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

Under the Books and Editorials section of the Louis Freeh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, mention and direct quotation is made of a review reportedly appearing in The New York Times about Freeh's book entitled My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror. However, after reading the review cited, I cannot find the supposed direct quotation anywhere in it. Moreover, the direct quotation cited is diametrically opposed to the tone taken by the reviewer and appears have been inserted with an aim towards creating a positive impression of both Freeh and his book when the reviewer at best appeared to be neutral and expressed disappointment in the book. The cited work was retrieved today from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/books/review/06burrough.html?ex=1288933200&en=4ca3dd8254c92f06&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss and can be referenced there. Deecee322 ( talk) 12:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You're correct, the quote in the article does not appear in the cited Times review. I replaced it with a quote that is there. -- agr ( talk) 04:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Pinkville ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (an admin) have been continually re-adding a YouTube video ( diff here) of questionable copyright status to the external links section on Howard Zinn. They have thus far refused to remove it (and have reverted edits by myself and another user, Vector by ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) until we can clear up any copyvio issues. My problem is this: the rest of the interviews in the external links section are hosted by their copyright holder(s) on official websites. This video, however, was uploaded by a user with no clear ties to the organization. It absolutely could be legitimate, but it could also have been uploaded by a fan. The uploader's username has leetspeak in it, which is initially what made me suspicious. (When I see a video uploaded by someone named "M3T4LL1CA", my gut instinct says it's not official.) At this point, I really think we should avoid any semblance of impropriety until we can determine this video's copyright status, especially since this is a BLP page, yet I find myself hindered by an admin. Ideas of what to do at this point? Wyatt Riot ( talk) 19:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear how a routine amateur recording of a genuine talk by the article subject could pose any BLP risks. (Due to the lack of production values, it's unlikely to be ripped off from a commercial source). The footage was taken from right at the front of the room, so the subject must have known he was being recorded. The uploader's Youtube name, ISOgambl3r, suggests he could be a member of the International Socialist Organization which sponsored the talk. If the concern is really copyright rather than BLP, there is another noticeboard for that. I could see a concern that there may be too many videos in the article, but that's a matter for editor consensus on the Talk page, and it's not a BLP worry. See also Talk:Howard Zinn#Recent revert for a lengthy discussion about including the video on the article talk. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There has been a spate of very libelous additions to a BLP article I wrote recently. Could these revisions be hid (though not oversighted) - they're very offensive - [1], [2], [3], [4] and so on. If this continues I may need to request semi-protection. Greidy4Punishment ( talk) 03:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made a request at WP:ANI since it's a good way to get admin attention. I have also warned the editor who added the edits. At the current time, I don't know if semiprotection would be necessary, all the edits come from one IP and they could be blocked if the problem continues. In any case the IP self reverted eventually so hopefully they won't do such a thing again Nil Einne ( talk) 13:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've taken care of deleting the inappropriate edits.-- Slp1 ( talk) 14:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Request for edit warring notice or watch. Several users involved, no use in singling any one of them out.

Numerous reversions by established users, violations of 3 revert rule. Nearly impossible to add anything to this article. Well sourced information arbitrarily deleted, often without explanation or with inapplicable explanations given. Disingenous-sounding discussion on talk page re. "avoiding" an edit war by users who then begin to war. Impossible to even place a NPOV tag on article.

Grayson is a controversial subject, and some leeway should be given -- however the number of edits, the contrived-sounding disputes over trivia and the deletion of acceptable material have gone way beyond all bounds. 50 edits in 24 hours, article is less balanced, and less informative than ever. W E Hill ( talk) 12:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Something I want discussed is keeping the end of the lead you revised here, which has been removed by user:Trilemma multiple times, as "sounds like a PR statment" [5] [6] [7] [ [8]

I feel that many of user:Trilemma's edits are disingenuous, [9] and this user like to dismiss things as propaganda and PR. [10] [11] [12]. user:Trilemma should describe what is being done in the edit summary.

these sort of unsupported off-hand claims do not improve the article. also, taking a single point so you can raise controversy by comparing Grayson with Joe Wilson.

