This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Archives

Archive TOC

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 24. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to create another section. A simple update would be sufficient, even unnecessary, as those originally interested and monitoring this noticeboard will have followed the links to the DRV themselves. Relata refero ( talk) 10:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been heated discussion on the article of Geoffrey Edelsten.

The article has the following serious policy issues. WP:COAT - Coatrack, WP:LIBEL - Defamation, WP:BLP - Biographies of Living Persons, WP:NOT - What Wikipedia is Not, WP:HARM - Avoiding Harm.

Negative comments have been removed consistently and then added back by aggressive users. The administrator Doc glasgow has already deleted the comments in question but as mentioned, they continually come back by this selection of users.

Please block users who are performing vandalism and protect this article. It is probably best for deletion. -- Wikifactsright ( talk) 13:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop forum shopping. It's at WP:ANI#Serious and Continuous Wikipedia Policy Breach of BLP and Other Policy Amounting to Vandalism and on the talk page of a user and at talk:Geoffrey Edelsten. You aren't receiving the answers you wanted elsewhere, and I highly doubt that continued pestering of others and edit warring will do much good. seicer | talk | contribs 13:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

All statements at Geoffrey Edelsten are appropriately referenced from independent, third-party sources. Wikifactsright wants to totally bias the article so that it is just a rosy, feel-good story. WWGB ( talk) 14:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that editors in the ANI thread have made a pretty good case for the current form of the article, and have shown that the negative information is in proportion. EdJohnston ( talk) 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The information seems to be in proportion. The user who reported it here has been blocked for 3RR over the article and appears to be a single-purpose account. Orderinchaos 19:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The editor claiming to be Ben Stevens is back removing stuff from his article. Stephens is apparently a Alaska state politician under an FBI investigation. Previously I reported this here a month or so back, and the article was stubbed for careful rebuilding. This time User:Bostonb5 has removed an unsourced section about Stevens' personal life, a link to Stevens' web page (with the edit description of the link as being out of date), and most importantly, an apparently well sourced section that had been restored about the FBI probe. This last section needs close scrutiny before it is re-added. but if the sources do hold up, then IMHO it should remain, reguardless of the wishes of the article's subject. But I'm not a great judge of sourcing and BLP, so here I am asking for assistance in dealing with this situation. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 14:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the "Alaska fishing rights" section and it is validly sourced. I have removed the section listing the names of his wife and children as it is not clear they are public figures. If Mr. Stevens has further concerns I think he needs to take them up with the WMF. Jfire ( talk) 23:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Bostonb5 has left a comment on my talk page. Jfire ( talk) 23:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a potentially defamatory statement in the article, sourced to John Edwards. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Prince#Philanthropy_and_political_donations The offending material was removed from the Erik Prince article by someone else, but it has since been reverted by another user.-- Davidwiz ( talk) 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. This is a noteworthy criticism by a major U.S. political figure. In fact, Edwards is far better known than Prince himself is. If we were citing bloggers or random local opinion columnists, then there would be a problem. But as long as this statement is properly attributed and doesn't overwhelm the rest of the article (per WP:UNDUE), then it should be fine. *** Crotalus *** 00:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Aqsa Parvez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Blatant violations of privacy (of family, not of subject herself) added twice. Please watchlist and delete/oversight inappropriate edits if possible. Andjam ( talk) 05:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm concerned about it if we really need to have this section. I don't see no relevance to the article, the section is cited with mostly no-reliable sources. I removed it but some user claims it should be included because "it has been since 2006" diff.
A category "clasifiying" these people was also deleted. See CfD. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 04:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some help would be appreciated. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a horrible section, chock-full of BLP violations. We've got gang affiliations being sourced to Tripod sites, freely-editable sites like IMDB, and so forth. I've removed it and if anyone puts it back I will take it out again. *** Crotalus *** 13:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I also removed the "same" section in the article Bloods. You may want to have it on your watchlist. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 21:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Mary DeMoss (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Apparently this individual has recently left the Church of Scientology and its intelligence agency, the Office of Special Affairs. This per a post by Mark Bunker at YouTube and a message board post at the website enturbulation.org. As this is a significant development both for Scientology and for this individual, editors should keep a close eye on this article, to make sure that new info is sourced to WP:RS/ WP:V sources. Anon-IPs have already attempted to add this new info in, sourced only to the YouTube post and/or the message board post. // Cirt ( talk) 22:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The notability of this article subject is extremely questionable. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Update: After a request I put in at WP:RFPP, the article was put under semi-protect - this should address the issue of new editors/IPs adding unsourced info to the article, for the time being. (My thanks to Luna Santin ( talk · contribs) for responding to my request at WP:RFPP). Cirt ( talk) 07:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Orl Unho (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is no evidence that this person exists. The one "source" is a YouTube video. There is also a WikiQuote page with an unsourced quote. // ivan ( talk) 06:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Prodded. No reliable sources found during a Google search, just some more blogs, mirrors, and Youtube crap. *** Crotalus *** 13:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Craig Cheffins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A student newspaper is being used as the sole source to spread a story about Cheffins conduct as a teacher (allegedly neglecting his teaching duties). Cheffins is notable as a politician, not a teacher, and I feel this is irrelevant, unencyclopedic, and poorly sourced. IMO, few student newspapers are reliable, particularly on matters of fellow students. -- Rob ( talk) 21:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Student newspapers are definitely reliable sources. They are generally well-written publications of record for their universities, have established policies for fact-checking and sourcing, and most importantly, take responsibility for what they publish. A lot of important journalism is done by students at college papers.

However, I think the issue here is undue weight - as you said, he's really only encyclopedic for his (brief) career as a politician, and a minor dust-up at a university does not seem to me to be relevant to his political career. FCYTravis ( talk) 06:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Mark D. Siljander (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bradley Schlozman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article seems to have been getting somewhat unbalanced after Siljander's indictment in January about his connection to fund-raising for an Islamic charitable organization that was also allegedly a front to raise money for terrorism. Some recent edits seem to be going out of the way to defend Siljander and make defamatory statements about the US Attorney responsible for the indictment, Bradley Schlozman. I'd appreciate some editors more adept at this to lend a hand. older ≠ wiser 02:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point and I am responsible for some of the edits. The original edits were done from articles based on statements later withdrawn.

Much stronger statements of prosecutorial misconduct could be made but not adequately supported. As acceptable sources are only statements from goverment prosecutors, even those facing investigations themselves, as in this case, Wikipedia is used as a tool of propaganda and improperly influencing the justice system.

This site: http://www.truthinjustice.org/p-pmisconduct.htm is a good indication of the type of things we are dealing with. Wikipedia is used, due to its popularity, as a way of "getting the word out", even if that word is unsupportable.

In this case, how can a former congressman be indicted for "terrorism" and still receive support from, not only the SG/UN but former Secretary of State Baker and Attorney General Ed Meese, all very conservative?

