Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive24

• Barbara Schwarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sorry to have to mention this article again. The latest thing is that the regulars want the first thing mentioned to be her immigration status. Steve Dufour 04:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A bigger problem is your personal attacks on the other editors on the talk page of the article. Redddogg 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that her nationality may not be important enough to be the first sentence in the article, but on the other hand, it's also not important enough to bring here as a BLP matter. wikipediatrix 21:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please ask yourself why they are so insistent to have it be the first thing said about her. Thanks. Steve Dufour 22:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What on earth could possibly be pejorative about saying someone is a German national living in the United States? Many if not most bios start with a statement like "Joe Bloggs is a Scottish mole preener..." To test this I looked for three names at random (Henry Cowell, Jackson Pollack, and Paul McCartney) and all three mentioned nationality in the first sentence. In Schwarz' case nationality is not straightforward, because she's a citizen of one country but lives in another. Raymond Arritt 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the great majority of the people who edit the article are people who would like to do something to hurt her personally has something to do with my objection. Please look over the talk page. Thanks. Steve Dufour 22:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It would have helpful to say so in the first place instead of focusing on the nationality issue. Please provide diffs to specific BLP concerns; merely saying that the editors don't like her isn't giving us anything to go on. Raymond Arritt 22:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is one by the leading editor of the article saying that the subject's life had been nothing but trouble for society. Steve Dufour 23:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, we've got someone being vaguely critical of her actions on a talk page. (BTW that person wrote "...or Scientology," not "...or society.") If you can't come up with anything more damning than that, I'm going to close this matter as groundless. Raymond Arritt 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole purpose of the article has been to harass its subject. In an earlier version of the article, which was removed by an admin, the opening sentence started out saying that Barbara was an "illegal immigrant." Steve Dufour 13:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of your harassment of your fellow editors. Redddogg 13:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Stick to the issue at hand, please. Raymond Arritt 15:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue at hand, as I see it, is that WP doesn't enforce its policy against attack articles. Steve Dufour 16:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reported your talk page comment about the other editors to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts -Redddogg 15:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Helen Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi there, I have noticed some vandalism of content on Helen Clark's biography page. Please delete this, I have no idea where to begin editing it! People are silly sometimes.

Nothing to see here. Random ridiculous vandal edits from an IP. I've reverted the changes.--Sethacus 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :)

• Anne Foy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

sorry, new to this! not very pleasant wiki entry, see below From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Anne Foy (born January 1986 in Langold, Worksop) is a children's television presenter for the BBC. She speaks like she's injected herelf with smack, and is too sarcastic for TV in all honesty. 82.26.126.192 17:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I've fixed it. Childish vandalism like this is unfortunately all too common. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Kasey Kazee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the news recently as "The Duct Tape Bandit" with his name and face plastered all over the place. I don't think it's a major problem to have the article existing right now but in the long term I doubt it will be notable. The question is whether it violates BLP, which it may well do. I'll go along with a blanking or support an AfD on this one. violet/riga (t) 15:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say delete it, by any means, the sooner the better. Looks like local news. Also, Wikipedia isn't "America's Dumbest Criminals".--Sethacus 15:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've gone and done it now. I'll leave this open to allow for any comments should anyone have any. violet/riga (t) 16:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Simon Mol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a poorly sourced libelous article. IMHO it should be deleted. —זכי ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 11:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If what the article says is true then he is a bad person, but not notable. I see that it is proposed for deletion now. Steve Dufour 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The {{prod}} has been removed at this point. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It is now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Mol Steve Dufour 02:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who both prodded and now put the article up for deletion. My reasoning can be found on the AfD.--Sethacus 02:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Religious Freedom Watch‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an article about a non-notable amateur website designed to smear and slander people who have spoken out against Scientology. It's already been deleted once and has been re-created with no new sources or valid reasons for its re-creation. While this in itself makes the entire article an inherent BLP concern to me, User:S. M. Sullivan is determined to insert into the article the names of some of the people being slandered (some of whom are Wikipedia editors), along with his own personal opinion that "Viewing the articles is likely to reveal a mixture of unsourced allegations, IRC logs, 'he-said/she-said' accounts, and reliable sources like sworn affidavits, court transcripts and legal records", thus putting the POV spin on it that the slander is based somewhat in fact. wikipediatrix 03:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Alton Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I find no reference on the World Wide Web about Alton Brown's Death Today. Please note the following from your entry for Alton Brown. This is a cruel and sick joke.

Alton Brown From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about a recently deceased person.

Some information, such as the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change rapidly as more facts become known. Alton Brown

Born July 30, 1962 (1962-07-30) (age 45) Los Angeles, California, USA Died August 20, 2007 (2007-08-20) (age 0) Los Angeles, California, USA Cooking style American, Southern Education University of Georgia, New England Culinary Institute TV Show(s) Good Eats Iron Chef America Feasting on Asphalt Feasting On Asphalt 2: The River Run

Alton Brown (born on July 30, 1962, died August 20, 2007 in Los Angeles, California, USA) is an American food personality, cinematographer, author, and actor. He is the creator and host of the Food Network television show Good Eats, the miniseries Feasting on Asphalt and the main commentator on Iron Chef America. Brown is also the author of several cooking how-to books and a regular contributor to Bon Appétit and Men’s Journal magazines.