I think we have converged that the Orlando "poll" was on the internet and unscientific, and that user:Trilemma will not keep re adding it. [13], etc Scientus ( talk) 13:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, there has been alot of inaccurate information on this article, (such as misrepresentation of the unscientific poll) some introduced by user:Trilemma. Grayson did not make a analogy. Scientus ( talk) 13:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have contributed to that article many times. I don't think I was in any 3RR violations ... I, too have noticed some users adding BLP violations. An IP added his congressional picture but someone else changed it back to a 'John Travolta' like picture, I undid that edit... A8UDI talk 14:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, (if it is involved in this discussion) ... I honestly thought he referred to the Republican health care bill by saying [it is] : "don't get sick . . . etc". I was trying to make it look legitimate, knowing that every congressman has a 2 min time limit to speak on the floor. I thought "announced" made it sound like he said it to everyone (I saw the video and it looked like it the whole House wasn't present), but I could be wrong. On a side note, I didn't realize that was 'bad English;' it made sense to me. A8UDI talk 14:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Alan Grayson didn't announce as in project, he announced, as in he said what it is. He is the subject of the sentence so we use his verb. Your edit was not bad English, but it did use the wrong verb. To Grayson, it doesn't exist, you cant comment on something that doesn't exist, that is his whole point Scientus ( talk) 14:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientus incorrectly claims information to be incorrect. He needlessly removed correctly cited material on a number of occasions, including recently removing a link to a factcheck article that was in a one sentence addition by an IP editor because it was checked minor. When I added some references of media criticism of Grayson, Scientus promptly created a POVfork for the article, which will likely soon be deleted. Even in this POVfork, he removed the reactions from several high profile critics of Grayson, including Juan Williams and Roger Simon. He just today inexplicably removed my reference to Grayson's third quarter fundraising numbers, which came from a politico article.

These incidents illustrate what attempting to restore a concise, effective format in the Grayson article has been like the past few days. Scientus has remained dogged in his opposition to allow anything critical of Grayson, save for two GOP responses (thus fitting his earlier, misleading edit that criticism only came from the GOP), from appearing on the page. You'll note that in the edit history my edits have been balanced: I have no interest in steering this article one way or the other in terms of political POV. I hope that Scientus agrees with me, but several of his inexplicable edits seem to suggest otherwise. Trilemma ( talk) 14:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to instigate a COI investigation go to WP:COI/N, and present evidence. How can I agree with you if all you are doing is attacking me, and not specifying what you have issue with? See User_talk:Trilemma#Abrasive Scientus ( talk) 14:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientus, I have identified several specific issues that I have with you in terms of editing. I am not attacking you personally, only your behavior in the Grayson article, because I feel that it has been out of line and most non-productive. Trilemma ( talk) 14:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

“I have identified several specific issues that I have with you in terms of editing.” Without examples, this is a personal attack.

I am more than happy to discuss any of the specific issues, as I am doing with one such issue on the discussion page of the article and as I have done with the Michelle Bachmann article. But I do feel the need to bring up the issues I have had with your editing, such as the POVfork article on 'media response to Grayson's comments'. Trilemma ( talk) 14:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It was not a POV fork, go read it. And read the talk page Scientus ( talk) 14:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

“the reactions from several high profile critics of Grayson, including Juan Williams and Roger Simon. ″ Wikipedia:NOT#JOURNALISM. Why is this punditry notable or relevant? What does it add? Juan williams, a fox pundit, said “ went overboard with the holocaust analogy.”, despite it not being an analogy: “this halocaust”. Why are such false and illogical statements relevant? Scientus ( talk) 14:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am very interested in this article being the most informative and encyclopedic it can be. This involves referencing relevant information, such as fundraising figures and media and popular responses to Grayson's comments, both of which Scientus has persisted in deleting, and not in linking to propaganda put out by political PR groups and writing articles that contain pro-Grayson talking points ('where the trillions of dollars of taxpayer money went'...), which Scientus has insisted on maintaining.

