problem is that most of these political stories are allegations, and nothing more. Do these deserve a place in the articles? Yes Michael? •Talk 16:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on their notability. Some allegations are so much part of the story of the politician that yes they will warrant recording. But the fact that someone has alleged something, does not make it notable. I think it is easier to look at a particular example rather than generalisations here.--Scott Mac 16:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true. I guess we can keep a timeframe of sorts; Like if a particular story is in the news for say, 10 days or so, it could warrant a mention. This could help filter out the chaff. Thoughts? Yes Michael? •Talk 17:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I always err the side of excluding material entirely. However, I don't think this can be reduced to some "rule". It would depend on what we meant by "in the news" as well as the time. Is it in major newspapers? Quality or tabloid? Is it a footnote or a front-page? All we can do is examine on a case-by-case.--Scott Mac 17:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Yes Michael? •Talk 17:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Political silly season" is the worst time for political BLPs on Wikipedia. ome folks seem to feel that the more dirt they can find on a politician (heck, anyone they do not like), the better. I am quite unsure that such is the best policy at all, and prefer to keep all BLPs written as even-handedly as possible. Collect (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with you. I'm also trying my best to integrate criticism into main body of the article, so there's less chance of what I call "polarisation of POVs"! Yes Michael? •Talk 17:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Diana Wynne Jones

    Resolved
     – Reliable source inserted by User:Gran2.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Diana Wynne Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Neil Gaiman, a highly reliable (and individually notable) person has reported via Twitter that Jones died overnight [26] , authenticity confirmed by John Scalzi, president of the SFWA [27]. There don't appear to be any reports from conventional news outlets yet, but a death report has been added to the article, and a non-free image added on the basis that Jones is no longer a living person. I believe the information is accurate and appropriate for the article, but bump up against BLP/RS, which read technically prohibit sourcing any information concerning living persons, including death notices, from self-published sources nor controlled by the article subject. I think it would be best to retain the death report and to add a reference to Gaiman's post to the article, replacing it when a more conventional report is available, and am looking for further input on the point. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We haven't got a reliable source, seems like its all from the twitter post - from Neil Gaiman - He lives in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and the article subject lives in the UK, perhaps he got it from twitter...I agree with your comments but right now the claim is uncited in the article completely. The death does not appear to have been officially announced perhaps they are informing family and suchlike. Seventy people have re-tweeted it....Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact the tweet from Gallman links to our article and was tweeted after the death had been added to our article and even links to our article [28] suggesting that he got the detail from here. It hasn't been disputed but I wouldn't add it myself without a WP RS. Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, Gaiman is apparently in the UK right now [29]. He'd been posting/tweeting about visting a "sick friend" in hospice and had reported she was on the verge of death. Folks who know Neil recognized who he was talking about (there are recent references to her in the tweeter history); he just didn't report her name publicly until her death was added to the WP article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ok. I went for the halfway house and removed the death dates and left the picture and added a comment about the claims to the lede and added the two citations you presented here. I also had a look and couldn't find anything RS additional. I see you are well informed but without us having a WP:RS, what do you think to my edit? Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm comfortable with that. We don't need to rush to update the article, but once a report like this starts spreading in public, I think it's very helpful to have a carefully phrased statement like your text to deter editors from adding unverified statements as factual. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, I was reading the rest of Gaiman's recent tweets and it is clear that he has been visiting a friend that was in a hospice close to death and he has now named the friend as Jones so I am also happier removing the uncited claim and including the comment in the lede sourced to those two selfpub sources. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Asma al-Assad