If you don't detect a serious smell, then perhaps Wikipedia is totally open to misuse as a form of propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpduf ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Kathy Hilton#Family

Should this article include full names and birthdates of "non-notable" family members?

I don't think so but there seems to be a general tendency to put every celebrity-related thing we can find into Wikipedia, whether or not it is significant.

I would appreciate both an answer to my specific question, and comments on the "general tendency" I sense. Thanks, Wanderer57 ( talk) 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this question is addressed by Wikipedia:Blp#Privacy_of_personal_information. We have no articles on the sons, so I suggest including only the year of birth for them. The birthdays of the two famous daughters may already be widely included in secondary sources. If that's the case, then they may be kept, but if not, they too should be reduced to just the year of birth. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I know we don't have an article on Barron Nicholas, and I'd suggest that while he's not sufficiently notable to rate an article, he is enough of a public figure due to his DUI arrest that including his birthdate, or maybe just birth year, is not particularly intrusive. 18:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I pulled the birthdates (leaving the year) for the two we don't have articles on, and undid the redlinks as well. A DUI arrest does not make someone a public figure. FCYTravis ( talk) 03:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Lobster Boy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This disturbs me a little. The tone is too weird for Wikipedia, and it's been tagged as inappropriate for months. I'm too busy with other stuff to do a cleanup, but I would be grateful if somebody else could at least put it on his watchlist, if not clean it up right now. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 05:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article should be renamed/moved to Lobster Man forthwith. Another Wikipedia subject, Grady Stiles, has been known far and wide as "Lobster Boy" for years. Google gives us 28,600 hits for "Lobster Boy" without the word Carnegie; that would be Grady. Under the article's current name, we risk confusing young knowledge seekers. -- CliffC ( talk) 16:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been several recent edits with unsourced criticisms of blog founder John Aravosis at Americablog. With multiple editors posting negative information, and interspersed less POV edits, it is hard to see how far back to revert without losing possible good edits. See [1] , [2] , [3] , [4]. This article needs someone familiar with its subject and with Aravosis to straignten out whether he is a Republican or Democrat, let alone the other BLP issues. Edison ( talk) 19:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Did some cleanup, issues seem resolved for the time being. Edison ( talk) 21:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A web site that provides property records in New Jersey has been used as a source to document residence of notables in a number of communities -- for Missy Elliott in Kinnelon, New Jersey and for John Madden in Montville, New Jersey -- which raises a few questions.

The first question is the validity of the source. Does the fact that there is someone named John madden who owns property in Montville satisfactorily demonstrate that this is the same person named in the article? For Missy Elliott, the circumstantial evidence is a bit stronger, with the name on the record matching her given name and the owner's address near her hometown in Virginia. Should this be used as a source on this basis?

The bigger question is the propriety of a source that provides an individual's home address, and not just their city of residence, which raises privacy concerns. While I am baffled as to why people who almost certainly have an unlisted number not doing anything to protect this information (say by using a corporation or trust to own the property), this information is in the public record. Is there a privacy issue with this information? Alansohn ( talk) 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless the residence is very well-known, I don't see any good reason to provide residential addresses. That sounds like an appalling privacy issue to me. The sort of exception I'm thinking of might be, for example, the Neverland Ranch. I wouldn't have any problem with property records being used in that sort of article, where the property itself is well-known. TJRC ( talk) 20:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not happy with the use of the source, but why would this be any worse than using a phone book entry as a reference? Alansohn ( talk) 21:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this is speculative synthesis. The fact that someone owns a property somewhere does not necessarily mean they live in that location. They could have bought the home as an investment, or for a friend, or for any number of other reasons. Ownership isn't equivalent to residency. FCYTravis ( talk) 21:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As a top rated website, we would be putting into widespread circulation information that otherwise would be a bit less prominent. We don't publish the birthdates of less notable people, and we do not publish the (listed) phone numbers or certain other information that could be found in other databases. Then, too we are extremely likely to publish as the street address of a celebrity the actual address of the celebrity's elderly relative for whom he bought a home, or the address of someone else with the same name. If the person is the target of kooks or assassins, this could lead to serious harm. Even if the address is accurate, it is unlikely to be relevant and might aid stalkers. This smacks of original research if it comes from someone's database rather than a published source. Edison ( talk) 21:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Two words: Rebecca. Schaeffer.. TJRC ( talk) 22:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Property records cannot be used as per BLP [5] " Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. ". Momento ( talk) 04:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Dawn Wells (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Proxy User seems rather obsessed with somehow connecting a minor ex-Gilligan's Island actress with marijuana use, to the point of creating an entire section heading entitled "Marijuana incidents" and repeatedly reinserting uncorroborated, recanted claims. I have reverted to last good and protected; more eyes and a cluebat would be handy. FCYTravis ( talk) 03:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why use full protection, instead of a blocking the offending user (and maybe semi-protect to stop socks). No other user seems to be causing a problem in that article, so why stop others from editing. -- Rob ( talk) 04:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Don Murphy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• user Runabrat ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• user Curiosity Inc. ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently overhauled the article for Don Murphy, and the work has been undone by at least two editors. One editor says in his edit summary, "Page reverted back to the Wikipedia and Don Murphy approved version." Can people who are more familiar with WP:BLP please review the article and see if the expansions I made are unacceptable? RTFA ( talk) 00:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Runabrat has been blocked. — Athaenara ✉ 08:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Curiosity Inc. has also been blocked. — Athaenara ✉ 08:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Banning SPA RTFA from Don Murphy. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The article on Daniel Pipes is dominated by two subjects: Pipes' views on various issues ("Views and positions" section) and other people's views on Pipes ("Praise, criticism and controversy" section). Both these sections comprise the bulk of the article, each of them easily outweighing the section with biographical information, so that right now the article is not biography, but a collection of quotes, either from Pipes or about Pipes. One section ("Campus Watch") is not even about Pipes, but about a certain project started by a think tank that Pipes runs. The article thus suffers from serious WP:COAT problems, which probably put it in violation of WP:BLP as well. The easiest solution would be to: 1. Cut sections "Views and positions" and "Praise, criticism and controversy" to only those views held by Pipes and comments about Pipes that clearly add to his notability. 2. Remove section on Campus Watch as irrelevant to Pipes' biography.