I asked for additional voices to contribute to the article when the dispute first arose, and I welcome additional voices, but I feel that my edits have been correcting bad edits and adding pertinent new information (along with correcting some grammar and format issues). Trilemma ( talk) 14:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again with the attacking. User_talk:Trilemma#Abrasive This is not the forum for a COI investigation. Scientus ( talk) 14:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As further evidence of Scientus' recent conduct, I would refer you to the Mass media coverage of Alan Grayson's comments on the Republican's health care plan, which Scientus created, ostensibly as a branch off of the Grayson article but leaving out several higih profile media reactions, as I summarized above. He appears to have created this page knowing that it was not encyclopedic and would be deleted, apparently in some sort of scheme to disprove the credibility of including media responses to Grayson's comments, as ^[1] this edit reveals. This is blatantly offensive behavior and a misuse of wikidia. Scientus created an article that he appears to have wanted to be deleted, as evidenced by his vote to delete it. Trilemma ( talk) 14:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate attacks, read my comments on the talk page Scientus ( talk) 15:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am the originator of this post. The comments above do not speak for me in any way shape or form. I did not want to call out anyone in particular, but I want to leave it to the administrators to decide. What you see in these comments is an attempt to create a faux impression of reasonableness or ability to come to an agreement.

I would like to restate: with the type of editing that is going on and the violations of the 3 revert, other BLP rules, it is impossible to add sourced information to the article. The article is highly slanted. All one has to do is look at the number of reversions, the number of edits, and the lack of growth of the article over the past few weeks. W E Hill ( talk) 15:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: W E Hill. This is the problem. I am trying to talk about individual issues I have with the article and Trilemma is just attacking me as an editor. I am not trying to say you agree with everything I say, but i was saying that the lead should include some mention of things other than his health care speech: for he certainly has gotten attention. Not many congressmen have had 2 high profile editorials and and involved in large scale fraud prosecution. Scientus ( talk) 15:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For the purpose of allowing others to contribute to this section in a manner that is fairly easy to follow, I am going to temporarily refrain from further responding to Scientus' posts. Trilemma ( talk) 15:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have included this dispute at Wikiquette_alerts. Scientus ( talk) 15:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we work this out on the Alan Gray talk page? I'm neutral enough to help work this out. A8UDI talk 15:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia biography of Alfonso Sastre, a living person, states that he is a supporter of ETA and of terrorism. This is incorrect and also defamatory. Were it true, he would be arrested under Spain's anti-terror laws and Sastre has not been arrested under that or any other penal code. That is enough proof that the content referred to is incorrect and also defamatory, besides which no proof has been referred to by the detractor .

Alfonso Sastre is on record as supporting the Basque pro-Independence Left movement and has stood as a candidate of theirs on recent electoral platform. He pronounces the right of self-determination for the Basque Country, as do many other organisations in the Basque Country, among which is included the armed group ETA, but that does not logically make him a supporter of theirs (a general point remarked on recently by Martin Schein, UN Rapporteur on Civil Rights etc.).

These passages should be removed and furthermore the biography should be expanded significantly (as is the Spanish version, which also contains the calumnies referred to above)to give a fuller account of the contribution of Spain's foremost living playwright, who is also a writer and composer and a political campaigner against injustice and for civil rights with a career extending back to opposition to the Franco regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Louise ( talk • contribs) 13:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have removed the (unsourced) information and watchlisted the page. Another time, please feel free to remove such unsourced negative text yourself, if you wish. -- Slp1 ( talk) 13:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And I agree that it should be expanded, since no mention is made of Sastre's political activities. Once again, you could do this yourself, using reliable sources as a basis for your edits. I suspect Spanish language skills would be a help, so possibly other editors with those skills would like to join you.-- Slp1 ( talk) 13:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Found on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Greenspan

- begin quote -

(quote removed, it can be found in the history of the article)

