Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive71

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Can we have a set of eyes on this banker's bio? Person's always quoted in the media but the bio runs on tying up with famous people like Bill Clinton who attended the bank's conferences and mentioning newspapers quoting her. Subjective statements like 'views influence the allocation of trillions of dollars'. Page sounds like maintained by the subject herself or a pr rep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.252.63 (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say there is biased editing in the subject's favor. One paragraph refers to her top ranking three different times, and all the mention about where she is interviewed doesn't add anything. Also see in the J P Morgan template, she is mentioned as one of three notable executives, along with two CEOs. Don't think a country analyst would be up there is stature.

There was an edit war in the article over the inclusion of the actress's verified birthname under the premise that it violates WP:PRIVACY since the actress is allegedly an editor on wikipedia. The article is now protected due to the edit war but people should weigh in on the discussion on whether WP:PRIVACY applies here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of debate at Joe Wilson (U.S. politician) about how to handle a number of things, not least the recent events which catapulted him to international recognition [1]. There are, however, a number of people who claim that WP:BLP and WP:RECENTISM dictate that this event should not be mentioned in the lede! (A lot of people think it should, but those who disagree claim no consensus, and there's so much going on it's hard to judge.) More eyes please. Rd232 ^talk 19:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We have an editor who insists on a "see also" link to a page called Climate change denial. I tried to remove it twice and had each revert backed out. The issue, as I see it, is that a "see also" link to a page called "Climate change denial" is much the same as simply writing somewhere in the article, "By the way, Ian Plimer is a Denialist". Actually, the very existence of a page called Climate change denial must present a number of potential BLP problems but I guess that's another matter. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

1. This is not a BLP issue, so why you posted it here is a mystery.
2. Plimer is called a climate change "denier" or "denialist" all over the place, eg [2] [3] [4] [5] etc etc.
3. Why would there be any problem with the concept of denial? Plimer does deny the concept of anthropogenic global warming, not so? ► RATEL ◄ 14:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I also object to this editor's use of the "See also" to (indirectly) pejoratively label the subject as a "climate change denier". This appears to be a possible BLP violation to me.

None of the sources mentioned above are WP:reliable sources. In order,

1. Plimer mentioned only in a reply to this newspaper blog posting.

2. Personal blog post.

3. Opinion column by a virulently critical opponent of Plimer.

4. Personal blog post. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, Tillman. Since when are The Guardian and the Christian Science Monitor not RSes? You're clutching at straws, as is to be expected from one of Wikipedia's most persistent editors of climate-related pages for the denialist cause. ► RATEL ◄ 23:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In case it is not obvious, Ratel is the same editor involved in the dispute. We need the help of uninvolved, neutral editors. Thanks in advance. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In case it's not obvious, editors Alex Harvey (aka Alexh19740110) Alexh19740110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Tillman Tillman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are two editors who spend most of their time on wikipedia editing pages to do with climate change, always trying to enhance, protect and boost the profiles of people who, usually for financial reasons, claim that anthropogenic climate change —a concept accepted by over 97.5% of the world's active climatologists— is a scam and bogus. ► RATEL ◄ 01:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, as a good faith editor I invite you to remove these personal attacks and false representations and my response here to the same, and then withdraw from this page so that the procedure of escalation to the noticeboard can be allowed to operate without your interference. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a thought: Why not all three of you hold your tongues and allow some previously uninvolved editors to fit a word in edgewise? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue remains open. I would appreciate the input from an uninvolved editor, i.e. someone without interests in the climate change debate. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. As the book ... argues against the scientific consensus on climate change, rejecting the view that global warming is "very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations" ... climate change denial is a logical link to include so is certainly acceptable as a "See also" link. -- Banjeboi 15:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw this earlier but was reluctant to get involved because although I'm not an involved editor, I do have a history in some global warming related articles and may not be seen as a neutral editor. However while I initially shared some of Alex Harvey's concerns (about the linking not the existance of the climate change denial article), after more consideration I now agree with Benjiboy. More importantly, it occured to me that rather then the see also, we could see if there's someway we can link to 'climate change denial' in the article. Would either side object to linking to it via this sentence "Leigh Dayton, science writer for The Australian, expressed dismay at Plimer for having "boarded the denialist ark" and described his arguments"? I've also made the later suggestion in the article talk page where it's perhaps best discussed Nil Einne (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to read these comments as I perceive here a very serious risk of setting a most unfortunate, and damaging precedent (i.e. damaging to Wikipedia's reputation and credibility). Applying Benjiboi's logic, it would follow that any scientist skeptical of any mainstream scientific theory can be, at the arbitrary discretion of any POV Wikipedia editor, called a "denier" or a "denialist."

Here is an example: I am hypothetically skeptical of quantum mechanics due to the fact that it can't be reconciled with general relativity theory and suggests in a way that physical reality is inherently nonsensical. Now quantum mechanics is actually regarded as the most predictively successful theory in the history of science. Yet a very famous skeptic of quantum mechanics, who remained skeptical until the end of his life, was Albert Einstein (see for instance EPR paradox). It would follow by application of Benjiboi's reasoning that Einstein was a "quantum physics denialist."

Now my feeling is that no one would appreciate it if I created a page "quantum physics denialism" (something which persists today; there are still die-hard quantum physics skeptics) and then provided a "see also: quantum physics denialism" to Einstein's article.

The (to me very obvious) problem with all this is that what is "denialism" to one person is "honest skepticism" to the next. Unless someone has a crystal ball and can see inside Plimer's mind, how can anyone in principle distinguish "denialism" from "skepticism"? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(more: in case it is not fully appreciated, the term denialism is irreducibly offensive and inflammatory. It implies either mental imbalance (if someone is truly in denial of reality this would be diagnosed by a psychiatrist as some sort of neurosis) or dishonesty (this would be the case if say Plimer actually knows that climate change theory is true but doesn't want to admit it for say financial reasons). I fully doubt that Plimer himself is truly a "denialist" in any realistic way, and frankly doubt there are too any genuine climate change "denialists" -- there may be real denialists but I would hate to venture much less publish my personal judgement on another living person's psychology. This is serious stuff. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC) )

I am implacably opposed to the sort of sophistry we see from Alex Harvey above. When over 97% of active climatologists endorse AGW, it is fair to say that the people who oppose it are in denial of consensus. In just the same way, almost everyone believes the Holocaust occurred; the minority who do not, deny that it happened, and are known as denialists or deniers. The irony here is that AGW will lead to a much higher death rate than the Holocaust, and deniers will be responsible ab initio for this new holocaust, not merely irresponsible post factum. Now on the Talk:Heaven and Earth (book) page, Alex Harvey has admitted that removing the link is part of a larger campaign to delete the page Climate change denial (He says: Then we can focus our attention on the very existence of this "climate change denial" page, which seems to have resisted AfD proceedings three times already.). So this is not even a good faith entry on the BLP noticeboard, but merely part of an underhand POV campaign to expunge certain well-known and fully justifiable concepts from the encyclopedia. Hell no. ► RATEL ◄ 07:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well there you have it, Plimer is now akin to a Holocaust Denier. I hope this will serve to further illustrate the danger of allowing this sort of precedent to stand. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, he probably is. He's certainly a denier of AGW, by his own admission. ► RATEL ◄ 08:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And if only Wikipedians could control the courts and legislature as well we could have the bastard locked up in jail, is that pretty much right? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This does indeed look like part of an attempt at getting rid of our article on Climate change denial - which was pretty much a snow keep last time it was up for AfD. I wouldn't put Plimer in the same category as a Holocaust denier, but it seems pretty obvious that the climate change denial article is relevant to Plimer's position on climate change. I'd say that as long as we have the article, the link is relevant to Plimer and should be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly should be included as a see also, if not linked from the article. Verbal chat 11:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I fail completely to understand how rational people would see this as anything other than what I said it is. Once again, this is setting a dangerous precedent, if Ratel's edits are allowed to stand, where any editor may thereafter express his personal opinion about a living person's mental state and/or ethics by using Wikipedia to label the person a denialist. It means, moving forwards, that if I don't like Mr. X the skeptic, whether he's a climate change skeptic, or an evolution skeptic, or a quantum physics skeptic, I can simply call Mr. X a denialist by adding a "see also" link at the bottom. No sources are even required, thus totally bypassing the otherwise very rigid Wikipedia requirement that things be reliably sourced, see WP:RS. Now Ratel has rather imaginatively seen this as a conspiracy of some sort of mine to have the climate change denial article deleted. Were it not that others are buying it I was otherwise rather amused. As I noted, it has already resisted three AfD's. Why would I have any better luck if I nominated it a fourth time? My opinion that the article should be deleted and the BLP concerns in linking living scientists to it are two totally unrelated issues, and the fact that I've brought this here, rather starting the fourth motion for article deletion, ought to suggest that I've already rather reluctantly accepted that I probably can't get it deleted. Can I get some other opinions? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

How many more opinions from long standing, good faith, and uninvolved editors are required to satisfy you? Verbal chat 14:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll note here that a rather fallacious argument has been made that anyone who "denies" something can automatically be called a "denialist" of that something. Maybe some people are not understanding the meanings of the words here, so just in case, from denial: "Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence." Those arguing against my motion here are implicitly arguing that any editor can, without sources, reasons, just because he wants to, take a person X who "denies" or is skeptical of Y and whack the label "denialist" via a see also on to their biography page. Please someone correct me if I am wrong. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "When over 97% of active climatologists endorse AGW, it is fair to say that the people who oppose it are in denial of consensus." -- editor Ratel, above.

Speaking as a working scientist, the idea that "consensus" has anything to do with scientific fact is laughable. One need only look back at the history of science to see any number of cases where the previous consensus was overturned by later discovery. A fine example is the history of stomach ulcers. Or, in my field, the history of continental drift.

I would also draw attention to physicist and Nobelist Freeman Dyson's words on this subject:

"Heretics who question the dogmas are needed... I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies."

Plimer wouldn't be my choice for the best spokesman for skepticism about the AGW dogma. But he doesn't deserve being pejoratively labeled as a climate change denier. Nor can he be, if we follow Wikipedia's rules on WP:BLP. This is yet another attempt to shout down an honest debate, and I'll conclude with another Dyson quote:

"My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have." -- "Freeman Dyson Takes on the Climate Establishment"

Should we label Freeman Dyson as a climate change denier? --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• From the page on Dyson: "Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists". So no, we do not label him a denialist. ► RATEL ◄ 23:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Tangent: Freeman Dyson is many interesting things, but if, by "Nobelist", you refer to the recipient of a Nobel award, he does not qualify. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you're right of course. Thx, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment It seems to me this discussion is getting off track. As far as I'm aware, the question is not, nor has it ever been about whether we should label or put a see also link on Ian Plimer's page. The only question at hand is whether it is relevant to the book. In my opinion it is because it discussed something the book has been widely accused of doing/being part of. While saying that someone wrote a book that is considered something does have BLP implications, it's quite a different thing from labelling someone something Nil Einne (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nil, the problem is that the only reason the denial page discusses something related to this book is because Ratel firstly edited the denial page to create a new "denialist literature" section that Plimer's book could link to (see the diff). I'll also note that during the course of this discussion, editors have now added the "see also climate change denialism" to Plimer's biography page as well. S. Fred Singer has already been labelled a "denialist." Where is this going to stop?

Someone has said above, (I paraphrase), "Plimer is obviously a denialist because he is in denial of a consensus on climate change." This is just completely wrong. Again, there is a basic linguistic misunderstanding here. Plimer would be the first to agree that there is a consensus on climate change, and I am not aware of any climate change skeptics "denying" this. He denies nothing, but simply doubts that the theory is true. That is what scientists are supposed to do. Plimer is no more a denialist than Einstein was with respect to quantum physics.

By allowing Plimer to be labelled a "denialist" by Wikipedia, without reliable sources, as the BLP/N seems to be recommending, we find ourselves in a position where we'd need to start labelling thousands of people "in denial" of all sorts of things. How do we adjudicate here? Is Ratel's opinion sufficient? Once again, this precedent creates a loophole whereby anyone, as Ratel has done, can bypass the need for reliable sources. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent) I think Nil Einne has a good point -- also see [6]. We do indeed have a columnist from a RS who expressed dismay at Plimer having "boarded the denialist ark" -- thus a link to Climate change denial there seems appropriate and neutral. We can also eliminate the contentious "See also" link, and make this discussion moot. Other opinions on this? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• (insert) I support the original proposal by Nil (which is actually different from his proposal directly above, where he is saying we should include both). The point I was trying to make earlier is that if a page like climate change denial is allowed to exist here in the first place, there's no reason why people can't link to it, so long as the name-calling (Plimer is a denialist) is reliably-sourced to a particular columnist. The problem with the "see also" is that it bypasses the reliable source, and thus directly presents the opinion of the editor who added it (in this case Ratel). So I support linking to denialism via the "denialist ark" quote. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• [reply to Alex Harvey, 05:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)]

1. You say that "Plimer denies nothing, but simply doubts that the theory is true". But Plimer has said that the whole idea of CO2 causing warming is "invalid" — that sounds a lot like DENIAL and not DOUBT. [7]
2. Plimer has labelled schemes to control carbon emissions "scams", which is not something that someone who merely "doubts" the truth of AGW would do [8]
3. You don't want him labelled a denier, but he himself has no compunction about labelling other scientists "catastrophists" and "warmists" [9]
4. There are thousands of sources, including scientists active in this field, putting "Plimer" and AGW "denial" together in the same articles. We are a tertiary source, we follow what's out there, and this is most definitely mainstream thought on Plimer and his book.