Beit Or 21:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The "think tank" in question, according to reliable sources, consists of Pipes and one other full-time researcher. Basically, the think tank and Pipes are interchangeable, and the think tank is actually only notable as a conveyor for Pipes' views. That being said, it certainly is the case that some trimming of views is possible in that article. I note, however, far from being a BLP vio, some of the more frank reviews of Pipes' work by academics are actually not in there. Relata refero ( talk) 14:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to expand the article Don Murphy with verifiable information from reliable sources. This is my revision, and I was wondering if any interested editors experienced with WP:BLP would like to join discussion at Talk:Don Murphy to evaluate all aspects of my revision and determine how to best describe Don Murphy's personal life and professional career as significantly reported by published, third-party sources. RTFA ( talk) 17:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You are a SPA account designed to attack Don Murphy and draw the Foundation into unpleasantness. It was your sloppy revision which led to the revert war and the afd. The fact that you chose a wholesale reversion of the article after all that happened confirms it. You have only edited with this one article and your obsession with this individual alarms me greatly. TheUnknownCitizen ( talk) 21:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Don Murphy article is marked with a padlock symbol. Isn't it usual for locked articles to carry a note re why they are locked? Thanks. Wanderer57 ( talk) 22:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a topic ban to restrict RTFA from Don Murphy. Interested parties can comment here.-- Doc^g 22:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is engaging in blatant WP:BLP violations on Eric Lerner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), starting with an attempt to make a controversial claim concerning him sourced only to a political attack website [6] [7] [8], and continuing with the use of original research for the purpose of criticizing Eric Lerner's work justified only by personal attacks against myself [9], both in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. Though WP:BLP also requires strict adherence to WP:NPOV, ScienceApologist is also engaging in blatantly imbalanced editing by removing information concerning Eric Lerner's theories sourced to peer reviewed journals, including one published by the respected Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, while insisting that personal faculty webpages and blogs constitute good, reliable sources for criticism of Eric Lerner -- please see [10], which uses [11] and [12] as sources, as well as ScienceApologist's explanation of why blog posts are reliable sources, but peer reviewed journals published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers aren't [13]. John254 21:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Testicular_cancer#Famous_survivors needs better sourcing, or else the entries should be removed. Corvus cornix _talk 02:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page on Jordan Maxwell keeps getting reverted back to a highly biased version submitted by Cohan8 where Jordan is basically accused of being a fraud/charlatan.

Here are some quotes: [quote] Many view the way he conducts his research as pseudo professional and heavily based on the sale of his own products rather than the objectivity of the "research" itself. [/quote]

[quote] is a self proclaimed researcher and independent scholar in the fields of astrology, theology, religion, secret societies, the occult, and UFOlogy since 1959. He has produced numerous video lectures and documentaries on these subjects. [/quote]

Also, the article repeatedly puts "believes" in scare quotes so as to demean any claims he makes.

This kind of personal bias reflects poorly on Wikipedia as a reputable source for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.88.83 ( talk) 02:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the issue raised above, there are other problems here IMO. As it stands, a significant part of the article seems to me to be a copy violation of one of the references.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/doug_jmaxwell.htm

Will someone else please take a look at this

I removed the section "FBI surveillance" as it had no references at all. Wanderer57 ( talk) 05:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Post-arbitration BLP article is under arbitration probation and full protection. Seeking independent review for a proposed job title update.

Currently the article calls Mr. Sanchez an embedded blogger. The proposed change would be embedded journalist, to be substaniated by a citation to the Weekly Standard. Five separate sources support the proposed change, also including humanevents.com and nationalreview.com.

No editor has produced a citation opposing the change, but the proposal has not received unambiguous support. Reelm objected when the first two citations were offered and has not commented after three more citations were supplied. A brand new account called Dale720240 showed up today and argued against a different warning that had not been proposed. An odd thing is that this is the account's only post [14] and the article talk page is semiprotected. Multiple sitebans have been implemented in connection with this article, so it is likely that a banned editor created that account and waited four days for the specific purpose of complaining.

Talk:Matt_Sanchez#Change_embedded_blogger_to_embedded_journalist

In compliance with the article probation I ask for an uninvolved editor to weigh the merits of this proposal. Yes, I'm posting this thread just to ask whether we can change one word blogger to journalist. Durova ^Charge! 19:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Response requested. Durova ^Charge! 02:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have concerns about the amount of private information that contributors appearing to be trying to put into the article with dubious sourcing. In particularly, people appear to be trying to put her alleged real name in the article, despite the fact the only sourcing appears to be from employment records and IRS records and she has expressed a wish not to have it included. Also, her birthdate is include despite the OR used to derive it (see the footnote). Anyone else agree with me on this Nil Einne ( talk) 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I protected the article because of edit warring over this. On looking into it further, I agree with your points. User:Yeago needs to be restrained here, and is now repeatedly posting a presumed name in bold on the article talk page. Note there has been contention over this article in the past over a different issue, namely an attack site concerning the subject. Ty 15:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I need to be restrained in what sense? I'm engaging in a discussion about the matter, just like you. I'm repeating posting a name in pursuit of my points, and I'm not sure if you're implying bad faith in my doing so, but I use bold occasionally to illustrate points. Also, please do not connect me (if you may suspect) to the 'attack site', as I had never read it before today, nor am I a reader of BoingBoing or anything else like that. I'm simply looking for Wikipedia standards to be extended to this article. Yeago ( talk) 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hydrino theory (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TStolper1W ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Michaelbusch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article on Randell Mills, the inventor of this theory, was merged into this article. Tom Stolper wrote a book on Mills, his SPA is currently on 1RR (see COI Noticeboard archive). His opponent Michael Busch has just left the project.

After a slow edit war, Tom Stolper has now begun to change only a few things at a time [15], enabling reasonable discussion. I am concerned about the plagiarism comment. The accusation seems credible, and the justification added by Stolper unconvincing. But our only source for the accusation in the first place is the blog of a physicist who avoids using the word. More blunt formulations can be found in forum posts, but that seems to be all.

I am inclined to remove the accusation, but that will probably be questioned. I'd appreciate it if someone could have a look. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 15:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have found the relevant BLP passages after all, but as it's not a biography in the strict sense I would still like to have some input, especially concerning the categorisation of a one man show theory as pseudoscience. I have removed both the plagiarism accusation and the potentially offensive categories. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 21:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Magdi Allam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm involved in a dispute with a single purpose account over the article Magdi Allam. I know almost nothing about the subject of the article, but when I saw it, it seemed to me there were clear problems with it. Before this goes farther, I'd like to get some advice as to whether I'm reading the situation properly. Is this a clearly a POV article with unsourced contentious statements? Should I continue removing the unsourced statements, which the account has reinserted?

Thanks. -- Bwwm ( talk) 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain presidential eligibility.