- end quote -

No, I am not Brad Greenspan; I just recognize libel -- and garbage that undermines Wikipedia's credibility -- when I see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.149.77 ( talk) 21:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted to the previous version of the article, that section was inappropriate. There are still parts of the article with "citation needed" – I don't know if these should also be removed (I've removed this addition as the only Google results were copies of the Wikipedia article). snigbrook ( talk) 21:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The only source cited in Night of the Pencils is in Spanish, so I can't tell how reliable it is, but as there is at least one person mentioned in the article still alive, and since the article makes claims about an entire military unit, surely whose members are still alive, this article violates WP:BLP in the criminal allegations being made. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 20:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the page occasionally includes a list of "victims", which violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I've removed the list twice. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 01:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This morning the membership list of the British National Party was leaked, amidst some publicity of the fact that a life peer and member of the House of Lords was on it. This turns out to be a mistake as the 'Lord Bramhall' that is on the list is not Edwin Bramall, Baron Bramall. Some editors have not seen the correction and are adding the supposed BNP membership to his biography. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 09:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Mark Lloyd (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A statement was added that may violate WP:UNDUE, though it appears to be referenced (though to a blog that itself cites the original source). [14] // Evil saltine ( talk) 11:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I made some quick adjustments, as the section header and wording were not NPOV. There appears to be some controversy over the one statement, but it does seem that it possibly puts undue weight on that one issue. Some of the behavior on that article suggests one or more single purpose accounts and/or sockpuppets may be active there, too. Sχeptomaniac ^{χαιρετε} 16:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• OK, it seems Lloyd is one of the targets of a conservative campaign, apparently spearheaded by Glenn Beck, against several members of Obama's administration. There's a single-purpose account currently trying to add every little thing they can find to the article. I attempted a rewrite that explains where this is coming from and cut a little bit of the excessive stuff. Sχeptomaniac ^{χαιρετε} 17:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Larry Johnson (author) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page has been vandalized by individuals who have the sole agenda of discreditLarry Johnson. The sources published by Alcor about Alcor or its employees or members cannot be considered reliable in verifying controversial information. The information posted could be considered libelous.

Starting to look into this. Kevin ( talk) 22:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.25.56 ( talk) 13:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This article was protected for six months because of edit wars over an editors’ constant use of cherry picked, out of context Atzmon quotes despite: a) Atzmon’s complaint (as revealed in talk page category) about the article being defamatory; b) editors’ consensus to stick to secondary sources and avoid cherry picked primary ones; c) the editor in questions’ repeated comments that he had to “prove” how bad Atzmon is, for which he was warned in the past.

The article is now unprotected and the editor is back at it putting in two cherry picked quotes presented out of context to negative affect. He’s reverted attempts to give them context. See this talk section for more details. Neutral editors and admins concerned with BLP policy please see and comment on this talk page section. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 01:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In what way are quotes discussed in the Guardian and The Times, for their antisemitism, "cherry picked" or out of context? What is amazing and unsurprising is that the editor above, without fail, considers every single one of the subject's antisemitic statements to be "out of context." Even when the titles of the articles are "Who is a Jew?" "Organ Donation and Theft in Contemporary Jewish Folklore" and "Time to Talk about the Rise of Jewish Crime?"

It comes across as disingenuous.

In addition, the article was locked because the editor above was constantly removing relevant quotes from the article. It was of course, locked with the relevant quotes still featured; though the above editor quickly removed them again once the article was reopened. Drsmoo ( talk) 10:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor from this page removed the material I described above. Now there is a new bunch of Drsmoo material. Most of this material was removed after Atzmon complained the article was being used to defame him. An administrator explained here why he was removing the material. (Earlier he mentions the OTRS and the article was in a category noting the subject had complained.) Then he asked for another admin to lock the article. I have just put up a new blow by blow on the BLP problems with Drsmoo's new material here. As you can see from Drsmoo's contribution list most of his edits since March 2009 have been of Atzmon's article. He's made various explicit comments in the past about how he had to prove how evil Atzmon is, for which he was warned in the past. I do not want to spend an hour a day every day dealing with this nonsense, like I did last spring. HELP!!!! CarolMooreDC ( talk) 02:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, that's blatantly untrue, anyone can search through my edit history to see that I made no such claims. The article was locked to prevent Carol Moore from continuing to make it into an advertisement. Once it was reopened, she resumed right where she left off. Her claims are factually wrong, and I invite anyone to actually look at the edit histories and see what's going on. Drsmoo ( talk) 16:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I edited this page in the past, and it is a very difficult one to keep in balance. It urgently needs more BLP and NPOV experienced people watching it. If I am right, then there are two separate quotes that are being repeatedly added and that Carol wants to keep off. One is from a certain Roland Rance on a website called LabourNet. Carol may well be right that this is too minor a mention and not notable. The other, though, is from The Times (of London) and is by David Aaronovitch. Carol says that Aaronovitch is "obviously biased", but I think we must disregard that. He is one of the UK's most prominent political columnists and commentators, generally of the centre-left, here writing in a centre-right publication. I am concerned that as the article stands it could read as an apologetic for some of the subject's views. That's not desirable. Even though I appreciate that the main concern of this board is to avoid libel, we must also be sure not to allow BLPs to become coatracks for views that could be considered extremist. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

First, the admin after the OTRS deleted Aaronovitch. He writes here: "What is the significance of this? All the sources seem to be activists using Atzmon as a pawn in long-standing battles with each other."