In short, can think of nobody who better fits the description of denier than this fellow. ► RATEL ◄ 07:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Spot the error
Alex Harvey says:	The Spectator says:
"Plimer denies nothing, but simply doubts that the theory is true."	"Plimer will cede no ground whatsoever. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, he argues, is the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history."[10]

► RATEL ◄ 08:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"that sounds a lot like DENIAL and not DOUBT" and "In short, can think of nobody who better fits the description of denier than this fellow." - Unfortunately your personal opinion on the matter carries no weight in this discussion. We need to operate from WP:RS that demonstrate that Plimer fits the definition used in the climate change denial article. --GoRight (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll also point out that this precedent has already been set with other denialism articles, such as AIDs denialism, etc. This is also the wrong place for a general policy discussion. Verbal chat 09:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, and I see that you've been defending the AIDS denialism article there in an exactly analogous dispute that that article, by its very title, is inherently and irreducibly POV, e.g. here. Which is fine, but it also means that if calling a living person a "climate change denialism" was ruled contra WP:BLP as it seems clear to me that it is then so would calling people "AIDS denialists." I don't think you are truly uninvolved on this issue. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I can guess what your definition of uninvolved involves. Per wikipedia policy, I was uninvolved in this dispute. If you want to change wikipedia policy or BLP policy, this is the wrong place. Uninvolved opinion is that a see also link to climate change denial is not a BLP issue, and that's the topic here. Verbal chat 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Verbal's "uninvolvement" extended to adding the "Denier" tag to Plimer's wikibio -- then accusing me of "edit warring" when I reverted & commented: [11] --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead to Climate change denial specifically asserts that "climate change denial usually refers to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change". Do you have a WP:RS that links either the book or Ian Plimer to a "disinformation campaign" which has been "funded by a group with a finanicial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change"? If not he does not belong there, and this see also link would not be appropriate either given that he fails to meet the stated criteria for the article. --GoRight (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This question answered, and discussion continued, on the Talk page for Climate change denial. ► RATEL ◄ 09:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And here is yet another one of the supposedly uninvolved editor Verbal's edits: diff. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are all perfectly proper edits. I was uninvolved until I became aware of this discussion here, hence my opinions here were those of an uninvolved editor. All those edits were made since. Do you hound all editors who disagree with you like this? Very poor behaviour. GoRight, for example, is highly involved. Please stop these abusive,hounding, edits that are beside the point of this thread, and therefore offtopic, and very poor ad hom attacks. Alex, Pete: If you wish to complain about my editing please follow standard WP:DR procedure. Consider this formal notification. Verbal chat 14:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The full quote from the lede of the Climate change denial article is Climate change denial describes efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change. While the term "climate skeptic" generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy, climate change denial usually refers to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby. That means the label "Climate change denial" implies bad faith and membership in a funded disinformation campaign. Such a claim falls squarely under BLP and requires very strong, explicit sources. I've removed the contentious section from the Climate change denial article and commented on the talk page there.--agr (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You have misread the article. Did you not read the qualifier "usually" in the lede? Do you understand that it means "in most cases but not always"? Your deletion of the section was incorrect. Please reinstate the section you erroneously removed. ► RATEL ◄ 23:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying a living person is in a class that "usually" acts badly falls squarely under BLP and requires high quality sourcing. I've removed the link from the book article as well. --agr (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

An editor above started a related policy discussion here, directly related to (although not referencing) this discussion. BLP and BLPN are both on my watchlist. Verbal chat 19:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue remains unresolved as Ratel is still reverting any attempts to remove the "see also: denialism" link (diff). Alex Harvey (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is right that I should revert. Firstly, linking to the page on Global warming denialism does not impugn Plimer in any way. Please show Policy statements in wikipedia that cover this novel interpretation of the See also section. Secondly, there are many reasons justifying the See also link, such as:

• "[Plimer] has boarded the denialist ark" (Leigh Dayton, Science Correspondent for biggest Australian daily newspaper) [12]
• "Professor Ian Plimer, author of the book Heaven and Earth, is the new champion of the climate change deniers" (George Monbiot, correspondent for The Guardian) [13]
• "Spot the recycled denial III – Prof Ian Plimer" (Prof Brook, Director of Climate Science at The Environment Institute, University of Adelaide) [14]
• "Thanks to Plimer .... Australia is likely to become the developed world’s third Denier Nation". (Lawrence Solomon, author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud) [15]

So we have major newspapers, correspondents, expert scientists and writers all linking Plimer to AGW denialism. The link must stay. ► RATEL ◄ 07:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley has reverted agr's edit this time (diff). Alex Harvey (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

---

• New policy: WP:BLP#See also sections was recently revised. It now reads:

See also sections are not exempt from the requirements of neutrality and verifiability based on reliable sources. Links placed here do not need to be cited, but may not create implications that are unsupported by the body text. Additionally, neutrality may not be endangered by needlessly repeating links already given in the body text. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• • This is a new clarification, but it had never been the case that "See also" links were exempt from NPOV and V. This doesn't alter the discussion above. No new policy here, please don't spin this into something it isn't. Verbal chat 20:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't see how the addition of a see-also link to a clearly related topic is a BLP issue. That link does not claim Plimer is a denialist, or his book is, and there is absolutely no doubt that his book is part of the political debate on climate change and has been instrumentalized by the fringe side. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
      • If the claim is only that the book has been used by climate change denial groups, just say that explicitly in the article text, instead of using See also link. That removes all innuendo and then it really won't be a BLP issue. Plimer is not responsible for what others do with his book--agr (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
      • If Plimer or the book are not mentioned on the related article then it is inappropriate to create the innuendo implied by the link that he is a denier. If he fails to meet the stated criteria for being included on the Climate change denial page itself there is certainly no reason to link to it from either the book or Plimer's BLP. --GoRight (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wikilink the article appropriately in the text where the context is clear and be done with it. There's no need for it to be a see also, and several editors have explained why it's a BLP issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Second to that (again). That makes 4 editors in favor of this solution: myself, ChildofMidnight (previously uninvolved), Nil Einne (who proposed this solution, previously uninvolved; and Alex Harvey. I hereby propose to adopt COM's solution, and close this seemingly-interminable discussion. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC). Bump, --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Page is under attack from Truthers trying to turn him into a martyr for the cause using sites like Prison Planet. Need some help. Soxwon (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is verifiable. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know please see this extensive the WP:RSN and Village Pump www.examiner.com is not considered a reliable source, as it is in truth a blog site masquerading as a media source. [16][17], and there was even talk of blacklisting the website, I believe. It is certainly not an adequate source for controversial material about a BLP. I note that the source isn't being used as more suitable sources such as the Daily Telegraph and LA Times have been found. --Slp1 (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but does it really need to be as long as his entire film career section? It was that long when I first got there, and was starting to get to that size again. It's given a couple of lines in his personal life section but that's all I think it deserves. (I've also done some work rooting out the personal life section which seemed to be a hooker by hooker account of his sex life). Soxwon (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to think about restoring the content, stop edit warring and let less PoV driven editors sort out the weight. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a legitimate point to discuss, but I don't see a BLP issue. Nothing was said that seems inaccurate or defamatory. Just a matter of determining what is "due weight", which is a good thing to discuss on the talk page, or in a GA review or similar process. -Pete (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Self-reversion complete Soxwon (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The section on his personal life is way too long and way too salacious. He is an actor of some repute, and this article is far too tabloid-y. That's a far more serious issue than the Sept. 11 content. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In my view, this article has multiple issues, and its current classification as a good article seems odd to me. This article should be reassessed, and may be re-nominated for good article status after significant work has been done (well, maybe a nomination for B-Class status would then be appropriate as a first step).  Cs32en  09:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - that's not my idea of a good BLP article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised it is a GA. This article is actually "bad" in significant ways. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The good article status, simply means that when it was checked it was a good article but articles get edited and can become worse over time, if you feel the article has issues please nominate it for reassesment using this page Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, well done dude. The objective will not be to delist it as a good article but to raise it back up to again be a good article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who would like to help, Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Charlie_Sheen/1 here is the reassesment page. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There's some disapproval on the talk about of a GAR at this particular point in time, but I have some real qualms about the length of that personal section. I'd certainly like to get more opinions on this and I'd have no problem withdrawing the GAR if it's truly premature and unwarranted. This is my first GAR, and I must confess I'm not familiar with the process. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Talk:Mark Brake (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Mark Brake|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are considerable liable issues at Talk:Mark Brake that I belive need addressing. The page has been used to bypass BLP policies and it has been stated that it is currently being used to harrass the article's name sake. I have placed a delete tag on the article's talk page; however, under these circumstances I believe quicker addressing is warrented. This has also been dicussed with the editor's involved. Thanks in advance ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 04:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article needs changing as the spelling of the name is wrong. I made a mistake. It should be Dimitri Martinov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.68.244 (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The article has been redirected to Villieläin, the band. Cheers, I'^mperator 14:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

An IP editor from Portland State University continues to put the phrase "(physically assaulted a student in 2001)" and variations on that by the name of one of the former principals. This editor operates under 131.252.181.49 and 38.100.221.196, and the talk pages for both accounts have been given final warnings, yet the vandalism continues. This has been going on periodically since February 2009. See February 6, 2009,February 7, 2009, February 10, 2009, March 13, 2009, August 1, 2009, August 14, 2009, August 21, 2009 (9 times),August 22, 2009, August 23, 2009, August 31, 2009, and September 11, 2009. At this edit the editor indicates he will continue the BLP violation. Because of the length of time this has gone on and because it involves a living person, I am bringing this issues to this board. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It might not do much good, considering the persistence of the user, but I've semi-protected it for a month. I'll watch it too.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that there seems to be vandalism issues with school many school articles. I often see vandalism which appears to be from pupils (or ex pupils) either bigging themselves up, or adding BLP violations. In my last 500 edits (mostly huggle), I have 9 articles with the word "School" in them, which include allegations of rape[18]. I suspect that few people actively watch school articles, so this vandalism could stay for a long time. Martin451 (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see nowhere in 7 July 2005 London bombings where the people listed as "the bombers" have been convicted of a crime. If not, the article must be changed to indicate that the charges are allegations. I noticed that an anon was changing the article on one of the bombers to included "alleged", and nowhere in that article was there mention of a conviction. These things need to be fixed. Since I'm not British and don't really know much about this case, I'll leave it up to British editors to fix this. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The bombers (whoever they were) are all dead. So this isn't a BLP issue. Since they apparently blew themselves up in the bombings, there couldn't be any convictions. The principle you cite is generally sound, but breaks down when applied to criminals who die before the legal process is complete, whether their crimes are politically [19] or personally [20] motivated. As those articles (and many others) evidence, the consensus seems to be that a reliable official determination adequately sources the conclusion in such cases, absent any significant non-fringe opposing views. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

M. I wish I could remember the article I was looking at where the anon was adding "alleged". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there is no doubt whatever as to who perpetrated he bombings. IronDuke 06:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The anon was sanitizing Germaine Lindsay. That article had some sourcing problems, including one significant BLP issue, so I've done some cleanup. It could use more work, best from British users who've got a better idea than I do about what can be sourced and what can't; there's way too much press on this to sort through for a user not familiar enough with the investigation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the one, thanks, HW. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to have a quote from Private Eye in a biography? Biscuittin (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say not, but it seems to be quite common practice, it is usually used as a way to poke fun at a subject.is there any usefulness in adding so called satirical humour to a BLP? Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it is a stub and the satirical humour seems as undue weight. Off2riorob (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Also a stub like that small with a controversy section already seems a bit like pushy. Off2riorob (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above. If nothing else, the controversy should appear in other sources as well...Cheers, I'^mperator 15:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have removed it and added a stub cat. Biscuittin (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Two editors have insisted on adding contentious and poorly sourced text concerning a non-public figure BLP to this article. See [21]. The text they seek to add has only limited if any relevancy to DTCC, and instead seems to be a kind of WP:COATRACK effort to malign the BLP. One posted in the talk page that the BLP policy does not apply to non-biographical articles, which of course is incorrect. I've reverted but it will probably be re-added. The material that they're trying to insert is is from a recent article in The Register, reprinting stuff published in that publication in October. One of the editors raised the issue at that time and was rebuffed. See previous discussion [22]. There seems to be some off-wiki publicity on this, so the article may need to be protected.

See also [23]. When reminded of the policy on BLPs, one of the editors said I was a "small-minded policy pusher" and threatened to invoke his "seniority" and WP:IAR. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The source given doesn't mention DTCC, so mentioning Weiss in the article seems unjustified. And the issue isn't mentioned in Gary Weiss either. Rd232 ^talk 14:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is here and it does mention, in the last paragraph, the DTCC and the account that Gary Weiss allegedly used to manipulate views of naked short selling in Wikipedia. The Register, last time I checked, is used as a source for approximately 2,000 articles in Wikipedia, so it appears to be considered a reliable source. There probably should be something in the Weiss article concerning the allegations that he abused a Wikipedia account to manipulate public opinion on naked short selling and defame Patrick Byrne. Another Register article covers that in greater detail (I'm mentioned in that article as well). Cla68 (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been removed by User:RegentsPark on the grounds of being speculative, unreliable and not relevant to the DTCC, which of course is absolutely correct. I had thought that put an end to the matter, but apprently not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, and the Register is not a reliable source for inflammatory claims about BLPs. BLP requires special care, particularly for persons relatively unknown. That was the feeling when Cla68 raised this issue the last time.[24]. The Register has not suddenly morphed into a reliable source since then. The same goes for the central point of the Register story, which has arguable relevancy to Patrick M. Byrne or Overstock.com. The Register contends that a Byrne "minion" exploited a Yahoo security flaw against a critic, and has tread a "fine line between dogged internet investigation and online stalking." Although not disputed, I think that this would have to appear in multiple reliable sources in order for it to be usable in Wikipedia. The DTCC allegation is disputed by both Weiss and the DTCC. The Register is also not a reliable source for numerous inflammatory and controversial statements made concerning Byrne in an earlier article, "The Bizarre World of Patrick Byrne". The Register is an openly biased website/blog and makes no bones about that, and evidently its biases shift with the winds.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree about El Reg, it is reliabel about technical stuff but anything pertaining to Wikipedia tends towards axe-grinding. Somehow it always seems to be written by Cade Metz and recites verbatim the version supported by a very small group of editors who are just a little too quick to accept the assertions of one particular individual in the Overstock dispute. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at the recent round of editing? I don't currently have time to detail all the problems, but I agree that most of what editor FrederickCarltonLewis (talk · contribs) has removed is appropriate per WP:BLP despite any conflict of interest from him. --Ronz (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Carl_Lewis#BLP_concerns.