He brings molecular gastronomy (the application of science to culinary practices) and a humorous approach to his cooking shows. Bon Appétit magazine named him "Cooking Teacher —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.206.165.230 (talk) 04:44, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

thesuperficial.com is a tabloid blog. Click here http://www.domaintools.com/enwikipedia/thesuperficial.com and it shows it's linked all over wikipedia. I checked the first article, Pamela Anderson, to see where it was linked not as an external link but linked as a reference -- that's a notability violation. I assume it's like that on the other articles. I don't want to go willy nilly removing links all around and I think it's better to post it here. Juanita Hodges 21:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed all references in mainspace articles. Hornplease 23:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ralph Yarro III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Darl McBride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Marc J. Rochkind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maureen O'Gara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm far from a fan of the SCO v. IBM litigation, but the articles relating to minor personages associated with the dispute have WEIGHT problems, and could use BLP scrutiny to ensure compliance there. I've prod'd Maureen O'Gara, whose article consists of complaints about her article about Pamela Jones. THF 02:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me give an update so this isn't prematurely closed. Maureen O'Gara has been redirected pursuant to BLP1E. The other three articles still need investigation. THF 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell us what the problem is, exactly? The Darl Mcbride article has one paragraph on the subject out of 3 or 4 in the article - which probably massively underrepresents the role that SCO vs World has in his notability; the litigation is why people know his name and hate him. The Yarro article has a single sentence on the subject of SCO vs IBM, and as for the Rochkind article, although his role in SCO vs (IBM|Novell) takes up more space than anything else, it's still pretty brief - mostly because there's not much to say on his main claim to notability, namely his authorship of two or three of the most popular books on Unix/Linux programming. --82.45.163.18 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Cecelia Cichan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about to be mentioned on the front page. On August 16, 1987 (when she was four years old) she was the only survivor of a plane crash that killed the rest of her family. I kind of wonder if she should have a WP article at all, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to nominate it for deletion. Steve Dufour 03:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone else nominated it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecelia Cichan -Steve Dufour 11:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Desiree Horton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I was not sure whether to post this here or at COI. This article was originally written like a complete piece of fancruft and was almost speedily deleted due to notability concerns. Through the cooperation of a number of editors, this article has established some notability and cites some sources. However, some editors have continued to be war over the inclusion of "unduly self-serving" information from blogs dedicated to her. Most of these editors are SPAs (some with names like Fanofdesiree & Fanofdesiree2. Could an administrator provide some intervention on this page? Ursasapien (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a tag to the page, which is in appalling shape, but there really aren't BLP problems. THF 15:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Jim Gibbons (United States politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article looks like a hit piece, bad sourcing, large sections of marginal material, all put in the article by a single editor. Some of it should stay, but as to how much, and to what length will have to be carefully weighed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• • The cringeworthy stuff is sourced to major newspapers, but I agree the article is lopsided because the only one who has bothered to add detail to the article has added the scandals and controversies but no positive accomplishments as are easily available from Gibbons' web site. Is there anything that can be done other than to add balancing well-sourced positive information? ←Ben^B4 21:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Good luck finding any. He's a pretty serious embarrassment to Nevadans. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
      • • Please don't confuse "balanced" with "neutral". By balancing the article you run a very serious risk of violating NPOV's "undue weight" clause. If 90% of the media coverage is negative then the article will end up reflecting that. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

When I checked the article on 25 August, there were extensive citations to blogs in violation of WP:BLP, as well as POV editorializing on Gibbons's voting record, and extensive editing was needed to fix the problem. I am disappointed that several editors took a look at this article and decided that BLP violations did not need to be addressed because they did not like the subject of the article. Some of the material sourced to blogs is likely able to be sourced to reliable sources, so I am keeping this open for a few days in case someone wants to take that task. THF 15:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Velupillai Prabhakaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article has a lot of problem with it. For example view of one person is given a lot of room in this article (Specially because this person is an enemy of the person on the biography). Lots of questionable citations and some citations have been twisted around (This person's education where one citations claims one thing and another claims another) where one citation is preferred over another. Velupillai's organization LTTE's atrocities/criminal activities are also given a lot of room in this article but no citation appears to ever link him to the atrocities. Please take a look Watchdogb 20:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The page is currently protected during an editing dispute. THF 15:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Paul Davidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User "brainchannels" had vandalized the above page, adding libelous information and adding opinion. Can anyone help?

I know nothing about that entry but have done (what amounts to) a slash and burn on material that is a) unsourced and b) problematical from a BLP point of view. Can others review my actions and add back anything they think is OK but please provide sources for such additions. --Fredrick day 22:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

About a year ago, Tigarah's producer asked that her real name not appear in her article on Wikipedia, citing concerns about strange calls she received and that she does not want her real name in public circulation anymore because of those safety concerns. At the time, I obliged (ie, do no harm), and seeing her website no longer had her name anywhere (even in the press clippings), I believed that person was credible. That note on the talk page is still there, and no one has added her name onto the page in a year, until recently. Tigarah could be considered an indie artist at best, she has no label deal that I know of but her self-published stuff has attracted enough attention for several magazine articles, and her real name was published in those articles. Still, her notability, while passes WP:BIO, is still on the fringe, and I'm wondering if that the edit that added her name should be reverted. hateless 21:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is just my personal opinion, but I think that this is where "do no harm" should be applied (and the change reverted). ) If she does not use her real name in public, it's of little encyclopedic value anyway. --B. Wolterding 18:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merle Terlesky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -

This biography is utterly lacking in sources and some of the material may be libellous (I removed one bit). There is a tussle going on between two editors, one of whom seems to be the subject of the article. Reginald Perrin 01:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello I want to truly thank who ever it was who stopped this page from going on. My name is Merle Terlesky. As I said in the last discussion there are some very gross allegations on that previous page and they need to be corrected. A few notes are as follows. 1. I was never detained by the Police for honking my horn, I was simply given a traffic ticket and it was later dismissed in court. 2. There is no evidence that I ever did any paint bombing and thus it is defamatory. 3. There is no evidence of any criminal charge against me for solicitation in Toronto and thus it is defamatory. 4. I only sent one email to the communist party, I do NOT spend much of my time on that and have not contacted them in over 6 months and it was only to share my past experiences and the dangers of communist ideology. 5. I never ever, ever implied that the gay man beaten in the park deserved what happened, that is a complete lie. It was the Vancouver SUN that later reported the same man was semi naked in that park.