Two editors are trying to interject original research into articles relating to John McCain that he is inelligble to be president because he was not born in the United States. One of these editors User:2ndAmendment is new account (created March 19, 2008) and I suspect may be a WP:SOCK given their knowledge of WP policy and creation of this article after only 3 edits. The other editor User:Mr.grantevans2 has been trying to insert contentious material into the McCain primary article for some time. With the recent creation of this article, they appear to be performing original research to "prove" their case, and are using an unreliable (and McCain attack source) as a premise for their assertation that McCain does not qualify by this webpage's defintion of a natural born citizen. Discourse does not seem to be working at this time. Arzel ( talk) 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources they are using look pretty reliable to me (MSNBC and New York Times) but I AfD'd it on the basis that it's not worth of a seperate article. -- Naerii 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I reverted the insertion of the unreliable part. Look at the history. I don't have a problem with having the article in general, it is a topic of discussion, and I suspect it will become more of an issue as the election draws on. I do have a problem with editors that feel he is inelligible trying to present their research on this matter. Arzel ( talk) 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I was wondering where your link to WordPress was coming from. I looked at the old revision and the paragraph:

The constitution does not define "natural born Citizen". One definition, however, is "where only the natural act of one being born in a place determines the status of ones citizenship with no additional stipulations necessary to influence that status".[3] The definition put forth by Blackstone in 1765 is "Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England".[4]

is almost certainly original research and/or synthesis. Talk:John_McCain#Is_McCain_a_.22Native_Born_American.22.3F is interesting, shows the POV pushers ignoring what seems (to me) to be a consensus that McCain's citizenship is not a significant issue. I'd say drop a note on their talk page about BLP but it looks like they're already experienced editors.. sigh. It looks like the fork is going to be deleted, btw. -- Naerii 19:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please will people with a sense of BLP issues take a look at this?

It concerns the article Rob Grill. There is discussion in Talk:Rob Grill about whether or not to include a particular news story in the article.

We requested a third opinion, which was to come to this page for an opinion. So we are here.

Thank you. Wanderer57 ( talk) 23:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some questionable stuff from the article proper, but I'm unsure of the policy regarding talk pages. Can someone take a look and redact/excise anything that violates? Thanks. Exxolon ( talk) 02:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Same as with the article, we don't tolerate BLP vios on talk pages either. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Carolyn Farb (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - repeated entry of what I feel is unsourced, questionable material. Need your feedback, please. Thanks, Postoak ( talk) 05:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Im looking for Rated FA-Class or better examples of poets/writers but falling under BLP. One first class rate article for a poet I found is William Butler Yeats. But he is not living... Any BLPs? User:Wikidas 10:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There are none (unless you expand the set to include Bob Dylan). Seamus Heaney is the best of the lot, and you can see the state its in. Strangely, however, Modernist poetry in English is FA-class. Relata refero ( talk) 12:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

When you say poets/writers do you mean poets or writers or someone who is a poet and writer? If you mean the former then there is J. K. Rowling, David Helvarg, Thomas Pynchon, Bruno Maddox and William Gibson, all of whom are writers of some kind from a quick look (Well I recognise most of them anyway). I don't think any of them are really poets. There are a whole bunch of FA non BLP poets, Chinese, Bengali, American and others. Check out Category:FA-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles (which I found from Category:FA-Class biography articles which I found from Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography). If Wikipedia:Category intersection is ever implemented, then I guess we could just intersect BLP and the above category but in the mean time, you can just look thru the FA list and look for BLPs (but I looked thru the whole list and I'm pretty sure there are no poet BLPs there) Nil Einne ( talk) 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Edit: [16] may be useful Nil Einne ( talk) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, this should probably be on the talk page. But honestly, would you read it there?

I am trying to define and analyse the BLP problem. I've made a start at User:Doc_glasgow/The BLP problem. But I'd really like feedback from anyone with an interest. Thanks.-- Doc^g 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Don Murphy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been the subject of intense controversy recently and is currently fully protected following a spate of vandalism. The controversy has not abated and has every possibility of continuing for some time. It would be helpful if uninvolved editors could watchlist it to ensure that further vandalism is reverted promptly in the event of its protection being lowered (which will presumably happen at some point). -- ChrisO ( talk) 21:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Entire article has nearly no citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh0570fchurch ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There does not seem to be anything of concern from a BLP perspective here - unless you consider claiming someone worked with My Bloody Valentine is libelous. Which you should. Skomorokh 23:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

from current text: "Because the Vietnam War was raging in 1968, many people found that they had to have connections or influence in order to gain admission to the Reserves and thereby avoid serving in jungle warfare in Vietnam."

gratuitous and irrelevant with clear intent of malignant inference. delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clanranald ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely right out, and has been removed. The clause was inserted by an anon IP back in February. Page watchlisted. FCYTravis ( talk) 02:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Laura Bozzo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I need some help with the Laura Bozzo article, which I believe has been a longtime troll magnet. First off, I had to clean out some dubious info about Bozzo today, sourced with the site LatinGossip.com, practically a self-published blog site that makes no proof of its claims whatsoever. ON a similar note, another BLP page is using the site. I think LatinGossip.com should be blacklisted.

And now regarding the Laura Bozzo page. IP's are continuously vandalizing it so that it's slanted towards her controversial talk show career. Take this vandal for instance. It took about 2 weeks for removal of accurate content to be restored, by me in this instance. ( Here's the source documenting the claim about her "women's rights" activism/legal scholarship I restored). Things get worse as days go by. This right here is unacceptable because it fails to give proper sources to such claims. And this was the new lowlight I just had to remove on Saturday. I'm just raising concern over the Bozzo article so that administrators can help in keeping the integrity/accuracy of the article and deal with LatinGossip.com and other libel that may be added again to the Bozzo article, possibly even protect it. Thank you. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 22:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks OK now, and there is no enough disruption to warrant protection. I will add this article to my watchlist for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have it on my watchlist too. If libelous edits continue, I'll revert 'em. You can too. Protection may come if necessary. Also, what's Wikipedia gonna do with the LatinGossip.com site I just mentioned? Should'nt that site be blacklisted for being basically an unverifiable, inaccurate site? -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 05:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a serious BLP issue, just a minor one, as the claims made are not really controversial, but a third party opinion would be good for resolving the dispute. The dispute is related to the current citizenship of Mr. Lotfi Zade. According to Mr Lotfi Zade himself: "I am the citizen of the United States. I was born in Baku, but I was not Soviet citizen, I was an Iranian citizen. In 1944 I came to the States as an immigrant, not as a student". This clearly means that this person is currently a US citizen and he used to be a citizen of Iran in the past. However according to User:07fan, Mr Lotfi Zade has at present the Iranian citizenship as well, but the aforementioned user fails to present any source to support this claim. While I do not consider this to be a serious issue, BLP rules require that any info about the living person needs to be properly sourced and be accurate. A third party opinion on this issue would be appreciated. Grandmaster ( talk) 06:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Grandmaster is making an WP:OR assertion that that Lotfi Asker Zadeh is no longer an Iranian citizen or that he is "former Iranian citizen", sonly based on the fact that Zadeh also became an American citizen in 1994. However, User:Grandmaster is ignoring the fact that "Voluntary acquisition of a foreign citizenship does not lead to automatic loss of Iranian citizenship". [17]. Zadeh has never said "I am a former Iranian citizen", he grew up in Iran, moved to US on an Iranian passport, and even after moving to US, lived and worked in US and traveled around the world as an Iranian for decades, and did not acquire an American citizenship until 1994, three years after he had retired, and there is no indication whatsoever that Zadeh ever renounced his Iranian citizenship. Furthermore, BBC, in a recent interview, refers to Zadeh as "an Iranian scientist" and I have even offered User:Grandmaster to contact Zadeh and ask him if he ever renounced his Iranian citizenship, but User:Grandmaster has so far refused to do so. More discussions can be found at Talk:Lotfi_Asker_Zadeh -- 07fan ( talk) 07:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The OR is to assert that a person holds a certain citizenship without any sources to support this claim. Mr Lotfi Zadeh talks about his Iranian citizenship in the past tense, and there's no other evidence to support the claim on his second citizenship. I would be glad to see any reliable source about that. Again, I do not consider this to be a big issue, but for the sake of accuracy this info should be verified. Grandmaster ( talk) 12:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been some debate on the Mark Trombino page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Trombino) about including a quote from a member of a band he worked with.