Second, it probably is possible to put in what Aaronovitch says in a properly sourced, NPOV way, as it was in several iterations for several months. I have done so at this diff, moving text towards end where makes sense. ( Nick Cohen's writing is just polemical smears and doesn't belong in wikipedia.) Let's see if Drsmoo guts the NPOV versions of the issues of accusations of antisemitism which I put up. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 02:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree Itsmejudith, unfortunately, the above editor has managed to turn an article about a little known bigot into a several page defense of his anti-semitism. Your sentiment seems to be the consensus, however few outside of his hard core supporters seem to really care. Drsmoo ( talk) 08:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A search of the history will show many editors have worked on the article. What has caused most of the problems is that Drsmoo and a couple former editors have insisted on using a) primary sourced quotes to prove points (WP:OR); b) quotes from polemical attack writers like Nick Cohen which happen to be published on otherwise WP:RS sites; and especially c) out of context quotes to make him look bad. It is because they insist on using his quotes that the article has gotten so long - because the quote then has to be presented in proper context.

Atzmon's critics loudly trumpet their own biases against him on the talk page. Obviously his views are controversial, but when you present this former Israeli soldier's views in proper context they usually make some sense, even if one doesn't agree with them. Providing such an NPOV context in a BLP has been my goal and that of several editors. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 14:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick Cohen is a notable commentator, who comments in entirely notable avenues. The argument that anyone who notes Atzmon's extreme anti-semitism can not be included because they are "biased against him" is circular logic and ridiculous. What's also humorous, as an anecdote, is that Atzmon used Nick Cohen's criticism to defame all Jews "In the UK, bigotry and racism are becoming a Jews-only territory. " -Gilad Atzmon

Ironically, Nick Cohen is not Jewish. Drsmoo ( talk) 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is the appropriate way to defend your constant abuse of BLP, not here. The Atzmon article is one of many I try to keep NPOV. The Atzmon article is about the only one you've worked on in the last 6 months, always using poorly sourced and/or out of context quotes to push you POV against him. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 20:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How many editors and admins have to tell you that the quotes and responses belong in the article before you agree to edit constructively? Or are you going to run around from noticeboard to noticeboard, editor to editor to admin, until you find one who out of the blue happens to agree with you, so that you can justify going against what everyone else has said? Because that seems to be what you're doing/attempting now. Drsmoo ( talk) 20:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As you'll notice, I wrote an NPOV version using Aaronvitch after Itsmejudith commented. No one else has commented on your edit here using this vitriolic opinion piece by Nick Cohen - just compares Atzmon to a Nazi. Just the kind of thing WP:BLPN is supposed to deal with. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 20:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've shortened the section in question, which now looks like this. I agree that the previous version [15] bordered on being a BLP issue, even though most of the sources were okay, because the length and repetition over-egged the pudding. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 21:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned at talk, The politics section has 110 words describing his views and 192 criticizing them. The original section cut by SlimVirgin had 6 WP:RS sources describing at length (including through interviews) his politics in an NPOV way. Only 2 of those remain. Yet all 5 of the negative criticism remain. To be truly NPOV and representative of the sources - per Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise - it should be the other way around. So I think there's still work to be done to make it truly representative of sources and NPOV. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Which sentences exactly would you like to see removed, Carol? SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 22:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

<backdent> Details should be discussed on the talk page, though I do think any use of Cohen, especially without mentioning Atzmon's replies to him, is WP:undue from a dubious polemical source. More importantly, as I noted there, I completely forgot that in the spring several people worked on this draft of the politics section set up by an Admin after protection. It has a good balance of politics and criticism and includes some important stuff, like about Atzmon's notability when mentioned by Egyptian president Erdogan. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 22:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Family (Christian political organization) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• JeffSharlet ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who may be a journalist and the author of a book The Family) has accused
• EricLeFevre ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of committing libel in his comments on the talk page of The Family. [16] — goethean ॐ 15:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For future editors it appears The Family (Christian political organization) ( The Family (Christian political organization (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) is the contentious article not The Family which links to a disambig page Nil Einne ( talk) 19:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I corrected my post above. thx. — goethean ॐ 19:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Scurrilous, Incendiary and Defamatory references to James W. Lewis appear in text at multiple locations in Wikipedia. These statements incite fear and hatred toward Lewis without either a legal or factual basis, and thus may be actionable. Please correct offensive text immediately.