6. Finally-I am working on a legal action against Joyce Arthur and the Pro-Choice action network for their libelous and defamatory piece of literal garbage article on me and I would appreciate if wiklepdia did not link it with a page to my name

I can always be reached at merlet@shaw.ca

thanks,

Merle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merlet (talk • contribs) 02:19, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

• Michael Kay (sports broadcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Joey Salvia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am having a bit of trouble with Heartinthebayou (talk · contribs) and anonymous IP's on these articles. I removed all the unsources, disparaging information that I could, only to have it resotred constantly with insufficient sourcing by said user and/or IPs. I have semi-protected the Kay page, and as of today, blocked Heartinthebayou (talk · contribs) for continued violations, but I would appreciate a few extra eyes on these articles. Thank you -- Avi 15:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• John M. Fabian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am this person. Highly slanted and derrogatory information has repeatedly been added to my bio. I am a retired astronaut and environmental activist. Adverse information concerning my appointment to the Washington State University Board of Regents is highly slanted and ignores the facts of my resignation. The information concerning my brief voluntary leadership of the county democratic party is also highly slanted. These inputs have been repeatedly inserted by advocates for a huge industrial maritime complex and strip mining operation proposed for Hood Canal in Washington.

65.117.226.96 18:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

John Fabian fabianj@olympus.net

Some content was in violation of our policies and I have removed it. Tagged as unreferenced. violet/riga (t) 18:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Timothy Paul Baymon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A minor edit war with a previously anon account User_talk:140.241.0.20 that appears to have a WP:COI has now gotten an account (Special:Contributions/Jade2K) and now a different IP (Special:Contributions/70.194.112.60) now says he's contacting the office (User_talk:Bill_Huffman#Archbishop_Timothy_Paul). I could use some help so that it doesn't appear that I'm somehow biased. Can someone PLEASE help out?// Thanks, Bill Huffman 22:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC) clarifications added Bill Huffman 17:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Hate crimes against LGBT people

The category contains many BLP problems that need looking into. I'll list a few here:

• Nireah Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Roberto Duncanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paul Broussard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Charlie Howard (murder victim) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aaron Webster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Guin Richie Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Glenn Kopitske murder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jason Gage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jody Dobrowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Many of these do not assert notability and some use sources only from local newspapers and the like. Most of them have been created recently by one editor (User:TerranceDC) who is trying to document all LGBT-related murders. On Talk:Nireah Johnson he has indicated that he is not happy that so many of his articles are being called up for lack of notability. violet/riga (t) 17:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggested on that talk that a list would be acceptable to collate all of these, what do you think? Circeus 03:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be a WP:BLP1E violation, but perhaps I'm being oversensitive. Would appreciate another pair of eyes; I've nominated for deletion, but the only responses to the BLP1E issue are ILIKEIT. (Subject of article isn't helping by making POV-pushing edits.) THF 06:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• J. Michael Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article has been the subject of coverage in the New York Times: [1]; the piece mentions WP article explicitly. Semi-protected already, but an alert, new editor has pointed out [2] that there are significant violations of policy on the page. More eyes are needed: the NYT article is the most emailed from their website currently. In addition, there does not seem to be the standard warning and link to BLP and this noticeboard atop the talkpage. (Can someone handle that?) Hornplease 10:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An hoax that employs a false reference is given and constantly restored. More details at discussion page // 190.30.21.5 16:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it, and it hasn't been restored in a few days now. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – indef-block to vandal-only account

• Barbara Pierce Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An hoax about how she has an engagement ring on that was given to her by the Pope and how the Vatican is quite proud. NO reference is given for the claim and the claim is constantly restored. An example of the claim being restored is here: Example of restoring claim that Pope gave one of the Bush daughter's an engagement ring. Nonsense. --Getaway 18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• LifestyleAuto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This appears to be a vandal-only account (with the exception of some spam edits it made); I've reported it to AIV, and it has been indef-blocked. THF 19:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Gerstmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)- There are a number of unsourced, suspect bits of trivia included in this article, including an apparent minor attack on Wikipedia, supposedly by the subject. --Sethacus 03:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Marsha Skrypuch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is poorly written, POV vanity page written by the subject herself. Full of claimes with no citation, (eg, The first female to sell industrial supplies in canada)and weasel words. Tried to fix it but some bot reverted it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsha_Skrypuch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.125.214 (talk) 09:42, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