It is verifiable, but is not a particularly positive comment. I believe this is allowed by Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, which clearly allows for opinions if they are sourced and attributed (see specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements)

Can someone please confirm this, because a user takes the quote down, almost daily. I'm completely impartial here, I just found the quote to be very interesting! Mikenosilly ( talk) 00:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A new user has repeatedly (>6 times) tried to add poorly-sourced OR that, among other things, alleges that the article subject's support of a certain bill shows that she has violated her Democratic values. All attempts to conform to policy and reach consensus have been met by continued reverts and personal attacks. It's a low-traffic article and I could use someone to give an outside opinion, help revert the offending content, and better-introduce the new user Bobheath ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). johnpseudo 01:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice the offending user's talkpage was a redlink as of your writing this; it might have been a more appropriate forum to escalate the discussion, per WP:DR#Discuss. Skomorokh 01:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! I incorrectly capitalized the name. It should be fixed now. johnpseudo 03:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The page has now been fully protected. Various other opinions have been given to Bobheath on the talkpage, which will hopefully sink in.-- Slp1 ( talk) 13:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Cult free world ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (sig piped through "talk-to-me!" lately)
• User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India (  | [[Talk:User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two court cases have found the statements User:Cult Free World is making here libelous and defamatory.

The details are described here on the page's "Miscellany for Deletion" page. Thank you for reviewing the actual court case which is provided in the above post. Renee ( talk) 22:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India is the current link. — Athaenara ✉ 22:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just been moved here: Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India. Thanks. Renee ( talk) 22:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, two different pages: the MfD itself and its talk page. The specifics of the libel and defamation issues are addressed more specifically on the latter. — Athaenara ✉ 23:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Cult Free World just posted yet another claim of sexual abuse as fact here, when two courts in India have found such allegations libelous and defamatory. This is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy. Please, can someone act? Renee ( talk) 19:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please take care of another BLP violation, described here? It derogates the living guru of this meditation system by taking liberties with translating from non-English sources. The tone of this whole article is to make Sahaj Marg sound as strange as possible when in fact it is a meditation group that is not on any English language cult list and is considered by the United Nations to be a spiritual and humanitarian non-governmental organization. Thanks!! Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 17:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Removed unsourced material per WP:BLP

Sebastian Bleisch is a living person and shows up in Category:Child pornography with no other real people. Could someone check this our as far a appropriateness of the categories he is listed under. Thanks! Mattisse ( Talk) 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Removed unsourced catgegory per WP:BLP

Sylvia Bourdon is a living person and is listed under Category:Animal pornography, Her article has no reference ctations. Thanks! Mattisse ( Talk) 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Removed unsourced category per WP:BLP

Same problem as above. How do living people become listed under Category:Animal pornography. Thanks! Mattisse ( Talk) 00:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Page has been speedily deleted per A7.

• Ben Modo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Subject proposed his own article for deletion here. The entire article is sourced to only one book, and no web sources. Some of it appears to be disparaging.

I am inclined to ask for speedy deletion in order to clear the history. Article could then be recreated with proper references. Is this right?

There is an open RfC as well. — BradV 00:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Closing this as resolved since the page was speedy deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 01:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Desi Arnaz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Note - this is reposted from BLP page.) Wanderer57 ( talk) 02:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm posting this here because, though the subject of the article is no longer alive, I believe his children are.

This diff has just been posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Desi_Arnaz&diff=198326795&oldid=197729277

I don't have the reference material at hand tonight but I am 'assuming' for the moment that the information in the edit is true.

Question one - how does one decide if the episode described is 'important enough' to be included in the article?

Question two - should the information be left in or taken out of the article in the interim?

I would appreciate feedback on this. Wanderer57 ( talk) 02:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first this should be at the BLP noticeboard, not here. See WP:BLPN. That said, I don't see any serious concern since the children are mentioned only in passing in this context. I'm not sure that the incident justifies mention at all though. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a BLP concern. Presuming it is merely a content dispute, the first place to discuss whether the detail merits inclusions is probably at Talk:Desi Arnaz. I'd request feedback there, and if there are no objections remove it after several days. If wider opinions are sought, you might look for one of the other dispute resolution avenues, like WP:3O. Since it is not a BLP concern and it is sourced, I would not remove it until consensus to do so is reached (or until it is obvious that there are no objections.) -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think with celebrities there is a tendency for editors to take an "if it's negative, include it" approach. Is this just me being "negative" or do others here find the same tendency? Thanks, Wanderer57 ( talk) 13:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that seems to be the way of things - "if it's negative, include it". To my mind, this is tabloid material, unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The incident received no publicity, that I can find, and is not a notable event in Arnaz' career. Its inclusion seems to serve no other purpose but to paint Arnaz in a negative light. The vieled implications regarding his living daughter strike me as an invasion of her personal privacy. I've removed it. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Let the editor who inserted it defend its relevance and importance to the article. Cleo123 ( talk) 07:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to semi-protect or otherwise stop the inclusion of "Rep. Waters said she's going to cast her Superdelegate vote for Candidate A but Candidate B won in her district and that goes against the will of the voters."

This is irrelevant to Maxine Waters' biography and it misrepresents the Superdelegate process. The Wikipedia article on Superdelegates states, "All the superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.143.161 ( talk) 04:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's been presented as a controversy, it had better have been significantly covered by reliable sources as a controversy. Otherwise, out it goes. It it's persistently re-inserted, we can evaluate what combination of blocks and protection would be best. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 07:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm an Obama supporter and I really don't see how it's relevant. Lots of superdelegates have endorsed candidates that didn't win their district's popular vote. George Miller endorsed Obama but Clinton won California CD-7. FCYTravis ( talk) 16:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well thank heavens for you! (Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic). I'm so sick of trying to explain to both sides (I happen to support Clinton although I don't work for her as the person who threatened to subpoena my IP address and alert the media said I did) that there in no official correlation to be made between a Superdelegte's district's popular vote and the candidate the Superdelegate choses to support. -- Smart Ways ( talk) 19:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the "warning" I received:

Please stop your campaign to erase evidence of Superdelegates who are voting for Clinton despite their districts voting for Obama. You've done it more than once, and objectivity and relevance is clearly not your motive. If you want fairness and objectivity you would leave these entries alone and also add similar entries to Obama superdelegates who's districts voted for Clinton.