    Asma al-Assad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    User:Chowbok is having a problem with bullying here. I have tried to work with what the article originally covered, I have offered alternatives in organization (such as a separate article for the Syria Trust), I have tracked down official sources, and I have discussed all these things on the Talk board, trying to show a sense of humour to diffuse the hard sarcasm being used. In return, I feel I have been kicked in the teeth by those with ownership issues who appear to think it's their 'job' to insult everyone in the public eye, as well as insult other Wikipedians. You can read the earlier insulting language which was used to 'improve' the article (I referred to it in the Talk page as well). There seems to be a misunderstanding of what POV means: neutral, as opposed to insulting. This is not a politician or world leader, this is simply the First Lady of Syria who people are curious to know something about, particularly now. She is Chairperson of the Syria Trust which works with young people and such, pretty innocuous stuff imo and pretty similar to Laura Bush's reading program for kids, or Michelle Obama's exercise program for kids, or Nancy Reagan's anti-drug program for kids. Baseball, mom and apple pie stuff - it's what first Ladies do, and apparently she puts a lot of time into it. imo Chowbuk would be better suited to limiting his contributions to crooks and liars, as that seems to be his world view of everyone. If you don't want bullying at Wikipedia, you need to put a stop to this sort of thing, both his words and his actions. I am spending most of my time on the Cabinets and Ministers of MENA countries, along with the protests, and I really resent having to deal with drive-by attacks on an article which doesn't deserve this sort of attention at all. (I hate to think what he would do to an article about puppies or kittens.) Clearly some Wikipedians tried to create an article for this woman because they admire her. Instead of being helped with sources, the article was mostly deleted and they were insulted. I tried to help them out, whoever they are, so they wouldn't think all Wikipedians are jerks. So much for that idea. (btw - while notifying Chowbuk, I see he's been invited to be an Ambassador for Wikipedia. I can only hope that's in some alternative universe.) Flatterworld (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I dunno, I think you're overstating the bullying issues. I read through the Talk comments, and although they are occasionally a little strong, I wouldn't call them bullying.
    However, I do think the article reads like an advertisement for its subject and for Syria. It's terribly written and terribly cited. I've removed some of the most obvious puffery, but it really needs some significant cutting. All the stuff about projects seems to be just an adertisement for the projects and only peripherally related to Asma. I removed one paragraph that was a verbatim copyright violation. Too much of it comes from the project websites and is therefore naturally couched in the most flattering terms. There needs to be third-party sources and justification that the stuff is relevant to the subject, and not just because she's married to the president, but in her own right. Wouldn't leave much left in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    iow, you totally missed my point. Yet another 'drive-by' who just can't be bothered to make any effort at all. Flatterworld (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll leave to others to judge whether I was being insulting, bullying, teeth-kicking, etc., but I would like to point out this part of Flatterworld's comment: "Clearly some Wikipedians tried to create an article for this woman because they admire her." Exactly. You shouldn't be able to tell that an article was written by admirers, and if you can, then the article is not NPOV and needs to be fixed.—Chowbok ☠ 03:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Chowbok, if you think these 'improvements' you added are at all defensible, you don't belong at Wikipedia, imo. That was insulting, malicious and hateful to the newbies who created the article. Unlike you, they didn't try to write a hit job. I expect the Wikipedians who created the articles about Mozart and Beethoven admired them, too - why on earth would you consider that a problem and some breach of NPOV? Or have you added language like that to those articles, too? Flatterworld (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You know very well that wasn't the version I wanted, or have been trying to get to. My initial attempts to make the article NPOV were all reverted, so I made it flip-flop both ways as a compromise attempt. And you are clearly missing the point. You may "expect" that the Mozart article was created by an admirer, but the point is that you can't tell that by reading it. That was emphatically not the case with this version you seem to be so fond of.—Chowbok ☠ 04:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    RUBBISH. That is the version you left "03:02, 10 March 2011 Chowbok". Anyone can see you didn't return until 26 March, 16 days later. Your 'language' is exactly what I found. You purposely trashed the article. You couldn't find any sources with 'dirt', so you made it sound like a sleazy tabloid article, full of innuendo based on...what, exactly? Your personal feelings? Which don't belong in an encyclopedia. Flatterworld (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Bbb23. Since there have been several reversions lately, the two basic versions being debated appear to be the stripped down version and Flatterworld's version. He was asked to provide valid sources before restoring material but he has not, apparently believing that his sources are sufficient. I started a section to discuss sources and he has not provided constructive debate there and has stated that he refuses to engage me further. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Viriss1 has refused to read the applicable guideline, making any discussion impossible. (bttw - I linked the 'Chowbok version' above, which Viriss1 no doubt thinks is wonderful.) Flatterworld (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't defend that version. I only did that after my attempt to make it neutral by deleting the irrelevant information was rejected. I'll admit I was being a little POINT-y with that. My original edit, which Flatterworld conveniently ignores, is this.—Chowbok ☠ 04:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop ignoring your gap between 10 March and 26 March (see above). You refused to engage on the Talk page when the others disagreed with you, so you threw a tantrum and tried intimidation by trashing the article. And it worked - for 16 days until I happened to see it. Flatterworld (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the three versions, I think the current stripped down one should remain and be expanded, if at all, very carefully, using independent third party sources. The other two versions are an unsourced piece full of "peacock" words and (the one the author acknowledged as "pointy") a complete critical synthesis, also unsourced. A very quick Google search found some third party sources such as this Vogue piece and a critical response in Slate. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. Chowbok's removal was needed. If editors want to insert material, each piece will have to be reliably sourced and relevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Jonathanwallace about the Vogue piece - mainly because I added it to the External links. (I left the Sun and fansite links alone as I didn't want to discourage whoever added them - I've seen much worse, and generally "the good drives out the bad" as more sources are found.) The idea at Wikipedia is collaboration, and I was attempting to get others involved (and re-involved, in the case of those chased off). I think the Syria Trust should be a separate article, as I suggested in the Talk page, and I added the sourced material from its official website to encourage at least a discussion of that option as it wasn't clear from the existing article just what the Trust included. Chowbok, of course, blithely ignored all that and instead immediately imposed his 'personal preference', once again, on everyone else. And none of you see any problem with his behavior at all? You consider that 'compromise'? 'Consensus building'? Really? I call it attempted intimidation. Just what do you think the Talk page is for? Or are you so certain you're so brilliant and every other contributor is so stupid they should be pathetically grateful when you 'correct' them, and you're angry your unilateral decisions (aka bullying) aren't greeted with groveling praise? If you're that clueless on how to actually work with people, then don't do it. There are lots of activities which don't require collaboration with others. Flatterworld (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And I might add that Flatterworld's accusations of bullying are remarkably hypocritical. Just a taste of some of his comments on the Talk page:

    • you just detest the subject, so everything's 'puffery'. (directed at me)
    • You won the Vampire Award. (directed at Veriss)
    • Cut the teenage sarcasm. (directed at Chowbok)

    --Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet another rubbish 'comment'. All of you have refused' to look at the facts of what Chowbok actually did, but instead circled like vultures (you like that better than vampires-biting-newbies?) attacking the 'outsider'. You want to excuse Chowbok leaving an incredibly sleazy version in place from 10 March until 26 March, go ahead. imo it was despicable behavior, un-Wikipedian in the extreme, certainly meets the 'contentious' bar (which Veriss pretends means something else entirely), and should have been universally deplored. Yet you continue to defend him and are incredibly critical of my reaction to his 'work' and to your 'responses'. I expect anyone reading this can connect the dots here. Flatterworld (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As usual, these kinds of disputes have a complicated and checkered history. However, as far as I can tell, the first edit by Chowbok to the article is on March 6 here, where he essentially stripped out all the material that has now been stripped out again. After that, two different editors (FunkMonk and Zozo2kx) battled with Chowbok and restored the material. Giving up at least for the moment, Chowbok then tagged the article. Not being at all sure what you consider to be the "incredibly sleazy version", the puffed-up, unreferenced version (in my view) remained in place contrary to Chowbok's editorial judgment. Then ensued the argument on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23, apparently what I consider 'sleazy tabloid' is what you consider 'NPOV' or 'harmlessly POINTed' as Chowbok put it: THIS, which I've linked to already, is my definition of 'sleazy tabloid', aka "contentious material which should be removed at once": As First Lady, putting a glamorous face on Syria's dictatorship and distracting Syria’s population and the world from the nature of its regime is central to al-Assad’s work. She is portrayed...Underscoring both challenges is the inherent difficulty in increasing the standard of living of the nation (or at least appearing to do so) without simultaneously increasing demands for political freedom. Ha ha ha. Syria's in the middle of an uprising, people are getting killed, and you find it absolutely hilarious to pour gasoline/petrol on the fire. "Yeah, let's insult Syria's First Lady! We'll show those Syrians who's boss! We don't need no stinkin' sources!" And then you try to cover it up, make excuses for Chowbok, and intimidate me. As if. You're a real piece of work. Flatterworld (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For those following along at home: IF one has doubts about an acceptable source's objectivity, one can simply preface it with "As stated by (x)..." or "As reported by (x)..." But to delete a whole section based on "I don't like it" isn't acceptable. We have plenty of articles about CEOs which don't omit everything about their job "because it's a whitewash, all puffery, and they're only figureheads." Of course we reference the official site of the business and their official biographies, along with whateevver else we find that's from a reputable source. This is the first time I've seen that ridiculed. You're assuming a lot, stating it as fact, and providing no basis for that. Flatterworld (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, I concur with Bbb23 about the hypocrisy of Flatterworld complain about bullying. I don't know much about the debate history of this article but in the 24 hours or so since I stumbled onto the scene and removed the poor quality sources and trimmed out the unsupported assertions, Flatterworld has attacked and insulted me personally three times, Bbb23 once and Chowbok once. While posting these less then helpful comments, not once has Flatterworld posted a constructive argument to discuss interpretation of any BLP policy points. Many of these posts are since he complained about Chowbok here which is pretty incredible in my view. Flatterworld's deportment on the talk page in the last 24 hours has been disruptive and I'm sure has discouraged other reasonable editors from joining in the discussion less they be attacked as well. Please see the last two discussion sections on the article's talk page. I didn't want to go here, but on further reflection, I request that an uninvolved admin take a look at this. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not clear to me what you're asking for. If you want an uninvolved admin to look at the content of the article, that's not really necessary. You could ask for uninvolved editors to look at content issues, but that's really already been accomplished. If you want to have an admin look at Flatterworld's behavior, this not an appropriate place to make such a request. You could do so at WP:AIN, for example, but, honestly, although I'm not an admin, I don't think his behavior rises to the level of justifying administrative action. You might take a look at WP:WQA.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just as soon let this go. The article's been fixed, and I don't mind Flatterworld insulting me if it means he won't re-add the problematic material to the article. Let him blow off a little steam.—Chowbok ☠ 20:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care about the insults either, was more concerned about the disruption to the talk page. I struck out the part about admin review. We'll see how things progress. Veriss (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Meghnad Desai, Baron Desai