• John Travolta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mark Ebner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor is persistently adding material to the articles on John Travolta and Mark Ebner about John Travolta's child. The material concerns tabloid allegations about whether or not the child suffers from autism. It has been pointed out that Travolta's child is not a notable figure, and that WP:BLP requires sensitivity in relation to such matters. The editor claims that Travolta's child is a notable figure, on the grounds of the existence of some newspaper coverage of the "story," but this low-level coverage of unproven allegations does not at all establish the notability of this celebrity's child. This material should be excluded on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper (as Jimbo Wales is quoted as saying in WP:BLP), as well as on general BLP sensitivity requirements in relation to non-notable or barely notable individuals, especially children. BCST2001 17:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Both articles seem to have no problems now. One odd thing, though, is that on the talk page of Travolta's article it says that it is part of Project Scientology, as does every Scientologist who has a WP bio. Steve Dufour 01:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Matthew Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The "Political connection to Altace, pharmaceutical industry" section of the Matthew Hill article appears to violate policy. The problems with the section are as follows:

• It makes the unsourced claim that Hill received "many generous" campaign contributions from people in the pharmaceutical industry. As per WP:BLP, such unsourced contentious material should be removed immediately.
• It includes a multitude of information (written in a critical tone) about various pharmaceutical companies. The implication seems to be that Hill is a pawn of the pharmaceutical companies who are using him to advance their agendas. However, all the information about the pharmaceutical companies is not directly related to Hill except through conjectural interpretation, thus violating WP policy.

I editted the article to try to fix the problems and explained my edits in the talk page. However, my changes have been reverted without explanation by user Bee Cliff River Slob. I am posting here because WP:BLP clearly states that unsourced contentious material in biographies of living people must be "removed immediately and without discussion." I would remove the contentious material again myself (my first removal can be seen here), but I do not wish to get personally involved in a revert war with the other editor. Can someone else help out? --SirEditALot (talk • contribs) 22:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Article needed severe cleaning, violated WP:BLP, WP:EL, WP:NOR, and WP:COATRACK, and I scoured it, and gave a note to the editor who reverted you. We'll see if he edit-wars. THF 22:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The editor is edit-warring, and given the systematic campaign to prevent me from productive contribution to Wikipedia, an administrator needs to step up and enforce BLP, because I cannot do anything further. THF 07:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I full protected this article and David Davis (Tennessee politician) for one week due to a complaint of disruption, but recuse myself from any specific alterations. I've posted to both talk pages referring editors to this board for any outstanding BLP complaints. If problems remain in the articles and other sysops are slow to act, please cross post to WP:ANI. Durova^Charge! 18:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In this comment, the editor in question defends his actions by quoting Jimmy Wales saying that one should not remove important facts from articles. Wales' comment, however, does not give editors the right to violate the rules regarding reliable sources, original research, and neutrality in order to keep "facts" in articles. Judging from the comment linked to above, he seems to think that our attempts to bring the article into compliance with policy are motivated by a desire to push our pov regarding Matthew Hill (I can't speak for others editing the Hill article, but that is certainly not my case). I am relatively new to Wikipedia--what is the correct procedure in cases like this? --SirEditALot (talk • contribs) 18:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• David Davis (Tennessee politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has the same problem that the Hill article had, except it hasn't been scoured yet. Someone should check contributions history to see how many other Tennessee politicians have similar issues. THF 18:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked through Bee Cliff River Slob's edit history and found the following other articles:

• Timothy A. Hill (U.S. congressional press secretary)
• Steve Godsey
• Jason Mumpower
• Ron Ramsey
• John M. Gregory (American pharmaceuticals executive)

--SirEditALot (talk • contribs) 19:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Morgan Mason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I have been dealing with some tendentious editing by an editor at Morgan Mason. The claims in question are in the sentence which states: "He to this day is the youngest advisor to the President of the United States in history, as well as the youngest delegate to any national political convention." Mason was born in 1955, and is described in the article as a delegate to the 1980 Republican National Convention, which means he would have been 25 at the time. However, I have provided sources on the talk page to indicate that there have been younger delegates at conventions both prior to then and since then (see [3], [4], and [5], for example). The editor in question responded to me as follows: "As for the delegate part, I believe the idea that there were 17 year old delegates is completely ridiculous: again, it is fact that Mason is the youngest delegate in American history." [6] I also added a {{fact}} ("citation needed") template to the claim that Mason was the youngest advisor to the President of the United States in history, since I can't verify that (although I haven't found anyone younger yet). The editor removed the "citation needed" template without providing a source. When I asked why he removed the template [7], he responded, "I took it away because it is proven fact. Just ask the White House website, and I will continue to take away the citation needed if it is put back, because it is just proven fact, just like it's proven fact Hillary Clinton is a United States Senator." [8] I would appreciate other editors' attention to this matter, since we have a situation of unsourced (albeit favorable) material being repeatedly put into a living person's biography, which should not be done per WP:BLP and WP:V. // Metropolitan90 03:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the article has been cleaned up, but I notice that it is substantially lacking in sources--it only has IMDB and nothing to confirm the political activity at all. I'll see what I can do to address that. --Moonriddengirl 12:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

• Helen Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On the Helen Clark page there is an inappropriate section at the beginning. I ask that this section be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.221.169 (talk) 04:33, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