Discussion on one editor's repeatedly restoring disputed content at WP:ANI#BLP_problems_in_Carl_Lewis. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi all,

This article has been the centre of a real-life dispute which has also had an effect on the Wikipedia article. Mr Kamm, whose involvement in the real life issue(s) you can see from the article, contends that the article could possibly be deleted because it lacks third-party reliable sources and is mainly synthesis. I tend to agree with him on this point.

However, this whole editing dispute has dragged me into the real-life issues both through OTRS and private email correspondence, and I don't i) feel as if I'm the best person to be evaluating the issue of reliable sources on this particular article, and ii) feel comfortable nominating it for deletion therein.

If I could get more eyes and opinions on the issue of reliable, third party sourcing, it'd be much appreciated. Daniel (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there are not enough sources to write a proper bio, and as the article stands, it might be better titled: The opinions of Neil Clark. I have put it up at AfD for opinions as to the notability - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Clark (writer). Kevin (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh good grief, is this still going on? Time it was stopped, I think. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume the previous article did not need discussion because it was trash. I have written a new article currently in my userspace, User:Miami33139/Sally Traffic with no use of the previous content (which I never saw). The new article is fully sourced (sixteen different reference cites) to several (about ten) independent sources. Sally is very much notable. If someone can take the article from my userspace and move it to Sally Boazman, that'd be great. Thanks! Miami33139 (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• User talk:Black Kite is your first stop. Uncle G (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I had already asked Black Kite, and he already responded that I should bring the suggestion here. Miami33139 (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Tinsel Korey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Came across this article, and it looks like this article is in the middle of a huge edit war on BLP issues (with a couple anon editors and single-purpose editors). Issue seems mostly about the person's background (i.e. is she of Canadian aboriginal descent as claimed by her official website, or is she lying to get more roles as claimed by blogs and people on the internet who claim to know her. This has resulted in a war between three different versions: 1) Korey's official position, 2) the counter-position, and 3) just leaving it all out. Work may be needed in shutting down the edit war and making sure the article complies with WP:BLP // Singularity42 (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Weronika Bloczynska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unsourced, a horrible punctuation in the "Tennis Career at UTEP" section, the author has a track record of spamming the entry of another Polish tennis player. // 193.43.241.16 (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Lyndon Trott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the Chief Minister of Guernsey. Call from the local newspaper, the Guernsey Press, asking about "defamatory edits". The edits are just abusive rubbish and were removed by an IP today, but if people could just watchlist this one that would be good - David Gerard (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ellis Lankster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)—Frequent additions of a link to an entry on failblog.org whose sole purpose is to embarrass Lankster; there is no coverage of the issue in question in mainstream media and I think it's pretty clearly in violation of WP:BLP. I am nearing 3RR and would request assistance and more eyes on this article. I semi-protected the article earlier, but probably full protection is overkill (in any case I certainly won't do it since I'm obviously an "involved admin"). Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR does not apply when reverting vandalism, or WP:BLP violations. When you revert an addition like this, you should warn the user not to re add that material. Martin451 (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right. Thank you for doing so. Chick Bowen 00:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

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

In the right-hand sidebar of this article, under the heading "Former Members", the name "Doug McGrath" should not link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_McGrath. The linked person is not the same Doug McGrath who was in the band SouthFM). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishdeluxe (talk • contribs) 23:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I have a more experienced editor's advice on the next step on this bio? Very limited 3rd party sources. Questionable notability, may not pass WP:BLP1E. While several editors have made attempts to remedy it, the article still reads like an advert, questionable under WP:SOAP. Some limited discussion by editors on the article's History page re merits/flaws , no discussion on Talk page. At present I'm considering nominating for AfD. --Whoosit (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Article needs cleanup, but writing several apparently notable books makes BLP1E inapplicable. Remember, BLP1E is intended to apply to "low-profile" individuals. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That may be (I'm not certain the books are notable enough to merit the author a Wikipedia entry), but that aside it doesn't change the fact that the page is more or less blatant advertising. Can you point me to precedents for how such advertisers have been dealt with in past? Thanks. --Whoosit (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert Campeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Anonymous users (all of whom seem to be based in Austria) are continually inserting the same unsourced and potentially libelous material into this article. Comments? // Dhodges (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• My first comment, after removing the rest of the material that is grossly negative on its face, is that you hadn't caught all of it. ☺ The content linked to source #2, but there's no such information in that source that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• My second comment is that I've just looked at the IP addresses and figured this out. See the talk page for more. Uncle G (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am struggling against a number of editors at Lawrence Solomon's biography again who this time apparently wish to present Solomon's non-profit organisation "Green Beanery" here as Solomon's "business interest" or "retail business." There is no evidence presented by the group of editors (William M. Connolley, Vsmith et al.) that Solomon is making profit, but that the profit and the only evidence available suggests the profit is going to fund the NGO he founded, Energy Probe. I had presented a neutral subject heading simply stating "Green Beanery" and it is being edit-warred to change it to a version insinuating a profit business. Some assistance from uninvolved editors would be kindly appreciated. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring? I made the section title "retail business" as the website advertized retail prices. I didn't say anything about "profits" - if the business puts its profits into a non-profit org. that is fine, but needs WP:RS sources to back it. The "reference link" I removed was a commercial page selling their stuff. I have doubts about the notability of the "Green Beanery" especially w/out reliable independent sources. Vsmith (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "edit-warring" was a heat of the moment overstatement; the reality is that the heading has changed a number of times, but there wasn't edit-warring actually happening. I have reluctantly accepted Boris's compromise wording so I'll mark this issue resolved. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In the Influence section, Someone added a vague footnote, a musician claiming that Johnny Ramone got his strumming technique from playing "Communication Breakdown", which appears to be vague possible speculation... Considering he specifically stated he did not want to play like guitarists like Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page, though he considered Page an inspiration...

Furthermore theres a claim with a vague footnote/ poorly cited reference, claiming that Johnny HIMSELF actually claimed he directly got the technique from him, which was vaguely added after someone told me on my talk that he read about it on Amazon.com or something like that, yet he didn't fully fill out the reference or get back and clarify whether he directly stated that's where he got the technique from, or whether Ramone just considered Page inspiring... I have tried to make an ammendment to also state that Ramone on occasion denied he wanted to play like Page, and further remove the poorly cited footnote, but people keep removing the ammendment and adding the claim back in... Despite people already agreeing an ammendment could be added (on the discussion section)

I was wondering if I could get someone to help me with either the following:

A) Adding a legitmate ammendment to what appears to be vague speculation from someone that knew Johnny Ramone, noting he aspired to play like the Stooges/Mc5 (without it getting removed)

B) The removal or proper clarifcation of the actual source on what someone vaguely claimed what Ramone stated, despite using a vague footnote... (without it getting reinstated)

The claim seems very taboo, and a higher authority could be useful in sorting this out...

I am new to this Wikipedia editing and just trying to make the biography more accurate, etc... not overstating anything... --DavisHawkens (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue on the talk page over the video citation was that it was not formatted correctly. I have remedied this with the proper cite-video template. Reading through the discussion the main point of contention is that it is a simple statement about one musician's artistic influence over another musician. There are 2 or 3 brief sentences about this all with references taken fropm reliable sources. What the consensus of discussion is trying to avoid is stating a long list of contradictory possibilities because A) they don't really disprove the original statement and B) all the added content is fine details about someone other than the subject of the article, Jimmy Page. It has been pointed out on the talk page that this detailed content may be a good addition to the article about Johnny Ramone. But in the Jimmy Page article it is just non-subject overkill... which it certainly is. It is not a pressing BLP issue as the entire issue... only sentences in the article... deal with a non-controversial subject. Hope that helps.

No, I actually wanted the Ramone being influenced by Page in there, and that he was inspired I actually added it to a point, but the vagueness of the Ramones- The True story footnote was not clarified whether he directly stated it, and thats what i thought was questionable, because i asked whether he directly stated it or not, and whether thats were he got it... There are numerous quotes that state his playing style was due to The Stooges, Mc5, and that he didn't want to play like the likes of Page, Jeff Beck, and I think that should be added to the article... That his technique was inspired because he couldn't play like him and didn't wanted to... Like a Response of sorts..thats what i added... This article is claiming that the downward Punk strum technique came from Johnny trying to play like Page... You see theres contradictory information that states otherwise, And I wanted that clarified for sure before that was given the full go ahead,.. But this article states directly that it came from Page... but I wanted that clarified that Ramone stated that... Thats a taboo thing to put in, and i wanted full clarification... or an ammendment stating it was because he didn;t want and couldn't play like the likes of Page... Ths sources that I listed above also state his playing was a backlash of sorts to this playing as Johnny thought the late sixties was to into solos and technicality.... You see whats presented is only one side of the story... when theres clearly more than meets whats already listed... An ammendment of sorts is still in order and the reliability of some of the sources on Page's wiki are a little questionable...--DavisHawkens (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)--DavisHawkens (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

An edit war erupted on this article, when a new editor, claiming to represent an individual cited in the article, wanted to have their name redacted. The quote is cited to a reliable source, Dagens Nyheter, who also names the individual. See also the discussion on Talk:Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland. Now, according to BLP: "Consider carefully whether significant value is added to an article by including the names of private, living individuals ... There is a presumption against using [such], even if the names have already appeared in the media". Since using the name itself adds little to the article, I am inclined to make a presumption in favor of privacy. This is of course, assuming that the editor verifies their identity. By now, I have little reason to doubt that they represent the individual in question. decltype (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the fact that the controversial statement by Muhammad Ahmad Hussein has not been recognised by any major news agencys, I find this citation deeply problematic - especially as the exact same citation has been attached to his predecessor Ekrima Sa'id Sabri. Could anyone please provide other sources and/or more context for verfication?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Gallulus (talk • contribs) 07:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you show us where this statement has been attributed to Ekrima Sa'id Sabri? Without some specific evidence of misquoting by the source, I see no problem with the citation. Kevin (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• The Man Who Would Be Queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Along with several related articles, this article has been a long-standing battleground for transsexual activists to smear sexologist J. Michael Bailey, whose notion that transwomen's motivation for sex reassignment is (partly) related to sexuality (instead of just being a woman trapped in a man's body) is anathema to most of the trans community.

This article is about a pop-sci book published by Bailey in 2003. After the book was published, several transwomen filed complaints against Bailey, claiming that he unfairly exploited them as research subjects (by writing about them, just like any journalist would do) and practiced psychology without a license by helping them obtain sex reassignment surgery. Several prominent transwomen, including Lynn Conway and Andrea James, helped orchestrate the complaints. Conway and James created extensive websites to promote their version of the scandal and to discredit Bailey (which was "easy", according to Conway's site). They contain a wide number of out-of-context quotations, partly blacked-out original documents from the complaints, unsupportable suppositions, carefully selected facts, and pages in rather poor taste.

Both of these websites are linked at the end of this article -- and have been, for a very long time, despite being, IMO, clear BLP violations, because removing anything that supports the pro-Conway-James-McCloskey POV has been remarkably difficult. (Right now, we're just trying to get one self-professed transwoman to stop calling a gay man a "girl" and a "daughter" in the article's text. I think I've reverted that particular error three times in the last few weeks.)

The links are:

• J. Michael Bailey investigation via Lynn Conway
• Clearinghouse on Bailey's book via Transsexual Road Map

Because of the climate at the article, I would appreciate it if several editors with a good grasp of BLP would look at these websites, and leave clear, direct, unambiguous responses here about whether the inclusion of these external links is appropriate.

Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, Wikipedia:External links#In biographies of living people says, basically, that standard BLP rules apply to external links as well. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Both links seem to run afoul of WP:ELNO point 11, which discourages "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority ..." The first link is from the personal website of someone with a Wikipedia article who is an activist on the subject, but it isn't clear to me that she is a "recognized authority" per the WP:SPS rules. The second link appears to be to a website on trans issues created by an individual -- basically what would be called a "fansite" for many subjects, although the nature of this subject doesn't lend itself to that term. It looks like it might be relatively good quality compared to some fansites, so if it were a neutral catalog of sources and the subject was not BLP-related, I might be inclined to say keep it. But the page linked is distinctly not neutral on the subject, so for a BLP-related article I would say the link has to go. --RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Do any other editors have an opinion that they're willing to share? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the links. If anyone here is willing to watchlist the article for the next few days, I'd appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I see User:WhatamIdoing is still POV-pushing via noticeboards rather than on relevant talk pages. She failed to remove an external link to a hoax site that's been offline for some time because it supports her position. She only removed the links to people she dislikes/disagrees with, as part of her ongoing efforts to right great wrongs via Wikipedia. If we are to include Bailey's personal website as an external link, we should include those of others mentioned in the article. Since the article mentions me and Professor Lynn Conway specifically, our positions should be presented for neutrality. I recommend an external link to this paper which meets ELNO and BLP criteria: James, Andrea (2008). Fair Comment, Foul Play: Populist Responses to J. Michael Bailey’s Exploitative “Controversies” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Women's Studies Association, Cincinnati, OH (PDF). Here's another citation. It is in line with the other external links on that site. The article and links should present the full scope of the issue. Jokestress (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I freely admit to having not clicked any links in that section for months, and would cheerfully support removal of nearly all of them.