If you keep up your current shenanigans, I will act to have your IP blocked, and traced. If you happen to have made these alterations from an official computer that is in an office allied with Hillary, or Waters, or Richardson, I will be sure the media finds out. You don't want that kind of press.

Again, the way to tackle this issue with integrity and objectivity is to ensure every superdelegate's pledged vote is noted, along with whether or not the vote contradicts the vote of the superdelegate's constituents.

-- Smart Ways ( talk) 19:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This middle school teacher wrote this page about himself as a means of self promotion. If you go on his own website, you will find the exact same content. There are also no citations whatsoever on his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astroidea ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Where's the text copied from? If it's a copyright violation, we can speedily delete it. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 07:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the information in the article is referenced, although not with in-line citations (not a requirement). I see no evidence in the history of a copyright violation. Typically when something is a copyright violation you'll see the whole thing created in one edit, and that has not happened here. Also, the article has already been nominated for speedy deletion, and was declined. If you feel strongly about it you could take it to AfD. — BradV 14:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

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

the material under controversy had been removed quite a while ago---despite the editor it keeps going back in--here was one of editors earlier comments

Preceding paragraph reformatted to fit page. Cheers, Lindsay 16:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

comment removed:

Controversy

Michael's Brother, Bruce Ratner, heads Forest City Ratner a company which has been accused of having undue influence in New York politicians which has resulted in controversial building projects in Brooklyn, and of eminent Domain Abuse. Critics have accused Michael Ratner of making contributions to politicians that help his brother, to the extent where his offices are used for meetings and as 'drop offs' for campaign contributions including one to Roger Green who was indicted. In short, critics accuse Michael's concern for human rights ends where Ratner family interests begin:

Michael Ratner and his wife, Karen Ranucci, both Greenwich Village residents, have recently made campaign contributions using Forest City Ratner's Brooklyn building as a return address. Ranucci has matched many of her husband's contributions. And Bruce Ratner's girlfriend, Pamela Lipkin, as well as other Ratner family members, have made contributions engineered by an FCR lobbying firm.

"For Bruce and Michael, however, business in Brooklyn comes first. That's why Bruce's company has required gag orders of those selling property for the Atlantic Yards project, thus clamping down on criticism and even requiring sellers to say that Forest City Ratner treated them honorably.

That's why, even though Bruce and Forest City Ratner (FCR) stopped giving political contributions years ago - apparently to dispel suspicion that the donations helped win projects - Michael and his wife Karen Ranucci, the development director of left-wing radio show "Democracy Now," stepped in to fill the breach. Though residents of Greenwich Village, they reliably wrote checks to Brooklyn candidates from the county Democratic machine. Some contributions, according to state records, even had the return address of Forest City Ratner headquarters in Brooklyn. Michael, who apparently has an office there, owns a piece of the Nets, the sports team his brother wants to bring to Brooklyn. The extended Ratner family controls FCR's parent company, Cleveland-based Forest City Enterprises." [ http://www.brooklyndowntownstar.com/StoryDisplay.asp?PID=4&NewsStoryID=7470 The Ratner campaign money trail leads to... Michael (& his wife)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawhigh ( talk • contribs) 16 March 2008

• Hello, Shawhigh. I've tweaked the formatting of your note a bit to make it easier to understand for other editors. I hope you don't mind. A quick glance tells me that the editor who is re-inserting this information claims that circumstances have changed since the above note and that the source now meets the reliability standards. I'm looking a bit more deeply now. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this insertion, in spite of its citation now to a newspaper, is inappropriate as it stands per WP:BLP. Among other problems, the title of the reference is inaccurate ( the newspaper article is called "Democracy Now? Ratner Plays Hardball When It Counts" not "The Ratner campaign money trail leads to... Michael (& his wife)") and inflammatory. The extensiveness of the material is problematic with regards to Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism, which indicates that we are to "[b]e careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one" and also notes that "If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article." This particular newspaper article seems to be an editorial. If there are critics (as the insertion claims), rather than "critic", surely there are more reliable sources that can be cited than this editorial? It may be that the viewpoint of this critic (and we see only one) should be represented within the article, but it will definitely have to be pruned and appropriately presented as what it is: the so-far-as-we-know unsubstantiated allegations of one man. Before making that choice, however, we also need to consider the section of WP:V that is titled "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Newspapers typically do meet WP:RS requirements. Editorials that do not cite the sources of their allegations? Any other thoughts? -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, you claim a. the allegations are unsubstantiated - this is false - the evidence is clearly supported and verfiable (campaign contributions are easily available via the NYState donor database, where the reporter first found them) - and are referenced on the reporter's blog. the article is not an editorial, it is a, I suppose a side issue a very controversial developer (Michael's brother, Bruce) and his tactics, which have raised red flags with a lot of newspapers and editorial boards in the areas where he operates. the basic facts of the article could be put back into the biography - they are easily verfiable: Michael Ratner and his wife live in Greenwhich village - (manhattan) but make campaign contributions to local politicians in Brooklyn (another borough) where his brother is involved in highly controversial development projects. Further since his wife runs "Democracy Now" - many activists and opponents feel this shield Bruce Ratner from further scrutiny 141.157.248.209 ( talk) 13:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, 141.157.248.209, and thanks for weighing in. If this individual's tactics have raised red flags with a lot of newspapers, then it seems it should be easy enough to find multiple reliable sources to verify this. If multiple reliable sources are commenting on the same issues, then there will no longer be any question of whether this one source meets WP:V or is problematic with regards to WP:BLP in terms of reliability or weight. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Neve Gordon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Steven Plaut (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia sockpuppets of Borisyy and Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Borisyy

Neve Gordon has won a libel action in an Israeli court, confirmed at appeal, against Steven Plaut. Since the appeal court ruling at the beginning of this month, there have been a dozen edits to the article, repeating the substance of the original libels, by confirmed or suspected sockpuppets of Borisyy. I have requested semi-protection of this page, in order to prevent libellous edits by sockpuppets, but this has been refused. Is there any other way to prevent such libellous vandalism and abuse? RolandR ( talk) 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Plaut article is protected, the Gordon article is not. Interesting. — Athaenara ✉ 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection has twice been refused. The libellous attack has been repeated twice since I commented earlier. RolandR ( talk) 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Truthprofessor apparently has something to do with this as well. — Athaenara ✉ 22:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be all the work of the vandal known as "Runtshit"; some of us might hazard a guess as to this person's real identity. RolandR ( talk) 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dorothy Tillman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) unblock-en-l received a complaint about the content of this article, which does seem sketchy to my eyes. More eyes would be appreciated. Wily D 14:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have had a go at cleaning out some inappropriately sourced material, links etc from this article. I think Ms. Tillman is probably more interesting than the current article implies but that will have to wait for somebody who will do the appropriate writing and sourcing. I will keep an eye on it.-- Slp1 ( talk) 01:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I restored some of the controversy section after fixing the dead links, and kept the neutral section header. I did this before I was aware of an external complaint, and I'm happy to discuss how we can fix the article while keeping a moderate amount of this material. Tillman is very well-known locally for the incidents listed in the article, several of which contributed to her re-election loss. I think the sourcing is fine now (no blogs, everything is sourced to media with reputations for fact checking), but I would appreciate a review of the writing. Skinwalker ( talk) 13:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Goli Ameri (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User Mahmoudg, using his username and possibly at times when not logged in, is consistently adding negative-biased, unsubstantiated information to the Goli Ameri article // Mahmoudg ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) // Johndoe555 ( talk) 16:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Carnes, a BLP, is the only person under Category:Sexual addiction. Thanks! Mattisse ( Talk) 01:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed the category. Are there other concerns? — BradV 01:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! No other concerns. Mattisse ( Talk) 15:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter Braunstein (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added links. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 17:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