• There are a couple of vandal accounts inserting the material. I reported them to AIV. - Crockspot 04:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• In the future, this sort of obvious vandalism can be handled by AIV. This page is for good-faith (and not-so-good-faith) content disputes and less obvious vandalism. THF 15:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Barbara Schwarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sorry to have to bring it up again. On the article's talk page one of the regular editors pretty much said that one of the purposes of the article is to get the subject deported from the United States. I think this would be against WP policy. Steve Dufour 14:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this. You've drawn quite an extreme inference from a passing remark. I'm going to close this as frivolous unless you can provide more convincing evidence for your contention. Raymond Arritt 14:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is another post from the same editor where he brings up irrelevant gossip about the subject in what seems, to me anyway, to be an attempt at blackmailing her defenders. Steve Dufour 01:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless, heaven forfend, you assume good faith, and take both of the referenced comments to mean precisely what they say. Hypothetically, at Wikipedia, we are looking at edits, not editors, so it is consequences, not intent, that is relevant. Do you have any evidence of improper edits to mainspace? THF 07:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is improper since the subject is only notable for being the subject of a "human interest" story in a local newspaper. Steve Dufour 11:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I tend to agree with you on the larger principle, (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Syring). But that's a content dispute, not a BLP dispute. She's been a party in multiple litigations that have gotten press coverage, and she is a good example of the abuses of pro se litigation, and she has been covered by reliable sources. And unlike Patrick Syring, her article isn't an orphan. The reality is that this article has flunked AFD four times, and I see nothing that has changed since. THF 12:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks THF. I might have over reacted to this. I am confident that the article will be deleted sooner or later. BTW the reason it is not an orphan is mainly because it is listed on the Scientology info box which is included on any article that has some remote connection to Scientology; in Barbara's case she is a former member of the church and still a defender of the faith. My bad. She is not on the info box and her article is linked to a couple of others. Steve Dufour 12:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Reliable source located

We have a situation where a notable individual is claimed to be dead (largely by anonymous IP-number editors), but the only sources are blogs or anonymous press releases. See Talk:Aaron_Russo#Concern_about_crappy_sources for details. Quatloo 20:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Someone located a reliable source. Closing. - Crockspot 02:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• David Miscavige (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regular editors continue to add the information that someone said he renewed copyrights when the material was in the public domain. When this came up before experts on the subject here on WP (thank you) said that this is not illegal. On the other hand, it has no effect. The statement in the article, however, creates the impression that something is wrong. Steve Dufour 11:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dufour on this one. The information isn't even really important enough to be included, it's rather a random and arbitrary thing to stick in there, and it does seem to only serve the purpose of amplifying the appearance of wrongdoing. wikipediatrix 14:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Prince affidavit exposes willful and knowing copyright fraud and is quite relevant to the david miscavige article as he was the person who ordered it done. There is presently no law against it, but it is civilly prosecutable fraud. --Fahrenheit451 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reference that says what Miscavige did was "copyright fraud"? Steve Dufour 15:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve, you can look for one if you want, but sticking a label on it in the article if it cannot be cited would be original research, would it not? Suggest you read up on copyfraud.--Fahrenheit451 16:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The court did not care about what Prince had to say, so what is left of his statement is the attempt to throw mud on his former colleague. Why should we bother continuing other people's private wars? It's sure not per WP:BLP. Shutterbug 15:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. That's the judge signing off on the final settlement agreement between BPI and FACTNet—there's no reason to mention Prince because he wasn't a party, and you know it. Prince's testimony, in part, raised sufficient doubts in the judge's mind that he denied BPI's request for summary judgment and appointed a special master to "untangle the thorny copyright issues involved" with the documents.[9] Until then, there was no sign Scientology wanted a settlement. AndroidCat 21:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good reason not to include the information in the article. Steve Dufour 04:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Matt Drudge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Here is the diff

We cannot directly access the New York Post "Page Six" article mentioning the lawsuit threat (archive function not so good at their website), but we have reliable secondary sources (IMDB, MediaLife Magazine) proving, to my mind, that it was published. Please say whether this edit is ok or not. Thanks.   Skopp   15:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Cites are here^[1][2][3][4]

It's not that we cannot directly access the "Page Six" article on their site but that the archive search doesn't turn up any article mentioning Baldwin or Drudge for 8/06/2002. IMDB and MediaLife both use the Page Six article as the basis for their articles and the Stern archive listed above is a fansite called MarksFriggin.com and makes no mention of the lawsuit. I think we should track down the article before including the material. --PTR 16:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• We have now found two major regional newspapers supporting the text, so case closed. See Matt Drudge Talk for further information.   Skopp   00:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Marcellas Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Marqueemarc has presented himself as Reynolds and states he is credentialing himself in email to the foundation. He disputes the birthdate information at IMDB, claiming that both IMDB and CBS have it incorrect. Aside from IMDB, the only source/link in the article now is Reynolds' blog. // —C.Fred (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am therefore I know...

Hi I'm Marcellas Reynolds and have been editing my page for the last few days. I just sent a note to IMDB to have them remove the same erroneous information about my age. I also sent a note to the people @ CBS to fix a mistake that has been on the site since 2002. I'm unfortunately just learning about all of this. If it helps C. Fred, I found this (http://www.tv.com/marcellas-reynolds/person/141006/summary.html) which frighteningly list my correct age and tons of info. Creepy. Anyway I asked that my age and location be removed from my bio. People use there birthdate as info to get into everything. Also as a past victim of stalking I don't like to have my location really out there. If you need validation please refer to the written help note I wrote to "contact us" @ Wikipedia and to my websites myspace.com/marcellasr and marcellasreynolds.com.

I hope this matter can be cleared up. I'm not trying to damage the site or my page in any way.

Thank you so much. And if someone could help me post a pic on the Marcellas page here that would be awesome.