I also freely admit that I consider the talk page to be a hostile place where non-trans activists are routinely insulted. For example, just looking at the last few months, I've been called bigoted[25] and a holocaust denier [26] by an editor that claims to be your personal friend. I also note that these hopeless WP:NPA violations never receive even a single word in response from yourself or any other editor that supports your worldview. You could hardly expect any rational person to expect a fact-based or policy-based conversation on a talk page with that history. Noticeboards exist for the purpose of bringing intractable disputes to the attention of editors that don't have a long-standing connection to the article or its subject; if you wish, you may ask me to apologize for using noticeboards exactly as intended. I won't, however, apologize for the fact that wider exposure has very frequently resulted in your interpretation of Wikipedia policies being rejected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There are problems with this article. It seems that there is considerable online discussion around the notion that one David Rock, who presents a YouTube channel called Dave's Farm, is a convicted child sex offender. There are uploaded court and other documents that seem to validate these claims. I have reverted changes to the article, but don't have time to do a proper investigation or figure out how the issue should be resolved. I suspect, however, that the best idea may simply be deleting it on the basis of lack of notability. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where to bring this, but when I went to WP:ANI it directed me here. I am bringing this to attention because I am not sure what the best way of approaching this is.

The Anon IP seeking to revert the consensus text Special:Contributions/203.39.47.146 claims to be the subject of the BLP, and I invited him to assist me in improving the article. I first became involved in editing the article as a neutral editor when there was deadlock over how one controversy should be best covered neutrally. Talk:Michael Flood#Blatant misrepresentation I resolved the edit by accurately reporting what was stated in WP:RS, and the dispute over the entry ceased.

User:Michael G. Flood deleted some of the material from the consesus edit of this BLP at end of July: [27] Anon IP Special:Contributions/121.222.114.232 restored it on 11th Sept: [28] User:IronAngelAlice reverted consensus version back to Flood's version on 12th Sept: [29] Anon IP Special:Contributions/121.222.114.232 restored it on 12th Sept: [30]

The Anon IP Special:Contributions/121.222.114.232 brought the situation to my attention on my talk page on 11th & 12th Sept., and I sought to discuss this on the article talk page. The individual seeks to have the section removed as being undue and because it makes him look stupid (it hinges on an error in a paper he published): Talk:Michael Flood#Partial and biased representation. Having invited him to help ensure the article is accurate and covers other aspects of his work, he has said he is happy to do so, but that he is seeking legal advice. I am seeing this as possibly breaching at least three policies: WP:AGF (against me personally), WP:NLT, and thereby WP:CIVIL. At the same time, I am concerned not to overlook WP:DOLT.

The page was edited in a way that it deflected attempts at turning into an attack page, and retained material in WP:RS that was notable about him. Problem is, from the other side of the world, in figuring out if he is notable enough to warrant a BLP. My preference would be for his biography to be deleted, as he doesn't seem that notable, but that could result in somebody re-creating it as an attack page again. The reason for detailing the events around the contested section was to ensure it was reported accurately, not to make him look stupid, because the text before gave a non-neutral slant that was not WP:NPOV. The view on this edit needs to balanced by his having a COI in an article about him, and some people simply not liking him because of his views. Mish (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Pending feedback on this matter, I have removed the contested material, as per BLP policy/guidelines. Mish (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As I don't seem to be getting any feedback here, and it needs to be attended to, I am taking this to WP:ANI for feedback. Mish (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on this on the talkpage; some other opinions re an undue weight issue would be welcomed.--Slp1 (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone help me with this error. I have edited the page a few times (sometimes drasticly different) to fix the below problems that wikipedia is describing. Please inform on what type of changes should be made so that that wiki doesn't have problems with the page. I have made bio pages like this before and have had no problems. Please Help.

This article is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (September 2009) Ambox style.png

This article's tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbaldori (talk • contribs)

• I have moved it to your userspace as User:Sbaldori/James Everett Seaton. The problems are that it reads as an original essay and not as a biography. Our standards on biographies of living individuals are high and we required reliable, independent sources that are about the subject rather than just mentioning him. We also have a guideline on academic notability. Notability in this sense does not mean a person's individual worth, it's a measure of whether there are enough independent biographical sources to support an article within our policies. Wikipedia should not be the first place to have a biography of someone. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

On a quick read it looks like the subject meets the guidelines in WP:PROF. The big problems are style, formatting and sources. I would be more than happy to assist the draft's creator with the first two, if thy can work on sources. – ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ricky Sinz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article seems to have all sorts of problems with regard to the sourcing of information. The sources concerned are this, this and [31] this) (latter two are NSFW). I am unsure as to whether the information there is just fiction or originally sourced from the Wikipedia article and then used as a circular reference. The contentious claims that I am unable to independently verify are as follows:

• That he is a former US Special Forces soldier with 28 confirmed kills
• That he is a former Golden Gloves boxer
• That he is a MMA fighter with 87 wins, 6 draws and 0 losses
• That his website had "1 million customers per day logging onto his sites and 2 to 4 million guest per day" making a net profit of 27.9 million dollars in 2008

There are many more dubious claims also, but those are the major ones. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dire - I'd stub it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Borderline notable individual whose page referenced only by a blog called "The Old Coot" and another Wikipedia page. Isn't this BLP problem? 68.42.72.166 (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone tried to go AfD on it, but messed it up. I re-listed it for deletion. I'm guessing it'll get denied, since being one of the oldest people alive could be argued as notable, but a reliable source needs to be found. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's destined for a speedy keep now that it has a reference. – ukexpat (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Take a look at what's brewing here. Edit wars, trivia, etc.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been semi-protected which will at least keep the IP editors at bay. – ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have concerns that this organization is using the names of influential persons without their knowledge to promote their organization. There are editors that are trying to insert those names into this article, e.g.this diff.

The first paragraph added in that diff relates to Rajendra Pachauri. According to the references, Pachauri supports reducing the atmospheric CO2 concentration to 350ppm. This organization has spun that to mean that he supports this organization because they too support reducing CO2 concentrations to 350ppm. I removed this on BLP concerns here. Although it was re-added quickly, it only changed that Pachauri does not support the organization, but the organizations goals. I still have problems with that, as it appears that he still knows about the organization and has consciously decided to support the goals instead of supporting that number for any number of other more likely reasons.

The second paragraph contains a list of individuals who may or may not support this organization. The sources to support this range from a blog, a non-notable, non-reliable magazine, and from where it was plagiarized, which is based solely on an interview with the groups founder. These names come from their list of messengers, and it's uncertain that these people know they are on this list. For instance, the quote attributed to James Hansen is actually from a paper he wrote which in no way supports this organization.

I'd appreciate the thoughts of this board. -Atmoz (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again, wikipedia's denier-cabal hard at work trying to reverse progress. I hardly think Bill McKibben would dare have these peoples' faces and words on the 350.org website unless they had given support. This complaint by Atmoz is simply rubbish, as is his attempt to have the page downgrade-merged into McKibben's page. ► RATEL ◄ 06:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Johnny Joe Buckovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Editor claims this is a BLP but if so, article is completely unreferenced. I suspect a hoax, as the article's subject has zero google hits except self-references to the Wiki article. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 01:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• • "His main rivals were Rick Smeltzer and Borg Warner" gives a clue to the clueful (see BorgWarner). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A hoax and not funny. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

I reverted a lot of unsourced claims and some claims based on a single opinion column piece ([32]) which was subsequently undone [33] by a new user Abhaverma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Not sure what's to be done in this situation. xedaf (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. ƒ(Δ)² 09:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed some BLP issues. The awards section needs to be sourced, and a general cleanup is required. ƒ(Δ)² 09:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

For the time being marking as

Resolved

 – xedaf (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Otis Moss III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article on a pastor which was originally written during the 2008 U.S. presidential election in poor form. I rewrote it during the AFD and got it into much better form. I've been the primary editor of the article, perhaps too close to a gatekeeper, since.

Today, a new user Day1DotOrg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added a (spam?) link to a profile at a Christian media ministry, Day1.org. All of this user's links relate to such profiles. Rev. Moss has indeed hosted some video productions for them. I searched[34] and find zero independent reliable sources discussing his work for this organization. I figure their site is reliable enough to source the claim that he has hosted these segments ... but I want other editors input on whether it merits mention since it doesn't seem to have been noticed by any independent sources. GRBerry 19:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly spam. Look at Day1's contribs. Additionally, he's been blocked for spamming links. ƒ(Δ)² 09:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Would somebody review Skornsteen with an eye towards musician notability? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I had a look and repaired the one link to myspace and removed the dodgy stuff and had a look on the internet, nothing there, so I stuck a prod on it for no notability. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I just found someone adding Hillary Clinton's name -- not only is her name already in the article as a member, it isn't sourced and I can't find a source saying she is a member (I did find one saying she isn't). It's my opinion that all the names in the article should be reliably sourced within the article (i.e it isn't good enough if the subject's article has a source for it). What do others think? Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that any claims of membership should be sourced in the Trilateral Commission article itself, due to the negative connotation that the organization has among some people. Of course it would be reasonable to check the article of any person named to see if Commission membership might be mentioned there with an appropriate source, and if so port that source over to the Commission article. If membership is claimed in the person's WP article but with no reliable source, then the claim should probably be removed from both articles until/unless a reliable source can be found. --RL0919 (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

John Prendergast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs the attention of a senior editor, due to potential WP:COI. The subject is notable: the charismatic & controversial leader of the Save Darfur Coalition. However, the article suffers from serious issues with WP: LINKSPAM. The article is created and maintained by a single editor, raising concern over NPOV. I have twice placed {Cleanup-spam} and {subst:NoMoreLinks} tags and they have twice been reverted immediately. I can't take further action, since I have some philosophical differences with the subject and feel I would be in COI myself. Feel free to contact me for background info/opinions, though, if you feel it would be useful. --Whoosit (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on the notice you posted on the external links noticeboard, I reviewed the (very excessive) external links and made a lot of cuts. However, the article is still severely lacking for reliable sources and inline citations. There is also no sign of any critical perspectives on the subject, which I would expect to exist for a notable political activist. --RL0919 (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt & thorough response to my request. The article is much more readable now. Editors can focus on critical perspective, as you say. I'll continue to monitor the page but contribute only to the talk page in order to remain arm's length away. --Whoosit (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Two different editors have objected to an external link to media matters that is titled with some very provocative accusations. Another editor has restored it three times now. There is discussion on the talk page. Additional input would be helpful.

I also have a question about the "Gay Allegations" section. This seems borderline inappropriate and is chock full of innuendo and he said she said. I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of outing people, but I have no objection to mentioning the relevant incidents and that he's been accsued of being gay. My issue is that the extent of the section seems to verge on the absurd. For example, do these bits add anything significant to an encyclopedic article: "Seymour, who was in the closet at the time, says that Drudge told him "Of course you can" when Seymour said he couldn't imagine kissing another man."? Apart from being inappropriate for an encyclopedia, it seems to be trying to be make it seem like he and Drudge were the ones kissing, but that's not how I read the full quote which is from someone who was in the closet at the time: "For the most part, we didn't discuss a lot of personal stuff, but one time when we were talking about gay people, I told Matthew that I couldn't imagine kissing another guy. He looked me in the eyes and said, "Of course you can," recognizing something in me that I wasn't ready to acknowledge." ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters is ideologically partisan and I find it hard to think of a situation where a link to it would belong in any BLP (except perhaps the BLP of someone who writes for it). The paragraph about Seymour also doesn't belong, because it says nothing significant about the subject. It's in a section called "Gay allegations", but it makes no such allegation. It seems more like Seymour name-dropping about his friendship with a famous person. --RL0919 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between external links and sources. The media matters article is not suitable for an external link because it is neither the subject's official homepage, nor dry data, nor an archive of the subject's work. The same is true of some of the other external links, and I have been bold and removed all the ones that seem unsuitable. Media Matters' use as a source is another matter entirely. That it has an agenda is one thing. Whether or not it has a reputation for fact-checking and reliability is entirely another. The Economist is tremendously partisan at times, but is an RS source for factual information. As for its opinions, the issue is a case of how much weight should be given to media matters' analysis - which I suggest is not that much.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits to this article routinely result in arguments, most recently between the subject of the article, a personal friend of the subject, and another editor.

Two years ago, I chastised the subject over PoV edits made via anonymous IP.[35] I have similarly chastised the subject's friend JoyDiamond for PoV edits, educating her on WP:COI and providing links to Wikipedia policies.[36]

The third editor, Kelly A. Siebecke (aka SkagitRiverQueen) seems often to engage in edit wars with the aforementioned JoyDiamond, and the two of them routinely lob accusations of harassment and bias against one another, to a degree where editing this article has become disruptive.

A few days ago, the subject again returned to edit content. Again, accusations are being tossed about, with arguments spilling over to the article's talk page[37], Joy's talk page[38], Kelly's talk page[39], and my talk page[40] (including bickering on my page between Joy and Kelly).