Peter Braunstein is a living person convicted of a sex offense. I am wondering if this article is adequately sourced for the statements made in it. Also, is it appropriate to have a "Trivia" section in BLP? Mattisse ( Talk) 14:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It could certainly use a few more newspaper articles as references, especially for the statements marked with {{fact}} tags. The article claims that the case received "a lot of media attention", so it should be easy for someone to find sources. — BradV 14:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cynthia Payne (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added links. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 16:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

Cynthia Payne BLP article is unreferenced. She in in category:Sex worker and Category:People acquitted of sex crimes . She allegedly ran a brothel. Thanks, Mattisse ( Talk) 16:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Matisse: You can fix these issues on you own... Just follow WP:BLP. As we say so fix it ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Biographies_of_living_people ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Boris Berezovsky (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (adding links) --16:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

I'd guess Boris has seen this page before. He is very controversial for many reasons. My call is that the article is ok, using well documented sources, but there is a discussion going on now about BLP concerns. I don't think "compliant with BLP" is equivalent to "whitewash," but others might want to take a look and give their own reading to the situation. Smallbones ( talk) 18:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Zakir Naik (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is frequently a target by vandals or editors who believe the article is a dumping ground for any or every view espoused by Naik.

• ISKapoor ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and an associate of his, Vikramsingh ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), keep inserting tendentious material aimed to reflect negatively on Naik by focusing unduly on one or two particular opinions of his (~3kb of content in a 9kb article, much of which is already about controversy/criticism). This consists primarily of lengthy quotes derived from youtube websites or interviews. [19] There was a consensus developed some time ago that the article would not become an unencyclopedic coatrack for every opinion he held, either to promote or defame him. It's not relevant to his notability in any way, and I believe it's inappropriate to continue inserting these lengthy passages about what Naik thinks about Muslims or non-Muslims or whatever. I have advised ISKapoor about BLP policy several times on the talk page, but he refuses to get the message. I'd appreciate some assistance. ITAQALLAH 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Verklempt, in violation of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, is tendentiously making edits to restore material on alleged plagiarism by Alan Dershowitz. Groupthink ( talk) 06:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Verklempt is restoring impeccably sourced edits, about a topic that is already the subject of an entire Wikipedia article: Dershowitz-Finkelstein_affair. Verklempt ( talk) 20:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly seems as notable as any of the other examples in there. (Though frankly I haven't the vaguest idea why there's a list of examples in there at all.) -- Relata refero ( disp.) 18:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Alberto Lugo is a living person. The article is unsourced. There is one external link to an informal article at a boxing website. Mattisse ( Talk) 14:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion with prod, after doing a couple of web searches and not finding any sources. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 16:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. – Mattisse ( Talk) 18:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome; I'm happy to be able to help. Actually, it seems that someone has already speedy-deleted the article; I had also considered speedy-tagging it. By the way, the reason I'm here is that I was helping at the 3RR noticeboard and noticed that a page reported there, Salt Lake City School District, had a BLP problem so I came here to report it. I then decided to look around on this noticeboard and now I think I'll start helping here regularly, too. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 09:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

DataTreasury (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Adding links -- Coppertwig ( talk) 09:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

Some lobbying efforts on a patent reform law have turned nasty in connection with a company called DataTreasury and there are lots of accusations flying around about the history and current conduct of the officers of this company. Some of these accusations have found their way onto Wikipedia.

I think the article is currently OK, as I've removed the unsourced info and have toned down the sourced info in an effort to present both sides in a balanced way. However, there is an onging discussion on the talk page which might get problematic. Issues of COI have also arisen, but I think have been dealt with.

I don't get inolved in Bio issues often, and would appreciate a more experienced editor taking a look and making sure that the relevant guidelines are being complied with. Thanks. GDallimore ( Talk) 17:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on an edit I just reverted, this appears to be an ongoing issue. Additional eyes are welcome. -- ElKevbo ( talk) 23:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Adding links to article) -- Coppertwig ( talk) 09:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding last month's prostitution scandal, the Daily Mail reported that the Duke was a patron of the Emperors Club VIP as Client No. 6. Several other sources also did a story on the allegations. However, the Daily Mail has since removed the article from its site, though I am not aware of a retraction notice having been printed. The Times revised its article to remove mention of the Duke, and many other papers' stories of the Duke's ties to the Emperors Club have been removed or edited down.

Is it acceptable to have those allegations in the article if the main sources have retracted them? Do we have a general rule about how to deal with sources that have been retracted after being cited? Dforest ( talk) 09:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not personally familiar with any policy on handling later retractions. It seems to me that the handling of such would be case-by-case. I see that the article doesn't allege that the Duke was Client #6, but rather neutrally reports that the Daily Mail said so (a modest assertion, since it seems that a number of other sources said so as well). It also reports on his lawyers' denial of the claim. I should personally think that rather than removing the mention, the section should be expanded to describe the evolution of the situation, with the alteration of reporting, as set out here. The allegations seem to have garnered some widespread notability, looking at google and googlenews. Withdrawing all reference seems inappropriate to me. Keeping it strictly neutral and factual should not be problematic per BLP. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think the article should say that certain things were reported and that the newspapers later retracted them, etc. If there are a lot of sources like the link Moonriddengirl gives, talking about how the stories were edited down, then it would not be undue weight to talk about it here too. If things are relatively quiet, it might be appropriate to tone it down a bit in the article: shift it to later in the article or shorten it or something, since the fact that the material was retracted could suggest that maybe it wasn't true and that therefore we shouldn't emphasize such allegations too much. Remembering that Wikipedia is not censored, though. Just my opinion. :-) -- Coppertwig ( talk) 15:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What Moonriddengirl suggested about expanding the section to describe the evolution of the situation, in particular the apparent retractions of the articles, is what I was leaning towards. But I also agree that we shouldn't give undue weight to a scandal if the main sources have pulled their stories. One problem I see is that many of the articles online seem to have simply disappeared online, and others seem to have removed certain statements such as mention of "Client No. 6" or linking the Duke to that label. I believe there's a big verifiability issue if we can't cite the original versions of the articles. Unfortunately with web-based news there is no 'history' function like with wiki. Huffington Post, which is already cited, seems to have the best coverage of the retractions. Probably we should cite the Daily Mail's removal of the article from their website and the Times removing mention of the Duke from their article. Does that sound acceptable? Dforest ( talk) 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a good approach to me. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm blocked but even so, check out the seal article - it's FULL of unsourced claims and quotes to individuals with no sources - one editor reverted back in a claim that he worked for prostitutes and was arrested for such in his zeal to prevent me doing a BLP clean-up! hello Mr. Lawsuit! Forget my edits, someone just take a read of the Personal life section. -- 87.112.86.10 ( talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The one contentious sentence has been removed by another user, yet this self-confessed banned person has continued to remove vast tracts of information which are not contentious (such as mention of the singer's two most famous songs). They seem to be applying the last resort 'remove content' option where the article simply needs improvement. -- BrucePodger ( talk) 20:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