Sincerely,

M. Reynolds Marqueemarc 05:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sergio Caldas Mercador Abi-sad Brazilian diplomat, lawyer and author

Born in São Fidelis, State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on March the 2nd, 1942. Lawyer degree at the Law School of the University of Brazil and a degree as professional diplomat at the Diplomatic Academy of Brazilian Ministry of External Relations, both in 1966, and has a post-graduation degree in international relations at the Institut Universitaire de Hautes Études Internationales de Genève in 1983.

Professional experience: Executive functions at the headquarters of the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Relations: Special Advisor at the Cultural Department (1966-1967), Head of the Official Personal Register of the Administration Department (1967-1968),Special Advisor at the Immigration Department (1968/1969), Head of the Division for Privileges and Immunities at the Protocol Department (1974/1976), Head of the Department for Human Resources at the Technologic and Scientific Department (1987/1988), Head of the Department for Western European Affairs (1993/1996).

Assignments at Brazilian diplomatic missions abroad: Genoa, Italy, Consul, 1969/1971; Abidjan, Côte d´Ivoire, Second Secretary 1971/1973; Sofia, Bulgaria, 1974/1975;Ottawa, Canada ,First Secretary, 1977/1980; Bern, Switzerland, 1981/1986; Ankara, Turkey, Counsellor, 1989/1990; Beijing, People’s Republic of China, 1990/1993; Vienna, Austria, 1996/1999; Minister-Counsellor at the Brazilian Embassy in Helsinki, Finland, 1999/2002; Head of the Brazilian Office for Trade and Economic Co-operation in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 2002-2005 ; Responsible for the opening of the Brazilian Embassy in Doha, State of Qatar 2005-2006; at present, Head of the Brazilian Representation Office for Trade and Economic Co-operation in Taiwan.

Teaching activities: Teacher at the Diplomatic Academy of the Brazilian Ministry for External Relations , 1975/1976, 1993/1995. Lecturer at the Brazilian Air Force Academy ,1994, at the Brazilian High Studies School for Defense, 1994, at the “Mercuria” International Institute for Business Administration, Helsinki, 1999-2002 , at the University of Helsinki, 2001-2002, at the Brazil-Finland Association, Helsinki,1999-200, at the Chamber of Commerce Finland-Latin America,Helsinki, 1999-2000, at the Finland- Ibero-America Institute, Vaasa, 2001, and at the Finnish Institute for Foreign Relations, Helsinki, 2002. Member of the London Diplomatic Academy, 2002.

Decorations received: Knight of the Order of the Brazilian Navy; Commander of the National Orders of Germany, Italy, Portugal and Côte d’Ivoire.

Author of the following creative works : books: “The power of the dragon- the diplomatic strategy of China”, “The wall and the myth: Deng Xiaoping a story of a man from China told to Brazilians”, “The rebel angels of the celestial peace: Tibet, Xinjiang and Mongolia”; theatrical plays: “The mighty one”, “Ashes and passion”, “Traffic incident”; tv-play: “Immoral dreams”, poetry: “In the mirror of memory”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.219.236.170 (talk) 05:07, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

?? This guy does not even have an article here, as near as I can tell. Does he want someone to write one for him??--Filll 11:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• University of Bradford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Israel Shamir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Taliban Supporters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A number of editors are continually adding to this article, and to related articles, the claim that Imran Khan is "a Taliban leader". They justify this by one reference, at a website called Axcess News. I have never come across this site before, and have no idea whether it is considered normally reliable; but this claim seems palpably false, and potentially libellous. I request administrator intervention to prevent this abuse of Wikipedia. RolandR 13:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that similar material has been added to a few other related articles; I've linked them above as well. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Pakistani politics are murky at the best of times, but this does seem to be very dubious. Axcess News is not by any means a mainstream news outlet and we should be very wary of using it to source such a contentious claim. I've removed the questionable material and warned the three editors who appear to be most active in pushing this line - User:M12390‎, User:Tube Deny‎ and the badly misnamed User:Neutral Ray. -- ChrisO 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the concerns of other editors about the BLP edits of User:M12390‎ and would be grateful for the opinions of others on these. --Slp1 02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. I have added another article of concern.--Slp1 02:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Imran is a fairly common name, and thus Imran Khan is as well. An American reporter might not know that a notable Imran Khan already exists, and thus print it without a disclaimer. Even in a reliable source, I would not assume that "rabid terrorist John Smith" refers to John Smith (UK politician). Hornplease 06:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is, and I initially thought that this was what was going on as well, but it appears that they are specifically referring to Imran Khan the ex-cricketer. As far as I can make out, it appears to be an attempt by one or more political factions to smear Khan by associating him with the Talibs. -- ChrisO 07:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. OK, that drops Axcess News back into the pile of "don't touch with a bargepole" sources. Hornplease 07:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately User:M12390 has continued to violate BLP despite further warnings from FCYTravis; I've therefore blocked M12390 for 24 hours with a warning of a further, longer block if he persists. -- ChrisO 07:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Neutral Ray has also continued to violate BLP on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf despite further warnings from RolandR; I've blocked him for 24 hours. -- ChrisO 01:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Vehicular homicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd request a few more eyes on Talk:Vehicular homicide (and the article, of course). Is what's going on there (listing a person who was accused of a crime but "got off") kosher? I'm not really sure how BLP works exactly anymore, but even before BLP this kind of stuff was problematic. I don't want to just keep reverting the guy though... some outside opinions would be helpful. --W.marsh 14:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have sourced the list of those convicted with a hidden note requesting that all names added be sourced within the article. The list is potentially very controversial and libelous information could easily be inserted. And, speaking of libelous information, I removed Kennedy from the list. All indications I've found suggest he was only ever charged with leaving the scene and was thus never formally accused of vehicular homicide. I made a note to that effect on the discussion page. I'll also keep an eye on the article for a while, since this list does seem ripe with potential for violating BLP. --Moonriddengirl 16:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Aishwarya Rai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Abhishek Bachchan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An anonymous user at 209.8.58.126 continues to add unsourced and potentially libellous material to Aishwarya Rai and also identical material to her husband's page, although it's been reverted more than once. He's been warned twice by me and once by someone else, both on the talk page and his user talk page, and offered assistance to add references if he requires it (which apparently has been rejected). I wonder if it's appropriate to block this new user who is only making edits to these two pages. Accounting4Taste 18:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the insertion of unreferenced, controversial information about living persons is an appropriate reason for blocking. If information is potentially libelous, I'd like to suggest that you consider using the uw-biog templates in warning. Template:Uw-biog3 should make it clear to the anon user (assuming that he or she receives the warnings) that the end-result of continuing to insert potentially libelous unsourced information is blocking. Template:Uw-biog4 is the requisite last warning before taking the matter to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Moonriddengirl 19:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for this guideline, which I will follow in the future, and my apologies for not knowing exactly what to do -- except I figured something needed to be done!! I note that the anon user is now adding references and I also note that admins are watching over the process, which means it will be handled properly. Accounting4Taste 19:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole purpose of community is to help each other figure out what to do. :) Believe me, when I don't know how to handle something, I ask. I'm glad to offer some input. --Moonriddengirl 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