I am at my wit's end in dealing with this, and am seeking some solution to this problem. -FeralDruid (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This most recent spate of bickering and edit wars has escalated the point where I've requested temporary full protection of the page. The aforementioned editors Kelly and Joy continue reverting one another's edits, and continue lobbing threats and accusations of bias against one another. -FeralDruid (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A three-day lock has been applied to this page, but I would still like some intervention to deal with future edits to this article. I have grown so tired of the endless bickering, that I'm dropping it from my watch list. -FeralDruid (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO, FeralDruid has not been looking objectively at what has actually been happening here. My hope is that whomever takes this on for dispute resolution will look at all sides of the issue. Most especially the fact that (after being caught and told to cease editing the page of which he is the subject) Karel has continued to make his own edits and/or has dictated edits through one of his fans and chat room moderators, JoyDiamond. In so doing, Karel has tried to sanitize the article from anything he sees as uncomplimentary - no matter if it is referenced fact. This is the crux of the matter for me. Additionally, I'm not exactly sure why FeralDruid has taken it upon himself to act as moderator or administrator of this article to begin with. Other being on the anti-vandalism crew, is FeralDruid in some sort of administrative position in Wikipedia that I am unaware of? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

IMHO FeralDruid has been consistently fair and objective even when chastising me. He has been an invaluable source of Wiki education and assistance. I sincerely regret he will not be watching and continuing his much welcomed aid. It is a great loss but I cannot blame him in any way. My apologies for his distress. I know that whomever facilitates this dispute resolution will be equally as objective and fair. Wiki Standards need to be maintained and I look forward to participating in this resolution. The block should probably extended indefinitely until resolution process is completed. Thank you. JoyDiamond (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Article does not meet requirements for notability. Recently has been updated with multiple details that are neither newsworthy nor able to be verified. Should be deleted?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Histbuff10 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 22 September 2009

WP:CSDed as a WP:Copyvio Martin451 (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Daniel Sieradski (AfD discussion)
• Mobius1ski (talk · contribs) — self-identified article subject

There's a conflict-of-interest/BLP problem brewing here. The dramatis personae are Mobius1ski and a whole load of single-purpose accounts (which Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Getitrightfolks has not found to be sockpuppets). In the mix so far are off-wiki requests by Siederadski to the world at large to "chime in" about the deletion of the article and claims that Adamhyman (talk · contribs) is bringing an external conflict with the subject to Wikipedia. Needless to say, the talk page discussion is not the best. Some of the SPAs in the the AFD discussion are, surprisingly, arguing the issue of sourcing, however. Attention from non-single-purpose, experienced, editors would be a good thing, though, nonetheless, if only to ensure that that focus is retained. Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Having had a look, there is a real problem going on.

• We have Daniel Sieradski aka Mobius1ski (talk · contribs) apparently canvassing off-wiki to help him keep his article (a) undeleted and (b) free of negative information
• Getitrightfolks (talk · contribs) and Wrongtired18 (talk · contribs) at first blush appear to be genuinely attempting to keep the page in line with policy (not always in the most civil of ways). Yet they are both SPAs, and clearly in opposition to Siederaski.
• Adamhyman (talk · contribs) has only made one contribution - a vote to delete in the AfD. Mobius1sk/Siederaski says this is part of an off-wiki dispute.

The article itself does not have the best of sourcing (both in sources and faulty links), and the subject appears marginally notable. I agree that experienced editors need to come to the page and sort it out. An admin also really needs to have a word with Mobius1ski about COI.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Found in Category:Unreferenced BLPs from November 2006. This is a biography that deals entirely with this person's relationship, or non-relationship, to one event: the Kent State shootings. The attention paid to sourcing on the talk page is on the level of "Terry Norman admitted it to me personally" and "talk to this person, he will tell you". Is there anything rescuable here? I'm tempted to just zap the thing and start again with a sourced stub. Should this, indeed, even be a biography at all, or just a redirect? Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not certain he merits a biographic article. WP:BLP1E could well apply. The Cleveland Free Times article doesn't have substantial biographic coverage The Tampa Bay Online page linked on the article page is now available from the internet acrhive[41]. It is marginal as a biographic source. I didn't find in Google Books the 1975 edition of the book listed in the article references, but I did find a 1995 edition of book online, with three relevant pages, but they also don't constitute biographic coverage.[42].

  Reading this article, it doesn't read like a biography - it reads like a discussion of his role in a single event. Everything other than the event is covered only in the last paragraph, which doesn't appear particularly balanced. Given the lack of substantial biographic coverage, I recommend following the guidance in WP:BLP1E.

  Norman is already discussed some near the end of Kent State shootings#Long-term effects. I see no significant discussion of the coverage of Norman on the Talk page of that article - and I note that I am far less impressed by the TBO article than Badagnani was. (I just can't call the author's imagination ("I imagined the Normans had ...") a reliable source. Portions of it look more reliable, but it also has a rambly style more like those of personal notes about what the reporter was doing while researching than the results of said research.) The author of the TBO piece praises the book source in question, and the book devotes about 1% of its content to Norman. This suggests that balanced coverage in Kent State shootings would be about 1% of that article - that isn't going to be a lot of space. GRBerry 16:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Would we lose anything by simply redirecting, then, do you think? Uncle G (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think we would lose anything. I think more sources can be found to substantiate Norman's involvement with the events of May 4, but that doesn't mean the subject passes BLP1E. In fact, I think the article at Kent State shootings could gain by merging this article into it. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd say a smerge would be appropriate. I think the paragraph about Norman currently in Kent State shootings#Long-term effects is in the wrong place, so I'd delete it and put a 2-3 sentence paragraph based primarily on the book source I linked above up into Kent State shootings#Monday, May 4. I think that saying more than that would be putting undue weight on Norman. GRBerry 21:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The comedian Greg Fitzsimmons made some noteworthy remarks on the Howard Stern Show about a practice he engages in that lots of people support and a lot of people object to. His views stopped the comedy and turned the show into a quite serious discussion. I added that to the page, but an editor just deletes all my additions without discussion, saying I'm a sock puppet. So I set up an external web site to host five fair use audio clips totalling to less than two minutes of the 4-hour show. The clips provide reference for everything in quotation marks I added to the page. Another editor removed this out of copyright concerns, but I'm unclear as to why because I studied the fair use issue and my hosting short supporting excerpts doesn't violate copyright. And I'm not having wikipedia host the fair use material. Also, I saw wikimedia commons doesn't host fair use material, so that's why I went to a place that would. The second editor said something about "spam" but I don't get that because the external site is not being promoted in any way. It's just a convenient repository. ChildrenDeserveBetter (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I found a few issues with the links in question: 1) Wikipedia:External_links#In_biographies_of_living_people urges extra caution with content being from WP:RS regarding biographical material, and Wikipedia:External_links#In_biographies_of_living_people states that external links on such biographies must be of high quality and be judged by a higher standard than for other articles. An IP hosted website on a personal user account does not meet that test. 2) Wikipedia:External_links#Rich_media suggests you should try to avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software, or an add-on to a browser, such as a sound file. It is always preferred to link to a page rendered in normal HTML, on a WP:RS that contains embedded links to the rich media. 3) Wikipedia:YT#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites also suggests strong caution when dealing with copyrighted rich media links. Going forward I would suggest you raise these issues on the article's talk page and allow others to give their opinions on it as well and then when a consensus is reached about the inclusion or exclusion of the material the article can be edited as appropriate. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the need for extra caution and have been using a source that has been accepted on the page in question for quite some time. Suddenly, however, this same source has been declared bad by the editor who just continues to delete everything I write without discussing it. In this case, I think the need becomes more pressing to reference the fair use material, as it sources the quotes exactly. The hosting web site isn't a personal account, but a University of California computer. I have obtained a legal opinion from the university, and they said they've seen this kind of situation before with Wikipedia, and that, in this case, there is no problem with the material being hosted because it's fair use. People don't have to rely on my say so: the University of California is a respected institution that diligently polices its computers' compliance with copyright law. It maintains an office devoted to copyright compliance at [[43]]. It provides a contact called the DMCA Designated Agent who looks into any complaints. If material is being hosted on a web site at the University of California, it does not infringe copyright. ChildrenDeserveBetter (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This persons real name (Steven Haworth) has not been allowed in the article. The original issue started in 2006. webmistress of his website complained that he didn't want his real name in the article and filed a OTSR report to have the name removed, the results mess had dozens of edits on the page and talkpage removed and the article protected. The explanation was that his real name was not public knowledge and that Wikipedia was being uses to break his name as a newstory (the problem is that is name was public record, he used it when he trademarked his ringname with the USPTO). McGuinness has recently signed a contract with the biggest wrestling company in the world (World Wrestling Entertainment) and in making the announcement several reliable news sites printed his real name (like [44]). With his real name now being used by reliable independent site and him being employed by a large, publically traded company, can his real name now be used in the article? Contacting the original admin who did this is not an option since they have not edited since June 2008. TJ Spyke 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If his real name is being stated in reliable news sources, then in my opinion it is fair game for the article, and in fact ought to be placed in the article's lead per MOS:BIO. It's not even negative or controversial information. --RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's my view too. – ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In the bio article about Richard Stallman there is content put by some editor that does not respect NPOV and WP:BLP policies. In the section about the relationship between Stallman and the GNU project there is a paragraph that attacks Stallman's character. Stating that he is a difficult person to work with the authors of this edit add a link to a developer named Drepper who posted a very nasty and unprofessional E-mail over 8 years ago!! Drepper just vented his personal differences with Stallman that says a lot more about Drepper's character than anything else. The fact that someone like Stallman may have had professional differences with a handful of people at work during his career does not justify putting this kind of content that clearly violates NPOV policies. I deleted the corresponding non-compliant paragraph but user:Skomorokh is repeatedly restoring it. Could an administrator take measures to correct this situation please? --Grandscribe (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Requesting input from experienced uninvolved editors. This sort of editing is absolutely out of bounds.  Skomorokh  08:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's utterly out of bounds. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Gwen.Thank you for your attention. I read your message. Then you see that the section paragraph about Stallman "being difficult to work with" has a problem. So please help to make it comply with NPOV policies.--Grandscribe (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just trimmed that paragraph down further, following Gwen Gale's good edit. I dropped the Drepper ref because IMO it's not relevant enough; I dropped the ref to the Raymond article because it's not about Stallman himself, only about free-software vs open-source-software.

As someone who has seen all-too-many controversies about Stallman over more years than I care to think about and is not one of his biggest fans, I think that mentioning the Emacs fork and quoting Salon.com on "uncompromising stubbornness" is exactly the right amount of coverage of the difficult-to-work-with claims. CWC 11:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good job. Thanks for doing the corrections and improving the page's compliance and overall quality.--Grandscribe (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Some issues at André Bauer over inclusion of this para on claims that Bauer is gay. Input please. Rd232 ^talk 10:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. ƒ(Δ)² 14:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Somebody put an unsourced statement that he came out as being gay, I think it's iffy at best

Already removed. decltype (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and in the future, do not hesitate to remove unsourced contentious information about living persons yourself. Regards, decltype (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Subject of long-term edit warring, possible vandalism. JNW (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This one may also be for the COIN board, but I'm asking for more eyes on it here first. The Frank Lorenzo article is regularly visited by SPAs who may or may not have a COI, but all seem to be solely interested in removing negative information about the subject. The latest of these is Airguy (talk · contribs). Airguy may also be related to Duggin (talk · contribs), 69.86.43.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), DavidDaws (talk · contribs), and Casatkes (talk · contribs), all of whom have made similar changes in the last month, and only edit this article.

Some of their changes are made in the name of BLP and could possible be genuine, but these accounts don't seem interested in discussion or consensus. I'm not familiar with the subject of the article, so I thought I'd bring it here in hopes of finding more eyes for the article. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Subject of long-term edit warring, vandalism, some of the changes made in the past were libellious in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenagent (talk • contribs) 01:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Slavoj Žižek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anonymous editor 84.109.74.77 (talk · contribs) is a SPA who's entire edit history consists of adding a video link to a fringe theory that Žižek stole his work from some unknown Israeli. Aside from being a WP:BLP violation, the link is to a non-English source that doesn't meet WP:RS. I have reverted this insertion a few times, and the anon has crossed 3RR. However, even though a revert would be a technical exception to 3RR, I'd rather someone else jumped in to fix this. LotLE×talk 06:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This article has been taken over by a criticism section, cited primarily to partisan newspaper sources. As a rugby referee myself I don't consider myself neutral enough to revise it, but there is a major lack of balance. Stifle (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not involved, know nothing about rugby, and have looked at this and agree with Stifle's concerns. I have removed the controversy section altogether. I feel the whole thing is blown way out of proportion and that it's failing WP:NOT#NEWS. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My edits got reverted. I think that an admin needs to look at this. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

According to this article, Wikipedia is being used by a number of angry All Blacks fans to issue threats to Mr. Barnes. Indeed, I received this message at my talk page from an anonymous IP editor after removing the controversy section. Perhaps the page should be semi-protected? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That particular IPs edits are unrelated this article. See the other contribs. Its been IP hopping and contributing mostly nonsensical comments around environmental articles and talk pages. Feel lucky, you got a semi-coherent one. -Atmoz (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, thanks for the note. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind someone else more familiar with BLP issues than myself to have a look through at the previous content. I've added a sentence to cover it since Alex's removal, but think could use another pair of eyes, as the removal is being contested on the talk page. Thanks ^Khukri 17:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Repeated reinsertion of names and dates of birth of children at Katia Tiutiunnik, in breach of WP:BLPNAME, by GoldbergEva (talk · contribs). I have reverted to the non-infringing version and fully-protected the article for 24 hours pending review here. Bencherlite^Talk 10:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The article Joel Comm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has issues with WP:PROMOTION and seems to be patrolled by COI editiors. I've placed the {like resume} tag several times and it has been removed several times by a variety of anon users. Only User:Deanshanson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has a name, but appears to be a single-purpose editor, maintaining and patrolling only those pages related to Comm. He has been warned with {uw-coi} in past. Today I made some serious cuts to the article, which I hope will make it more neutral (but do nothing yet to address poor referencing, etc.). Can other editors critique the article/my changes and please watchlist it for a time. The editors in question seem to patrol the page every week or so. Thanks. --Whoosit (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a translation from French Wikipedia, contains a number of unsupported linkages of the subject, accused of being an anti-semite and proven to have been involved in far-right politics in France, with a number of other people who publicly deny they support his politics/views. Unfortunately poor translation and references to French language editorials state as fact these accusations. In particular the title of this editorial link makes claims which the Tariq Ramadan explicitly denies here link and which the original editorial later correctly states there is no proof of. As the recent history of the article seems rife with ideological combat, I am removing the potential libelous statement Diff but it is up to others to see that it is not re-inserted, and that other questionable references are investigated.T L Miles (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a translation from German Wikipedia. --RCS (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Marc Garlasco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone clarify the usage of sources such as NGO Monitor and editorials on the article's talk page? There has been an ongoing dispute.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to second the call for more eyes on this article. There seems to be a push on to Godwin the subject using all manner of blogs, op-eds, even another Wikipedia article as sources. The talk page is awash with bad faith assumptions and several editors have been rather abusive/dismissive to anyone who edits from an IP address. Some help from the BLP regulars would be most appreciated. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Based upon reports today that she says she was first raped and then consensually sexually involved with her father, this article could use lots of experienced editors' attention. Whole huge sections of news articles were being dropped into the article uncritically, which I excised erring probably on the side of removal of potential problems over writing a reasonable summary. The likelihood of more major copyright/plagiarism/NPOV/BLP issues abound. DreamGuy (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't accept People magazines abuse of the word "consentual." If someone repeatedly rapes you, you later giving up and pretending you like it is Stockholm syndrome(cognitive dissonance) not "consentual," regardless of how badly People bobbles the language. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd only put the word consensual within a verifiable quote from Phillips herself. What the word would mean within such a quote could be further cited to both herself and independent takes in RSs. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The pro-pedo's are out in force on this one. More eyes, please. Hipocrite (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