    Meghnad Desai, Baron Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I think that the behavior of Ajaxyz (talk · contribs) is inappropriate, and what they are adding to this article may be a BLP violation. Ruslik_Zero 12:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    At a quick glance, there is a huge WP:COATRACK here about Said Khadafy's PhD thesis. This needs a lot of pruning. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I trimmed a bit that was mostly duplicated and poorly written undue allegations of wrongdoing. Article needs some copy editing wiki style improvements as it is quite low quality at present. Off2riorob (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Linda McMahon

    [30] appears to use a primary source and asserts the term "Ring Boy Affair" whioh is not even found in that source in a BLP. The edit summary directed at me there is nothing wrong with the source, find some other victim) shows the nature of the editor's attitude. I seriously dount that http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/10/vince-and-linda-mcmahon-file-march-1993-lawsuit-against-wwe-employees-and-tv-show.php?page=1 qualifies as RS in any case, or that the link to a copy of a court document qualifies as proper in any BLP in the first place. Thus the "Ring Boy Affair" bit is fully unsupported by any reliable source. This article has long been a dumping ground for contentious claims, as multiple BLP/N sections show. Collect (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a WP:COATRACK with significant WP:UNDUE problems--could possibly remain in the article if significantly slimmed down and reliably sourced. The link to the court doc has to come out per WP:BLPPRIMARY which says " Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now tell it to the editor who seems intent on treating this as a personal battleground :). Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I took out the document. I do not see why a factual document like that would not be acceptable, but the policy on trial transcripts is very direct and I will not make an issue of it further. My apologies.--Screwball23 talk 02:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ottoman descendants

    There was previously discussion about this subject at BLPN here and here.

    In a nutshell, part of the article Line_of_succession_to_the_Ottoman_throne was being used to provide poorly sourced info about non-public figures who are living descendants of emperors of the now-defunct Ottoman Empire. The decision was to remove that info, and it was removed. But then a POV fork popped up, and it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession today.

    Today, the editor behind all this stuff complained at the long-closed AfD page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession today. Additionally, this editor restored all the info about living descendants to the following articles: Mehmed V, Abdul Hamid II, Murad V, Abdülaziz, Abdülmecid I. Not sure what to do about this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted all the large disputed uncited additions and left the user a note to come discuss the issue here, same as the recent same raised report. Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Why did you delete everything? Those are interesting articles - you ruin everything, I do not understand. The members feel discriminated against by. I have you posted the official home of the family.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs)

    You appear to be repeatedly adding what amounts to uncited not notable content - this has been pointed out to you on more than one occasion but you are continuing to insert the content, please stop re adding it until discussion and consensus to do so is clear. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    http://www.ottomanfamily.com/ Here,this is the official Homepage of the Ottoman Dynasty...Dilek2 (User talk:Dilek2talk) 21:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a nice web site but it's promotional. There's also no indication that the living people who are being promoted want to be promoted. See WP:RS for more info about why promotional web sites are not good sources for Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Then you have to delete the Iranian dynasty