<chuckle> You may regret saying that when I fill your life with questions, but thanks, I may be coming to you in the future for some guidance. Accounting4Taste 19:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The claims were re-added with questionable sources. I've found some decent sources on the case relating to the Dhoom 2 scene, but nothing more recent than this Times of India story. The Mangal Dosha article also discusses the tree marriage incident, but the sources there are conflicting as to whether it actually happened and not all are still live links, so I'm leaving that out for the moment. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Lynette Nusbacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My biography at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynette_Nusbacher is being consistently edited to reveal private information irrelevant to my notability as a little-known person. I have emailed in greater detail. NetNus 22:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The private information in question is available from a British newspaper (and from international newspapers on the first page of google-search links), and, as comments on the talk page indicate, lead to confusion from omission given the redirects for the article. It seems, given the correct note that the subject is "little-known", that the best option under BLP is article deletion. I have PROD'd the article. An admin may wish to speedy-delete. If there is an AFD, the AFD should be blanked afterwards. If the page is kept, admins may wish to consider blanking talk-page history. THF 22:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The newspaper in question is a tabloid, the Sun. BLP policy on Wikipedia is not to act like a tabloid. I would be happy to write to the Sun to ask them to remove the story if that would help. The Sun story does not come up when I google my name.

The Wikipedia article comes up first, however, even before my official web page at work. The international newspapers are not in English, and that concerns me less.

I haven't demanded deletion, but if that's the only way I can get information irrelevant to my notability off of Wikipedia, fine. NetNus 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A previously used name, under which some of the publications which make you notable have been written, is an important fact that needs to be included in the article. Deletion is an option, an obviously incomplete article is not. --Tango 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Given that all of your press mentions and the majority of the google hits to your current name are to the issue you wish to keep private, it would seem to me that deletion is the only way to keep the information off of the encyclopedia. Readers redirected to your page by searching for your more commonly known name are going to be confused, research the issue, and seek to be "helpful" by inserting the information you wish left out. Another option is a full-protect of the clean version of the page, delicately edited to indicate the most recent name-change and nothing else, but that won't stop discussion on the talk page, and I'm not sure Wikipedia even permanently locks articles from editing. But I don't get to make any of these decisions by myself. THF 23:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Listed at deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 28.Geni 01:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Larry Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There have been about 50-100 anonymous edits to this article in the last two hours since a recent salacious scandal broke, and it is surely not the case that all of these edits comply with the Wikipedia BLP policy. I've requested semi-protection, and someone should scour the page after that happens. THF 23:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For example. THF 23:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Mike Rogers is that guy who outs "anti-gay gays", isn't he? He certainly seems to have been right on the mark with regard to Craig. Looking at Talk:Larry Craig, it's amusing to see how much time was spent (last year!) discussing whether Craig was gay or not. I think that question might just have been answered... -- ChrisO 00:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can stick a fork in the question, but we still should not be republishing blog rumors. There are reliable sources aplenty regarding this. - Crockspot 02:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree completely, but it's bound to be mentioned in reliable sources given the circumstances. In fact, I think it already has been (I vaguely recall seeing something on CNN making the connection). -- ChrisO 07:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Page is protected, the "salacious scandal" seems well sourced - the guy pleaded guilty frevvinsake - and I think it inappropriate to omit reference to the event given that it has already impacted the U.S. Presidential campaign. Much more notable than the average celebrity's DUI then re-hab situation, IMHO. Carlossuarez46 18:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is claiming that the widely-reported Minnesota incident shouldn't be included, as it is clearly notable and will likely torpedo the senator's career. The issue was that anonymous contributors were adding many improperly sourced blog rumors of allegedly similar conduct elsewhere. Perhaps these rumors are true, I take no position on that, but BLP is quite clear that they don't belong in the encyclopedia beyond what AP or other reliable sources have said about the blog rumors. THF 19:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Rumors of similar conduct should be excluded; reliably sourced statements to similar conduct are a closer call: as I understand the senator's position, he stated that his actions were misconstrued, if a RS reports similar conduct it would tend to weaken that position. The page is now protected so the anons shouldn't be a problem. Carlossuarez46 19:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I heard that Brit Hume was talking about the blogger mentioned above on his show, so that is probably getting to the point of some kind of includability. Whatever is put in needs to be neutrally worded, and factually accurate as to what was reported. No OR or "connecting the dots"... - Crockspot 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The blog post was widely covered in the press in October 2006. Probably the best source, though, is the Boise Statesman Review, which actually investigated the rumors and got Craig's deatiled reaction to the accusations: "Men's room arrest reopens questions about Sen. Larry Craig". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the rule on categories and BLP? Someone inserted a "Gay Republicans" categorization into the article, which may be true, but Craig denies it. Some real POV-pushing going on in that article, and editors acting inappropriately should be warned. THF 21:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Those categories are absolutely out of order, and have been removed. FCYTravis 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You know... as accurate as it may or may not be, I just don't think including it in Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies is appropriate for a living person who's claimed time and again he's not gay. I'm not trying to defend him, just saying that per the guidelines about contentious/controversial information it seems inappropriate. As expected someone disagreed with me and re-included him. // Paliku 07:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this. Individual projects can decide what is within their scope of interest. If the LGBT studies wanted to include Abraham Lincoln or Wikiproject Judaism wanted to include Christopher Columbus, they may be historically incorrect, but they're entitled to say members of the project might be interested. LGBT studies links to pages like Westboro Baptist Church, but that hardly means that institution is gay. THF 14:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Many blog links and other unreliable sources in possible violation of BLP. THF 01:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look and the only blog link I can see is realclimate.org (in external links). Although WP:BLP does say "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person", I don't think this prohibition quite covers the article in question. The prohibition concerns the use of such sources to provide biographical material; this source, however, is a discussion by a recognised and published expert of the individual's scientific arguments and contains literally no biographical material on the subject other than mentioning his name. It's not being cited in the article, so the prohibition on its use as a source is moot.