An editor is of the opinion that questioning the notability of a biography by using the {{bio-notability}} tag is itself a BLP concern.[45] This does not seem logical to me but I am bringing it here in case I've overlooked something. What's the current view? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagging an article for notability (or any other legitimate tag) is not a BLP issue because lack of notability is not a negative statement about the subject. Millions of wonderful people are not notable. If the consensus on the talk page is that the tag is unwarranted, then of course it can be removed by other editors. An editor can always propose the article for deletion on grounds of non-notability if they feel strongly about it. --RL0919 (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I am the editor expressing said concern that flagging Anthony Watts (blogger) as "not notable" is insulting to Watts, especially given that I think most agree that he is, well if not "WP notable" then he's certainly "famous". It is belittling to state on his biography, "This article may not meet the notability guideline for biographies." Moreover, it is a very common tactic in the climate change debate for advocates to refuse to name Anthony Watts or otherwise communicate the idea, "You're not important, okay? You're not even worthy of being named, okay?" Finally, it's also well known that Watts is sensitive to the said belittling so I am not happy at all for the Wikipedians to be adding this tag. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand the purpose of the tag. It is not name-calling, and it is not against BLP. Nor is it ever intended as an insult to anyone that they are not notable enough to be on wikipedia. There are guidelines on what constitutes notability, and some people honestly have their doubts that this person meets those guidelines. As you yourself admit, he may not be WP notable. His hurt feelings don't come into the matter. Do you have a personal connect with Watts (as you seem to know his personality well)?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Tagging an article with a notability tag is not about insulting someone, and it is not belittling, it is about the state of the article, not the person themselves. If Watts is notable, backed up with reliable sources, then find these sources, and get consensus to remove the tag. If there are not enough current sources asserting notability then placing that this tag will show that someone is worried that there are not enough reliable sources for the article. The fact that someone may not like this tag being placed on an article about them is no reason to remove it. Martin451 (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems playing the BLP card is being used inappropriately in this area as some kind of top trump, such as with the "See also" brouhaha. Notability tagging when notability clearly hasn't been established, is not a BLP issue by any stretch. Verbal chat 05:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The point is not whether I understand the purpose of the tag or not. The point is that the article is published publicly, indexed first by Google, and read by millions. To say that I've misunderstood the purpose of the tag is tantamount to stating, "Well, if there are people out there in the great unwashed who can't understand Wikipedia's policies, all misunderstandings are their fault." We cannot assume that every reader does or should understand the purpose of the tag. What we should think about is, what will the average reader think when he reads, directly under the subject's name, the words, "This article may not meet the notability guideline for biographies." Why can't the editors in question just nominate the article for deletion if they genuinely believe it should be or is going to be deleted? The point is not "brouhaha" either. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Your contention that adding a notability tag to an article is a BLP is absurd. Do not remove it again unless you can establish the articles notability. -Atmoz (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As always with climate change article issues, the noticeboard has been overwhelmed by involved editors, and only two of us have actually been transparent about our involvement (myself & Boris). Thanks VsevolodKrolikov and RL0919 for your comments, are there any other editors out there who consider themselves to be neutral on the climate change issue and neutral on the Anthony Watts issue who would be kind enough to risk entering into the fray & offer their comments? :) Many thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm entirely neutral on the Watt's notability issue. I'm also neutral on the climate change issue, which means I evaluate published expert opinion and follow the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community ;-). Anyways, the claim that adding a Wikipedia meta-tag to an article is a BLP issue is absurd. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is what Jimmy Wales has written: "... it is my position that MOST AfD pages for living persons ... should be courtesy blanked (at a minimum) as a standard process, and deleted in all cases where there was inappropriate commentary. This is not the current policy, but currenty policy does allow for deletions of material which is potentially hurtful to people." from here.

Clearly, a part of all this is about minimising the impact of hurt by Wikipedia to living people. It is a known fact (I can provide refs) that Watts is indeed hurt by statements that he is a non-notable and actions that say the same. It follows, if you also care about what Jimbo thinks, that a similar policy should exist for the notability tag. It follows that this is a BLP issue. Finally, as Cla68 already stated, and as we all know full well, there's absolutely no way we'll ever get this page actually deleted (by the way, deleting the page would be my preference too). So does this mean that Atmoz's "Mr. Watts is a non-notable" flag gets to stay there in perpetuo? Very clever, but no. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that the tag stays there forever. No one said it did. What on earth made you think that a tag indicating a specific and important need for improvement should be ignored and not acted upon, just left there? You've been active on wikipedia for a few months now - have you not understood how these kinds of tags work? How many opinions will you need before you accept consensus?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never edited this or (as far as I can remember) any other climate change related article. I would say that I am an uninvolved and impartial editor. I am also quite familiar with WP:BLP, its purposes, and its implications. Our BLP policy is designed to protect the living subjects of WP's articles from libel, rumors, gossip, and the like, not to protect them from anything they may find distasteful. In point of fact, there are many facts and quotes included in articles about politicians that contain information that the subjects themselves would rather not even acknowledge, but have been found to be in compliance with BLP, because these facts and quotes are verifiable in reliable sources. The notion that a tag stating that an article may not meet WP standards could ever, in any way, violate our BLP policy is preposterous. The tag clearly states that the article (not the article's subject) may not meet WP standards, and there is no reason to assume that "the average" reader would take it to mean otherwise. There is also no reason to believe that this could possibly do harm to the article's subject. Whatever the subject's personal feelings about the tag may be, that too is irrelevant to the validity of the tag and irrelevant to our BLP policy. Again, BLP does not protect people from anything they don't like, only from libel, which this clearly is not. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me also chime in as an uninvolved editor. The advice you (Alex) are getting from everyone above is good and sound and reflects policy. Putting a BLP-notable tag on an article is not a BLP issue in the least. If you are concerned about it, there are two things (at least) you can do to alleviate the situation which are within policy. First, find reliable sources asserting the subject's notability, and use them. That would be (where doable) the best solution, as the article is improved at the same time. The other is to nominate the article for deletion. Subjects must be notable to have an article written on them (at least in principle). The AfD discussion will get more eyes on the article and may help with finding sources to assert notability; if not, well then the article is deleted and the point is moot. Please take the advice you are getting--people are trying to be helpful, even if some are more blunt than others. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Quatsch and Yak!. Nominating the article for deletion myself is indeed what I plan to do next, but I hope that others will consider the argument I have made, namely, that it's not nice, and not helpful, to unilaterally label a person as a "non-notable". I can't imagine any scenario where this would be better than simply nominating the article for deletion, and then quietly blanking it, per Jimbo's thoughts above. I believe I've understood the spirit of the policy, even if its wording doesn't presently explicitly support my interpretation. Thanks again. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My reading of these thoughts is that the page should be blanked when there is an AfD involving possible libellous or damaging material (which should be removed anyway under BLP rules). I would suggest that discussing the Watts article's notability does not fall into this criteria. In addition leaving the material up would allow editors to form a better opinion of the article, and improve it to the point where it would be kept.Martin451 (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

See this category: Talk:Capitalism:_A_Love_Story#Documentary_vs._Propaganda. This edit uses an obscenity to describe Michael Moore's works. Per Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion, I elided the obscenity (rather than deleting the entire comment, which I believe would be acceptable under the policy).

Addition eyes on the IP's contributions would be helpful. Thank you, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Is this really a BLP issue? It's about the works, not Moore himself. The discussion will be archived in the very near future. Does not seem worth bucking how Wikipedia is not censored and the notion of leaving other editors' comments alone. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. The term "terd" is not an obscenity, it is not a BLP violation as it refers to Moore's works not Moore, it is bad form to edit the comments of others, and Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. L0b0t (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The comment is crass, but it is an opinion about Moore's works, not a claim of fact about the person. And it is on a talk page, where editors are free to express their POV in the context of discussing the article, which is clearly the case here. --RL0919 (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, per the policy, as the comment, in its own words, disparages any of Michel Moore's work. WP policy explicitly mandates removal of non-compliantWP:BLP anywhere. Moreover, WP policy specifically allows for refactoring of comments on talk pages - doing is not sacrosanct, as seems to be asserted here. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This situation is completely pedestrian. Anonymous editors say stupid things on many talk pages. It is better off ignoring. Like I said, it will be archived soon enough. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The general concept of BLP is not to do harm to real life people. Consider the situation. Moore's work is by design taking on controversial subjects in controversial ways. It's no secret that his work will have groups of people who agree with his work, and groups that feel strongly the other way. If someone went on an explative laced tirade on a first time author I might have some sympathy for your position. But do you really think it's any harm to Moore that someone used the word "terd" on a talk page?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking for sympathy, only adherence to policy. The issue, as I see it, is not whether harm is done to the living person, nor if the language in use is Obscene or just Profane (IMO, a difference without a distinction), or if it is common for anonymous IP address users to leave imperfect comments on talk pages. The issue (which I think is worthy of resolution, for the future) is are living persons' works covered under the same editing restrictions as the biography of those living persons? I say yes, as the policy explicitly notes that non-compliant language is not allowed and should be redacted anywhere (in any namespace). If it were not an edit to an article regarding the work of a living person, and the edit did not broadly state that all of this living persons' work was comparable to scatalogical term elided, I would not care. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Well, IMO, no, no it does not apply as works are not living people. The policy is here to prevent libel, nothing more, nothing less and as such it only applies to living human beings, not their fixed works (it doesn't even apply to dead humans). L0b0t (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Works are obviously not subject to the general restrictions of BLP. While some extreme comments may cross the line, comments which simply declare the lack of artistic merit are opinions, however crudely phrased they may be, and do not qualify as "biographical information" under BLP. Talk pages may include comments that would not be acceptable in the articles themselves if the comments are "related or useful to making article content choices"; the less-than-civil comment in question is probably "related" to content choices, since it asserts, rather badly, that Moore's work should not be treated as having artistic merit. There's too much wikilawyering already directed at removing widely-circulated critical commentary about public figures (check out the absurd discussion at Talk:Sarah Palin attempting to declare an award-winning, highly regarded national magazine an unreliable source because editors here disagree with the magazine's editorial judgments) and endorsing this "works" principle would simply promote further deterioration of both content and the Wikipedia environment. Is Howard_the_Duck_(film) to become speedy deletable as an attack page? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please edit as Maurice Heenan is no longer living therefore doesn't belong in the "Biography of a Living Person" category.

Thank you

R Heenan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.154.110 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I initially tagged this for references and promotional content; the original author reverted the templates and was blocked for conflict of interest. A (brand new) contributor took over almost immediately and made changes, but I think a lot of the recently added sources are not acceptable (Youtube, blogs, Myspace, primary sources), and whole passages are still peacock-like and unencyclopedic. The templates are gone again, and rather than edit war, I'd appreciate new parties taking a look. Thanks in advance. JNW (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into this in the next 24 hours, if no one else does. I'm on my way out right now. ƒ(Δ)² 14:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The article has been nearly blanked for some reason. Left a note on the talk page. Will check back later. ƒ(Δ)² 06:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bortolotti. Kevin (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Kingsley Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently changes were made to the article about Kingsley Fletcher that were false. An article with erroneous information was cited regarding his being Knighted in the Knights of Malta. I am writing on his behalf and from his office and would like to have his entire entry removed. Originally, a page was constructed for King Adamtey I [aka. Dr. Kingsley Fletcher]. That page has been somehow removed and this page with several errors has been constructed. If we are unable to remove the entire page, than we need to correct the information about his being Knighted.

Currently, the FALSE information on the page is as follow:

He was "knighted" in Malta in 2009, though a mass planned to commemorate the event was canceled when the Sovereign Military Order of Malta informed the church rector that the organization that had "knighted" Fletcher—the "Ecumenical Order of the Knights of Malta" -- was a "false" order, distinct from the "Knights of Malta".[4]

An article citing what really happened is at this link:

He was in fact Knighted and there are pictures on this event on the Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta - The Ecumenical Order Website at the following link:

http://www.knightshospitallers.org/invest_malta.htm

We are in the process of contacting the attorney for King Adamtey I [aka. Dr. Kingsley Fletcher] so that the issues on Wikipedia may be resolved fully.

Wikipedia needs to work with the proper contacts to provide accurate information in order to be considered a reliable source.