    Because these are yes, no heir apparent or more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If there's an article about the Iranian dynasty, then it's okay if it uses reliable non-promotional sources. Also, there's no problem saying who the children of the Shah of Iran are, but listing grandchildren and great-grandchildren is much more unusual and questionable. It could be unsafe for a person to be promoted as royalty in a country that long ago overthrew royalty and no longer has royalty.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Why did you as a successor, Bayezid not deleted? Strange...He is also a Prince they was born in Exile... [Osman] Bayezid III, 44th Head of the House of Osman (2009-present), great-grandson of Sultan Abdülmecid I.?????

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Because there is a reliable, non-promotional source for Bayezid: 'Osmanoğulları'na insanlık şehadet edecek'", Zaman (newspaper) (2009-09-27). Additionally, as the person who would now be emperor, Bayezid is much more notable than other people in his extended family.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Much More Notable? Well this is the story from ertogrul in your Link,...not from bayezid...and...the next Heir is not much notable? well the next are all the shezades they was listed...but you deleted The Heir...HA HA HA Just I know where you are....OMG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You are correct that the Zaman article is not primarily about Bayezid, but it mentions him. Translating into English: "The new head of the Ottoman Dynasty, Osman Bayezit (85), was unable to attend the funeral." You would need a similarly reliable source for all the other people you want to mention.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This Article is not more reliable as the Ottoman Family link,that I have posted...They are all the living descandents... So what is your Problem with the others?In Yout Tube are many Video's about the Ottoman Dynasty. And hhh do you said there is nor more Ottoman Thron so why the name of Bayezid is listen? Crazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    An article in Zaman is considered much more reliable than a promotional web site. Please see WP:RS. I'm sorry if that seems crazy, but those are the rules here. I've tried to explain as best I can, and will now let others try. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "There is no Ottoman throne anymore, so this article is necessarily a historical description of the line of succession, except where other info about the subject is well-sourced and inserted by consensus. There is now yet another discussion at BLPN at WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ottoman_descendants.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)" This is your's...Forget it? aha the official Members Homepage is not true? WOW you said;all the Members are Liar's???oh oh...Strange but Bayezid is listen too in this Homepage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Bayezid falls within the exception I described: "except where other info about the subject is well-sourced and inserted by consensus."Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The next Heir is:Şehzade Dündar Aliosman Efendi (1930) (II. Abdülhamit) So He is a Liar? He is a not real Person? WOW...what a Mr.Superman do you are... Look at this Video...They are many Video's about Ottoman Dynasty in the I-Net.

    Sehzade's... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCSxG3szB1A&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dilek2, I have no doubt that there is a lot of information "out there" on the internet about the Ottoman succession -- it's a naturally interesting subject, just as with other countries that got rid of their kings. The problem here, as Anythingyouwant has been trying to explain, involves specific wikipedia policies about (1) what sources can be properly used, and (2) what can properly be discussed in an article. Sometimes these policies can seem arbitrarily restrictive, but some kind of general rules are necessary to avoid chaos. I know from personal experience that there are grey areas where editors have disagreements about how to apply the rules. In a situation like that, consensus among editors becomes important, and sometimes I don't get my way concerning an issue that seem obvious to me, because the other editors involved disagree. That can be annoying, but sometimes that's just the way it goes around here.--Other Choices (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael McGinn Mayor of Seattle

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

    I object to the overall tone of this biography as being biased against Mayor Mike McGinn. It reads to me as if written by a detractor. Many more negative citations and references are included than are positive ones, and I suspect the editorial work of a political opponent. Please mark this article as biased and in need of more balance. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.239.111 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Without specific examples, it is hard to assess your complaint. In any event, without a specific BLP violation, you should take this up on the Talk page of the article first before coming here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Another editor has facilitated matters by putting a POV tag on the article and starting a discussion on its Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Geoffrey Canada

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

    "Costly Program" section completely unsupported by citations and tone is questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmkeating (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It was a copy-paste from the New York Times, I've reverted it as a copyright violation. January (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Claire Khaw

    New article Claire Khaw needs checking for BLP / negative content, RS, etc.  Chzz  ►  23:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=421104807"