As for the "unreliable sources", which did you have in mind? I've just looked through them. Of the 11 references, 5 are to newspaper articles, 4 are by Monckton himself, one is a US Senator's website and one is a book website. Of the 6 external links (not sources of course), 3 are by Monckton, 2 are newspaper articles, and the last one is the above-mentioned blog. Which are unreliable? -- ChrisO 07:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RS/N#Overlawyered, where material by a "recognized and published expert" was systematically scrubbed from BLP articles because it had been published on group blogs. Either BLP's provision on blogs being banned from BLP should be enforced consistently, or it needs to be modified and it should be permissible to cite to Walter Olson's blog when discussing abuses of attorneys, but there is no exception for realclimate: the rule is bright-line.

I now see that some of the links I was thinking about are to Monckton's own writing, so the only one at issue is realclimate. I apologize for my quick look where the first thing I saw was a blog. THF 11:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The pros and cons of the subject's views on Global warming, or Climate change denial, can be dealt with in those articles. In that context self-published writings by published experts in the field may be used with caution. It isn't necessary to discuss all aspects of the subject's writings in his biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, according to the blog itself, some of the same points are covered in a Guardian article.[10] To the extent we need to discuss the issues in the biography that can be used as an alternate source for a significant viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out above, the blog is not being used as a source. It's an external link only. Concerns about the use of a blog as a BLP source are moot if the blog isn't actually being used as a source in the first place. -- ChrisO 18:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The external links guideline lists "links to be avoided", including this entry with a caveat:

• Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. [11]

Since the author of the blog posting is a credentialed NASA scientist published in peer-reviewed journals it would appear that he'd qualify as a "recognized authority". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to be perfectly clear then: SPS weblogs that qualify under WP:EL can be cited as an external link of a biography of a living person? Is that correct? THF 19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The text of the guideline says "recognized authority". Also remember that for these purposes we're looking at individual authors, not entire group blogs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection (while sitting in the dentist's chair) I believe that the source's author must be a "recognized authority" on the topic of the article. While the NASA scientist may be an authority on climate, he is not an authority on the subject of the article: Monckton. So I think the blog reference in question would be better used in articles on climate rather than a biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to repeat something I've already said only this morning, but I'll do so, since people don't seem to be getting this. The piece is not being used as a source, it's an external link (so please don't call it a "source"); and the linked article isn't a biographical piece, it's a review of the subject's scientific arguments with literally no biographical material on the subject other than mentioning his name. Its relevance is covered by WP:EL#What should be linked: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." Since Monckton appears to derive most of his fame (or infamy) from his espousal of climate change skepticism/denial, an expert review of his work strikes me as being a very relevant link for his biographical article. -- ChrisO 00:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Aren't Monckton's views also covered in relevant articles, like Climate change denial? If so why can't we put the link there instead? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, they're not covered there, but this isn't surprising. A person's views on a topic may be significant in terms of their own biography, but they aren't necessarily significant in terms of their impact on the discussion of that topic. For instance, Charles Darwin's views are obviously very significant on the topic of evolution and need to be mentioned in that article, but you couldn't say the same for the views of the creationist Ken Ham. However, because of the notability of their public statements, they need to be covered in their biographies along with the reactions to their views. That's our standard practice for many who've participated in controversial scientific debates - see e.g. Michael Behe, Michael Crichton, Graham Hancock, Bjørn Lomborg, etc. In this case, Monckton's views on climate change are significant in terms of his own profile, but not in terms of the wider debate, in which he's a minor player at best. -- ChrisO 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)