Please contact me at mplating@gmail.com

Sincerely,

Marcus Plating Office of His Royal Majesty, King Adamtey I [aka. Dr. Kingsley Fletcher] Senior Aide —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mplating (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This entry reported to: Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threats by User:Mplating . A {subst:ANI-notice} placed on the user page of the editor in question. --Whoosit (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The information that Mr Plating wants removed is reliably sourced, and he is trying to substitute a reference that does not meet WP:RS. End of story. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is currently up for deletion, and the AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Kingsley Fletcher is well worth a look. Martin451 (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Boris Stomakhin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The article was just massively edited (by a user who recently became active after his 1-year ban has ended, a ban imposed for massive disruption of that very article: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin) in a way that I believe violates BLP; starting with the lead - change of "editor of dissident periodicals" into "editor of hate speech periodicals", many other unreferenced weaseling/defamatory changes ([46], [47]) and removal of referenced content ([48], [49]). Comments appreciated. // _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read the court sentence for Boris Stomakhin http://www.zaborisa.narod.ru/061120prigovor.html. What is the problem? User Piotrus is not Russian proficient and makes bandwagon accusations in revenge for my edits in Polonization article.Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Because user Piotrus having Arbcom against him, seems to be not able to verify that the links are dead, I urge anyone uninvolved to recheck the links given in his two diffs, namely:

http://www.cpj.org/attacks06/pages06/imprison_06.html#russia http://www.article19.org/pdfs/publications/russia-journalist-stomakhin-conviction.pdf. Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the claims of defamatory statements alleged by user Piotrus, could anyone proficient in Russian translate for him the following texts:

http://www.km.ru/magazin/view_print.asp?id={6FA225AC-C553-46BE-8519-B06671B6657D}&data= http://lenta.ru/articles/2006/11/20/court/ Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And Russian-state controlled propaganda media are reliable because...? And even if they were, read WP:BLP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide the evidence that these specific mass-media and these specific journalist are writing propaganda and are state-controlled? I have read BLP many times, what ails you there? Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that a suggecient evidence of disruption is provided. It was an edit (possibly by an opinionated person), but I don't see any edit war so far. Please start from normal editing. I understand that you have previous unpleasant experience, but you have to start afresh. - Altenmann >t 18:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP has nothing to do with edit warring. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And in order to establish that this is BLP violation you need to have Russian language proficiency. So when you would stop running circles and would make a point? Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP clearly places the burden of proof on editors wishing to add controversial material particularly if it is potentially libelous. If there is dispute over what the source says, and it's a foreign language source then the material should be excluded until an uninvolved editor can confirm that the source says what is being claimed. If there is dispute over whether the source is reliable, that too has to be resolved first Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a dispute over whether an opinion piece in a reliable source (for news, not necessarily editorials) can be quoted in the article about Gideon Levy. If someone could join the discussion, it would help. Thanks. ƒ(Δ)² 10:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, but probably shouldn't be quoted in the introduction or given undue weight. In fact it would be probably better to just mention the criticism rather than quote the whole thing. I checked over the article and thought it was fairly good. I guess people in Israel think cancelling their newspaper subscriptions is a big event. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me. I've left a message on the talk page referring to your reply. Since 3 editors have agreed over this issue, I'll treat it as consensus now. Cheers, ƒ(Δ)² 15:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

At issue is not the cancellation of the newspapers info, it is the inclusion of the words "anti-Israeli" (note the i) without a secondary source. Yes there are op-eds that have called him a "pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli propagandist", but are such opinion pieces suitable for sourcing in a BLP or is it needed that a secondary source say these things for it to be included? nableezy - 15:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A further issue here is that one op-ed, which describes Levy (wrongly, in my view) as "far-left", is then cited as a source for criticism of him as far-left. It seems that some editors consider this description to be discreditable, and therefore use it as a criticism rather than a description. RolandR 16:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That can be easily remedied though, if the rest is OK. ƒ(Δ)² 16:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not entirely germane to this thread but Levy is indeed considered far-left in Israel. RolandR, Israeli left is defined more on the level of compromise a person willing to make in the Arab-Israeli conflict, rather than the traditional 'left-wing' which stands for liberalism and socialism. If you have any sources suggesting he's a right-winger, I'd be happy to see them but, as of this moment, there sources say otherwise. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said otherwise, Roland's point on that source, and mine, was that the source was not criticizing Levy for having "far-left" views, it just said that he does. You used that article to source the statement that Levy's views have been criticized as far left. The source cited did not support the sentence. nableezy - 20:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What part of "criticized for what commentators and critics described as" is unclear? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The part where you source an off-hand mention of Levy being "far-left" to source his being criticized for it. And it is not "unclear", it is just improper sourcing as the source does not support the statement. nableezy - 18:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the subjects home address from the article diff per BPL#privacy of personal information, but I wonder if it shouldn't also be removed from the article history. Is that commonly done? xschm (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This article, particularly the war crimes accusations sections, are a mess and borderline libel. Gah. Help. Ray^Talk 18:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The war crimes accusations seem perfectly well sourced. Could you be more specific?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Try statements like "fled Paris that evening" - unsourced, and highly judgmental. The laundry list of lawsuits filed against him which went nowhere. Etc, etc. At the very least, a conservatively written BLP that respects the subject's dignity would not repeat breathless accusations without discussing the resolution. In general, I think lawsuits against prominent persons shouldn't be reported at all until and unless they actually go to court and become a major part of the person's life. Being harassed by lawyer-activists is part and parcel of being a prominent person in a western democracy. Ray^Talk 19:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This article has been about three entirely different people in its history, with people blithely replacing the one with the next. A decision needs to be made. Is this about (a) the footballer, (b) the band member, or (c) some unverifiable person from Salem, Oregon? Uncle G (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(d) deletion? Kevin (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The level at which the footballer plays/played is usually regarded as below the notability bar. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The person is being described in the lead as a "website operator", while other terms, such as "author", have been deleted.  Cs32en  18:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Purveyor of alien conspiracy theories seems to be what he's known for, although he apparently wrote some books, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The living person referred to in this article disputes the truthfulness of this biography thus making the Wikipedia article on him potentially libellous. [50]

Kashcubed (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've started looking at this, but there's an awful to check. Some more eyes would be useful. Kevin (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's only potentially libelous if the defamatory information is not taken from other sources, and it's only a violation of our policies if not taken from reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Fresh off another bout of monthlong full protection, editors are heading back to the Carly Fiorina article with their axes to grind (like so). Most of the blatantly non-neutral or unsourced edits always tend to be reverted pretty quickly, but edits like this are just as troubling, because they get overlooked and because they move the article into an wp:undue state by stripping out sourced, critical context. Saying somebody was asked to resign is one thing that is, no doubt, factual; saying they were asked to resign, why they believe they were asked to resign, and what the company believed they had accomplished up to that point is anything but "content-free blather." The article really needs objective eyes watching it. Please do. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the source say what the edit alleges? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The two quotes that were removed? They were -- word for word -- from the statement the company and Fiorina jointly issued following her resignation, yes. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed a version that I hope provides due context at: Talk:Carly Fiorina#Consensus for resignation mention in lede. Please consider helping us build a consensus there if you have a moment. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

I have been the editor on the abovementioned article and I have a new IP user User talk:68.36.136.73 who wants to add material to the article which could be considered tabloidish. I agree that the material he is adding is viable, however, if one goes to the references I have given it is clear the sourced material will do the same as putting it into the article. It is a very sensitive area for Talley and he has asked me if I would use good judgement in allowing stuff to be added because it hurts his family. I have expalined WP:BLP in which it says we should use good judgement as well as not allowing it to turn into a tabloid article. The fact that Talley was the subject of an extortion attempt is the point, the fact that he met the guy in a chat forum is not the main focus. Can someone please chime in and let me know if this is an acceptable arguement for me to make to this IP user. Not to mention he took a personal pop shot at me on my talk page by telling me that the schools I advised for were not as I portrayed them The remarks had no reason for being included in his arguement. Thank you Canyouhearmenow 02:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The material that the IP is trying to add is potentially libellous, needs to be cited with WP:Reliable sources if it to be included. If not cited, it should be removed on sight, and the user warned (as you have done). Martin451 (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have just noticed that one of the 3 refs backs up the IPs addition (the other two links seem dead). Just because a fact hurts his family is not a reason for non inclusion. You also seem to know Talley personally, do you have a WP:COI Martin451 (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the IP claims are covered in the source. The IP is characterizing the chat room as "for homosexual men", when of the 2 sources that worked, one offers no description for the chat room, while the other describes it as "innocuous". Kevin (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not know Talley personally, he sent me an email as being one of the editors on the page. He might have contacted others from the page as well for all I know. I just do not see where it is beneficial to add "what type" of chat room when that could in fact be libellous. I would appreciate it if others would kind of help me with this IP User and try to get them to see this fact. This I feel could potentially turn into an edit war. Thanks Canyouhearmenow 14:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Then the text should be changed to illustrate, at least, that the extortionist threatened to expose (perhaps 'portray' is more neutral?) Talley as homosexual, because this is not in dispute. We must not only link to further sources, we must aim to be complete. The contention that it could 'harm' Talley's family is ridiculous, as he has acknowledged this much in public many times. Should we wipe Monica Lewinsky off Bill Clinton's wiki because Chelsea can read it? 68.36.136.73 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No I do not believe the Lewinsky thing should be removed from the Clinton article, but thata was on a much larger scale than the Talley issue. Talley has gone into the private sector and does not derive his main income from gosple music any longer. I think it to be tabloidish at this point to continue to point out the fact of it being any named chatroom he may have been found in. We may be able to come to a meeting of the mind here if we change the wording to reflect the events without doing harm to the subject. I am open to that. Canyouhearmenow 20:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it does not mention the type of chatroom, but it does mention what Talley was talking about. (I now get 2 of the sources working). However it does not seem to have a huge news coverage. I like the current wording "alternative lifestyle". Martin451 (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Could people keep an eye on Southwell Minster School? I just discovered some egregious BLP violations in this article that have been there since September 1, and were being added to over several days, including today. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

School articles seem to be a particular BLP nightmare. They are often created by SPAs in good faith, who never check up on the page, and the page appears on very few watch lists. The children at the schools then edit the page to their hearts content, adding libellous material about staff, class mates, or just adding themselves as notable. There are rarely any sources for the staff, and often vandalism is only caught on recent changes. Martin451 (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The article on Marc Nelson is once again the target of vandalism. MStoke (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Protected for a while to see if the vandal gives up. Kevin (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Different editors keep on changing this person's nationality back and forth between Irish and British. I'm not sure which is correct but if someone could take a look it would be useful. Smartse (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the nationality description to "British-born Irish" per the sources and self-identification of Gunley. However, this article has the look of one of those perennial nationality debates. Gabbe (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems the most sensible way to explain it IMO. It keeps on being changed back to British however by IP editors, so I've requested semi-protection of the article for a while. Smartse (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have just read a long review in the Times by Simon Henderson about Khan [51], supporting the line that he was a victim of a smear campaign and blamed for actions authorised by the Pakistan government, with a plausible case (expediency of the USA getting on with Pakistan). I am concerned that the allegations in our article are only very weakly supported for a BLP. e.g. "However, Khan is best known in the rest of the world for his nuclear proliferation activities - stealing critical nuclear technology designs and using them to build Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, as well as selling this technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea. Some of his critics have described him as the "Terror Trader" and the "Klaus Fuchs of Pakistan".

For which there is one marginal source giving an opinion that Khan was a proliferator. "Best known in the rest of the world" is an incredibly strong claim which requires a reliable source stating "best known..." but we seem to support it just with a few POV articles. I daresay he is not about to sue Wikipedia (although he seems to have been released and acquitted) but even so I think it needs some serious reworking. --BozMo talk 11:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, Pakistan's Nuclear Future: Worries Beyond War ISBN 1584873337 (from the Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College) details Khan's weapons export program and its existence from about a decade after their nuclear import program was established in the mid-1970s. From Khan's visit to Iran in January 1987 leading to an official Pakistani/Iranian meeting in Dubai that produced a cooperation agreement to 2002 with weapon designs shipped to Libya and Khan's visit to the DPRK. L0b0t (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Richard Littlejohn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This isn't the first time this page has been brought up. Last time it resulted in this series of edits by User:Tony Sidaway, and this series of edits by User:PhilKnight (some of which were reverted shortly after, such as this, reinstating a section that was removed per WP:UNDUE), among others.
The time since then has included lots of edits which remove information, and other edits which have reinstated said information, such as this series of edits: [52] [53] [54]. I thought I would come here for wider input on a recent change, and the state of the entry as a whole (and ideally, to have a few more watchlists keeping eye on changes to the article). Earlier today, 86.176.1.158 performed this change, which appears to unilaterally revert to an earlier version of the page but actually appears semi-selective (I can find no entry in the history with the exact same number of bytes). I then reverted this change, suggesting that consensus should be sought, which was then re-reverted, suggesting the onus was on me, at which point this talk page discussion started. Could I have some wider input from people more knowledgeable on BLP policy than me? A consensus gained between just me and 86.176.1.158 would not be much of a consensus, after all. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Noone? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What does it mean to add a religion to an infobox as in the G Brown BLP? What level of association does that imply? I thought that I had read somewhere here that in a BLP that unless the subject of an article said himself that he was religious that we didn't mention it. This citation is supporting the claim [55] there is also a degree of discussion that I have started on the talkpage Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a better place to ask this question? Off2riorob (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Kendall Jenner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kylie Jenner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both children appear on Keeping Up with the Kardashians a USA reality TV programme, which I have never heard of before last night. I cannot find any reliable sources for either, just a few site specialising in TV. Are they notable enough to warrant their own articles? I redirected both to the above programme last night, and have been reverted by an IP. I am tempted to AfD both of them, but want to know how notable they are in the USA first. Martin451 (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

PRODed both articles, Non-notable minor children of a notable athlete (Bruce Jenner). Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Inevitable I suppose, but the talk page (and probably the article as well) need an eye keeping on them. For the record, he pleaded guilty to sex with a minor (as part of a plea bargain, he alleges): some users feel that the world must be told that he's a rapist… Physchim62 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I came here to mention this. There is currently dispute whether to mention precisely what sex acts her performed on his victim. While I haven't considered it in detail, I have concern whether this is necessary. Particularly as according to that very article 'Samantha Geimer filed to have the charges against Polanski dismissed from court, saying that decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor's focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family.' Nil Einne (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

From what I have read off-wiki, it seems to me that the lurid details of the alleged sex acts is of particular BLP concern to Ms. Geimer, BLP concerns to Mr. Polanski notwithstanding. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 10:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

if you know how to/have the power to 'zap' articles, could you do soto those on 'Tohn Thistlewood Davenport,' 'Montague Davenport,' and 'Hayward M. Davenport?' I made the articles under a different username and wish to start again....can I zapthem myself if I log in under that username?