the whole section relies on lengthy unsourced quotes attributed to living individuals. I removed the whole section and suggested on the talkpage that editors read the history and re-add material that can be sourced and does not rely on unsourced quotes from living individuals. I am not saying "this can never be added or is all wrong", I am saying it needs a good read and factcheck and that material that seems ok should be re-added section by section. Or are we just going to say that BLP is now too hard to do properly and we should just leave in unsourced quotes to living individuals until somebody can be bothered to do something about it? is that really what it's come to? -- 87.112.86.10 ( talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it again. the BLP policy says "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". You're removing large amounts of non-contentious material. Your actions are, despite your claims, not in accordance with the BLP policy. -- BrucePodger ( talk) 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's irrelevant as the whole section has been identified by another editor as a copyvio.-- 87.114.13.4 ( talk) 21:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I just found that myself looking for sources. I guess even the non-contentious bits need a re-write, just not for the reasons they were originally removed. -- BrucePodger ( talk) 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This article was brought to my attention when someone requested protection of the page due to repeated removal of sourced content. I would guess that the user removing the content is either the subject themselves or someone who knows the subject, and is removing any reference to a car accident they caused, resulting in 2 deaths. Some of the edit summary reasons for removal were that the situation was "grossly misrepresented" and that the source was untrue, which is one of the issues that should probably be looked in to (I briefly looked at the source and deemed it to be reliable, or I would have removed the content myself, but a second opinion would be nice). It also appears there was a discussion on the talk page about undue weight being placed on the car accident section, and an editor had cut down the section to a reasonable size. During the recent course of mass reversion, the apparent older version was restored, which i reverted back to its pared-down version. I was immediately reverted and would like a second opinion as to which version is more appropriate. Thanks, VegaDark ( talk) 23:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The version you restored seems to be more in keeping with WP:UNDUE than the one that others are reverting into place. It looks to me that ThoughUnlessUntilWhether, a 4-day-old account that seems quite experienced, is now over the 3RR. I see you have already blocked 76.172.72.71 ( talk · contribs) for 3RR, and that seems correct. This was the IP that was trying to whitewash the article. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted and protected on the VegaDark version. Disputes on a BLP can be hashed out on a talk page. FCYTravis ( talk) 04:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been claimed that a review of this book that states, in part, "...an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance and that within it systems were labelled 'irreducibly complex' if Behe was not able to envision a simpler system that still worked" constitutes a violation of BLP. What do you think?-- Filll ( talk) 15:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not in the least a violation of BLP. It's a statement of opinion in a book review. FCYTravis ( talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, a shade more accurately, its a rather petty extract of a one-liner from a devastatingly critical but otherwise scholarly review in a self-published source that makes rather direct implication's about the book's author. Please. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, this isn't a BLP issue. It's calling the book "an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance." That's called criticism. Whether or not you think it's "rather petty" is immaterial. FCYTravis ( talk) 19:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed? "His book is an exploration of the frontiers of ignorance...a system is labeled "irreducibly complex" if _he_ cannot postulate a workable simpler form for the system" does not say something about the person rather than the book to you? The pronoun is even in italics....

Quibbling. It's supposed to refer to the book, but actually is being used to make a comment about the person. (In a manner not representative of the original very critical usenet posting, I might add.) -- Relata refero ( disp.) 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You are stretching this beyond comprehension. My head is spinning. An author who writes a book on such a controversial (and discredited) postulation as intelligent design, can expect to receive criticism from academic sources. The review is criticizing Behe's well-known defense of the irreducible complexity fallacy.

There is nothing in BLP which says we exclude any and all criticism of someone. This is a controversial book and it's going to receive critical reviews. The review is written by an academic expert, published in a reliable source and doesn't constitute undue weight. It is not vulgar, defamatory or otherwise inappropriate. It's not a BLP issue. FCYTravis ( talk) 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)I'm carrying out this argument on two fronts, so am spinning as well.. have you seen the response on the article talkpage? Its not an academic source, its an archived modified usenet post by a grad student. As I say on the page, part of our mission is to provide trenchant, relevant criticism from academic sources. You are yet to say how the above phrase addresses encyclopaedic criticism of the book (note that vast majority of the post discusses aspects of genetic sequences that Behe misrepresents or elides over); how suggesting the replacement of one critical review from an SPS by any of a hundred others from definite RSes would make "nothing in BLP which says we exclude any and all criticism of someone" even vaguely relevant; and above all, how the phrase chosen from the article avoids commenting on the author rather than on the myriad flaws of his book. In fact you haven't actually dealt with my specific objection, merely saying its 'silly'. Entirely possible. Humour me, why don't you, by actually addressing it, instead of repeating things we already agree on, such as that a lot of criticism is expected, and should be in the article per NPOV? Silly how? Relata refero ( disp.) 20:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How many hours are you demanding of other editor's time to answer this ridiculous series of complaints? How many wasted kilobytes of discussion? It staggers the imagination. Are you really requesting that we waste 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 200 or more manhours on this silly issue? Surely this is a joke.-- Filll ( talk) 20:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you had focused on my objection narrowly, rather than in my opinion over-reacting, kilobytes of discussion wouldn't have been needed. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 13:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's not an academic or reliable source but a blog or something, then delete it. However, I agree that it's essentially criticizing the ideas in the book, which is fine. Even criticizing the author himself is fine, if properly sourced. This sort of quote sounds to me like perfectly normal book review critique and fine to use if from a published book review. Not really a BLP issue, IMO. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 12:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticising the author would be fine if its not a SPS. If it is an SPS, it comes down to whether the quote is chosen to indirectly discuss the author's intellect or not. Since I believe its an SPS, if enough people think that the quote, selected from a long review which otherwise focuses on criticism of Behe's argument, does not do that, the question is moot. So far, FCY and Coppertwig have both disagreed with me on this (as have various people who are regular editors of those articles.) Anyone else - preferably uninvolved - feels the same way? It might help if people read the whole review and then the excerpt. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 13:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)