Thanks x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poias1 (talk • contribs)

The short answer: no. There is a process for deleting articles that only one person has contributed to, in cases where that contributor wishes them deleted, but it doesn't apply when others have also edited the articles, as is the case for the three you list, Hayward Davenport, John Thistlewood Davenport, and Montague Davenport. In short, once you have contributed content to Wikipedia, it is no longer yours to control the fate of: see WP:OWN. And in any case only Montague Davenport is relevant for this board as the other two are no longer living. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: My question has to do with neutrality of language, nevertheless I'm bringing my concern here since the language at issue is with regard to the blp of Glenn Beck.

In a nutshell, I would tend to side with allowing for the possibility that Beck's own belief that his mother committed suicide to be possible, and believe it incorrect for Wikipedia to subtly endorse Beck's unofficial biographer's stated belief (from a recent piece in Salon) that this death was necessarily an accident. A Coast Guard report mentioned in yesterdays edition of the area newspaper, in an article entirely about this issue, does not close off that possibility of suicide and is certainly a WP:RS; so it would be POV for WP to say "was determined" in the way some editors continue to insist, IMO. What do you all think?

Talk:Glenn Beck#suggested removal of sentence.

Contibution's diff ↜Just M E here , now 18:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note - Editing dispute now solved. ↜Just M E here , now 19:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yitzchak Ginsburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I am having a discussion about the desirability of a certain comment, and we have agreed to ask for a second opinion here. Please see the relevant talkpage section. Debresser (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The John Drewe bio page is filled with errors and should be removed. There's a good book about his fraud that's not referenced. "Provenance" by Laney Salisbury and Aly Sujo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.101.231 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Robert Garside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pursuant to a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation (Ticket:2009092210036291, and I see now Ticket:2009092510040725), I'd like to request review from an uninvolved contributor here who might check for WP:NPOV and ensure that the sources are reliable enough for a WP:BLP. Also, if criticism is WP:UNDUE, there are a number of other potential sources listed at the article's talk, some viewable, that may help. For the sake of transparency, I think it better that somebody who has not engaged one of the contributors to the article in conversation elsewhere address this, since it is not necessarily a blatant BLP vio. This matter was previously listed at BLPN here and (indirectly) at ANI here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As this one has escalated to legal, I've gone on ahead and rewritten it from scratch, with fresh research. Under the circumstances, I hope that my announcement here will satisfy all transparency. :) I would certainly welcome additional review under the circumstances. The Controversies section is the largest, but that's what I found most of. I reviewed every source I could access at google news (in the "free" variety; my volunteerism to Wikipedia stops shy at paying for news articles. :)) It's my hope that everything is scrupulously sourced & balanced according to coverage. Assistance with anything that misses that mark from neutral contributors would certainly be welcome. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There's an ongoing problem at the Keith Michael article. In addition to the autobio/COI evidenced by Kmr535 (talk · contribs) blanking sourced material (note that Keith's full name is Keith Michael Rizza and he admits he is Keith), there is now reason to believe that he is employing sock/meat puppets to acomplish the same net result, blanking of sourced material. See Cynthiabosco (talk · contribs), Rochtaiffer (talk · contribs) and Matthewhersey (talk · contribs). This is probably worthy of a checkuser but as an IP I cannot initiate one, so I bring it here. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one, as there is definitely some quacking going on. Note the last four editors, each making their first edit to the article, each adding their name to their edit summary in the same manner. Hinky. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've filed an SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kmr535. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The article John C. Wright reports a recent controversy concern his views on the Catholic Church and Homosexuality. Some of the material is false, exaggerated, or poorly sourced, and is not point of view neutral.

Since it is the only report of his point on view on any topic, it appears to be an attempt to humiliate him for expressing an unpopular belief.

The section has been removed and replaced several times. On the discussion page, the consensus of the wikipedia editors has been to remove it, and yet it reappeared as recently as 9/28/2009

I see no such consensus, and while it may be argued that it's being given undue weight, whitewashing it isn't the solution. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A User on this page that has been editing has claimed to be the subject of the article, could I get some admin help as I am unsure of the process regarding COI and autobiography issues and OTTRS notification, this would be greatly appreciated, this is the IP making the claim [56] the edits are a little confusing as he is signing with his name and not the IP signiture. This is the diff [57] in which he claims to be the subject of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read the history, and specifically the contested material. It is my view that blogs (even or especially those of the subject) are not reliable sources, and since this is the basis for the content then it should be removed and remain removed per WP:BLP. I would further comment that detailing the specifics of a controversy is beyond what is permissible from a primary source in any event. Any editor placing this content on this basis, i.e. not a reliable third party source, should be 4im warned and taken to AIV if repeated and if there is edit warring then the article protected in the right BLP version. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a very clear statement from an experienced administrator and I will be supporting his comments. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly my opinion also. Kevin (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's get this right - if someone were to say something in writing, and it was verifiable as being from themselves, that is not a reliable source regarding things that they believe? Regardless of any particular article, this sort of failure to understand basic citing is something that is quite wrong with wikipedia (ie, that there can be no better source for someone's own statements than that person themselves - that a primary source always is better than a secondary when no analysis required, only the observation). How one can expect a secondary source to be any more accurate in this matter is beyond me, or indeed should be beyond any academic. It is simply impossible. Please debate this elsewhere, since on this actual subject, I do feel we are still waiting for better sources at the moment, and the deletion of the original source for this raises a right to privacy issue. LinaMishima (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about the origin and context of the text recently added to this article. Certainly it needs wikification, but thought I'd get a viewpoint from those experienced in BLP issues. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

See here for a requested move discussion that may interest BLP minded individuals. MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A user has repeatedly re-added a section regarding Diablo's private life which asserts that her ex-husband (that's me) left his previous wife for Cody. While this information did appear in an article from a couple of years ago, this is absolutely untrue, potentially libellous and reputation-damaging, and I would very much prefer if this information would not be included in her Wikipedia biography. I am, as I pointed out in the justification for the section's removal, not a public figure, and would frankly prefer to be left off of Ms. Cody's biography page entirely as I do not wish to be associated with her. If this is impossible, I would at least like the untrue information to be removed. Jon Hunt.˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.5.110.146 (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. This article contains some contentious, although sourced statements about living people. If somebody with experience of how such statements are best presented neutrally could have a look through the article that would be great. Please be aware however, that the old version of the article is currently the subject of legal action, so if you do not wish to edit the article yourself, but just provide editorial feedback on the talkpage or to me privately by e-mail, that would be fine. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This page was a total joke until I blanked it a few minutes ago under the auspices of BLP. While I realize there may have been a conflict of interest in the creation of the page, it has been a slow-moving edit war between the subject and a determined detractor. The previous page was half composed of a criticism section, and the non-criticism part was inflammatory, and had the man under Category:Homophobia (because that doesn't present a problem). Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted as negative in tone and poorly sourced. Prior to your (almost) blanking, it was entirely sourced to blogs and other poor quality sources. I haven't determined if he is notable, if it proves that he is then a fresh start is better anyway. Kevin (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable news sources to the effect that the subject has taken part in legally questionable activities. The article gives contact details that also appear in the mass media. The tone of the article seems dodgy, but not sure what should be done with it. Subject is probably notable. Pseudomonas_(talk) 10:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be deleted at AfD as a person notable for a single event. At the moment there is a PROD tag, if that is removed I'll take it to AfD. The tone of the article is negative, but it is reliably sourced so cannot be speedily deleted. Kevin (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Death of Bill Sparkman#Deletion of extreme blogger speculations. In short, an article about a recently killed federal worker contained a paragraph repeating a blogger's speculations about the motivation for his killing (with no published sources other than the blogger himself). I removed it citing WP:BLP, but perhaps I should have given a better reason for my removal since the L part of BLP is inapplicable. Nevertheless I think WP:BLP-like concerns should also apply to the recently dead, and readers of this board may wish to weigh in. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is difficult on two fronts. When does BLP no longer come into play in terms of editing? In terms of the article itself immediately upon death. What is added today will be there next week and onwards, and no one looking for information will care when the content was added. In terms of the editor, BLP advocates "sensitivity", and in my opinion, such as it is, extending sensitivity somewhat beyond death is the more humane thing to do and I would personally support that position.

I wonder if the more applicable concern is whether your source is reliable. This a very tricky area since the source itself is considered reliable, but itself is citing a non verifiable source. Reliability and verifiability are closely tied while verifiability is the "trumping" policy with reliability the less critical guideline. Accuracy in editing shouldn't be confused with truth, and it seems we should be creating an accurate encyclopedia. If the information in the blog is significant it should be available somewhere else so the blog ref could be removed and the better ref used. If its not available somewhere else, then perhaps the information doesn't belong in an encyclopedia of this kind. So, I would definitely support the removal you made for multiple reasons.(olive (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

Since I've never wandered into here before I hope I'm allowed to respond. I'm not trying to be pushy or break protocol.

I don't think the source is reliable or verifiable, since it is a political blog post openly admitting to pure "impolite" speculation. I think the article should still address it because it informs the discussion on how the media and blogosphere reacted to the incident. The offensive post attracted scorn from notable blogs and does more to highlight the ethos of the writer and media in its treatment of this subject. The article also describes statements by other bloggers which were highly-subjective and speculative, but germane to discussing the political and media reaction.

I respect keeping sensitivity in BLP, even after a death. But Sparkman was not notable until his death which ignited a media firestorm. In this case, the media's reaction to the death is more notable as the person who died. Properly done, I suppose the article shouldn't even be a biography, hence the title Death of Bill Sparkman. ——Rich jj (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert Stacy McCain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Re-insertion of content I removed on BLP/NPOV grounds. Could someone please check my edits and talk-page comments for mistakes, then join in the discussion(s) on the talk page. // CWC 09:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(9 days later:) Could an admin take a look, please? User Goethean (talk · contribs) wants to mention a blog post by Andrew Sullivan quoting McCain without context (see 2nd para "On February 20 2009 ..." here). I say (1) that violates lots of WP policies and (2) Goethean has repeatedly violated BLP. Also, his snarky comments on talk page and in edit summaries are getting really tiresome. Thanks in advance, CWC 17:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I just dropped in there to audit the links. I believe there's been edit-warring, and there's evidence of strong disagreements on the talk page. All I can say is that the article suddenly shows a certain lurid fascination with the current events surrounding the man. The impression is shambolic, hurried, unbalanced. It is a bad look for WP; and the article was clearly not one to be proud of even before the scandal.

May I suggest that at least one independent admin keep a very close eye on this? You might consider taking it back to a previous version and locking it for a while. I'm unsure; I'm not interested in the topic. But caution should prevail. Tony (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I have done a bit of tidying there, an ip is ranting on the talkpage and there are some new users adding whatever they like, the page could use watching. Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is consistent IP and new user vandalism/inappropriate editing, why not ask for protection per WP:RFPP? – ukexpat (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute even now, with editors seeking to revert private information back into the article, which has been clearly disputed under BLP 4.2. This article needs eyes. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

See also 2009 arrest of Roman Polanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I see that some editors (IPs and SPAs) are adding "xyz" is a supporter of ..... ....... Roman polanski into articles about xyz. Martin451 (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:Nortom#All_about_Nortom - a rambling comment containing highly contentious, thinly sourced statements about several living people including members of parlament, independent writers, professional historians and so on. It would be great if somebody with experience in phrasing such statements could have a look at it. Poeticbent talk 22:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• User Faustian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who's labeling the above living public figures with disparaging comments has a long record of edit warring against Poland's documentation of the massacres in Volhynia provided by some of them, which he attempts to undermine from his own distinctly Ukrainian perspective. Poeticbent talk 22:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Poeticbent, it surprises me, given your listing as a participant in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list, that you would maintain an active involvement in contentious issues involving articles on Polish-Russian relations. Isn't that primarily what the arbitration case is about? I haven't checked Faustian's "long record of edit warring" — for all I know it is true — but there is a bit of The Boy Who Cried Wolf here after your group has said the same thing about so many other Russian editors in the past, leading me to be somewhat skeptical. And what on earth is your contention about the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia article doing here in WP:BLP/N? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I asked for somebody in the know to take a look at BLP related comments about various statesmen, historians and writers. If you don’t intend to comment on the content of my report, please move on. I don’t care if Faustian is Russian or perhaps Ukrainian. Likewise, my own ethnic background and other unrelated issues are irrelevant to this report. For those of you who would like to make a connection with the article on Volhynian massacres, please read this comment by Faustian in talk about a living Polish historian: "there is no evidence as far as I know that he personally murdered Ukrainian civilians." Please give your feedback on the other disparaging BLP statements from above.[58] --Poeticbent talk 05:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)