The name James W. Lewis appears in Wikipedia under at least two main topics:

1. 1982 Chicago Tylenol murders
2. James W. Lewis

In all known instances, Wikipedia pages clearly infer, both implicitly and explicitly, that James W. Lewis is criminally responsible for the 1982 cyanide laced Tylenol murders in the Chicago area. In fact, James W. Lewis has never been indicted for any of the murders, and has never been convicted of committing any of the murders. James W. Lewis has never been convicted of murder nor rape. This false accusation about James W. Lewis has been circulated for nearly thirty years, smearing his reputation and making his an object of fear and hatred, without a factual nor legal basis.

In both cases, Wikipedia pages fail to:

1. notify readers that James Wm. Lewis was in New York and not in Chicago at the time of the Tylenol murders in Chicago, and that it was therefore impossible for Lewis to be the Tylenol murder.
2. cite the website URL: [17], which contains detailed information and documentation about the Tylenol murders.

Please remove all defamatory references to James W. Lewis

Please include references to the website [18] whenever the name James W. Lewis is cited anywhere in reference to Tylenol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.107.17 ( talk) 07:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, both the links above state clearly that Lewis was in New York at the time, and both are cited to reliable sources.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, the latter part of 98.216.107.17's request boils down to "Please link to the WWW page advertising one particular forthcoming book whenever the name James W. Lewis is cited anywhere in reference to Tylenol.". Uncle G ( talk) 12:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• ( edit conflict) As Sarek said, it appears that both articles mention that Lewis was in New York and not Chicago. I don't see where it says he committed any murders, either implicitly or explicitly. Note: 24.147.221.165 ( talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) was blocked for this legal threat ( WP:NLT). Evil saltine ( talk) 14:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • … which was perhaps not the best action you could have taken, first because of Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats (which anyone participating at this noticeboard should always bear in mind), and second because all that 24.147.221.165 did was change a section heading whereas it was 98.216.107.17 ( talk · contribs) who actually wrote the above. Uncle G ( talk) 12:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree that it was not a good idea to block him. However, I don't see any problem with the article in its current form.-- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 22:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• The mention in 1982 Chicago Tylenol murders is appropriate — he was convicted of extortion related to the incident (whether or not he actually committed the poisonings themselves), and this was discussed in reliable sources. However, I see no reason why James W. Lewis should have a separate article. Isn't this a fairly straightforward case of WP:BLP1E? I know there were a few other charges mentioned, but from what was written, he was never convicted on any of them and I see no evidence of widespread publicity or notability for anything but the Tylenol incident. *** Crotalus *** 19:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We have a dispute between editors at Troy_King (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - One poster continues to add the name of an office employee to the BLP about the Attorney General. There have been many rumors about this person through out the internet, none of which have been allowed to be placed on WP. I feel that the inclusion of the employees names is to harm said individual. Outside of my personal thoughts on the matter I see no added value by posting the name. The name is quoted and cited properly but I previously wrote the section of the article and chose not to include the name and has been accepted this way for six months. I believe that in BLP we should err on the side of privacy. An employee is certainly due a greater degree of privacy than the elected official. We need help on this because as this is a politican there is a continued effort to post biased and sensational information which is not appropriate under BLP policies. Please advise resolution on the discussion page of said article and suggest a block of unsigned ip editors to this page until after the election period so we can have a reasonable discussion about what to post from something more than random IP addresses. Gray10k ( talk) 12:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be reviewed. I very strongly believe that the inclusion of a private individuals name in this article violates Biography of Living Persons Policy. Including the individuals name adds no value except to expose a young state employee who accepted a nice paying job. The article is about the Attorney General and there are specific rules about including other person's names in these and I VERY strongly do not believe that this covers such. I would ask that a peer review of this matter take place by this group to enforce the policies of Biography of Living Persons Policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spellxer ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that inclusion of the name and allegations would be a BLP violation in this case. The individual's name is irrelevant in this context. I have also filed a request for temporary semi-protection at WP:RPP. –  ukexpat ( talk) 16:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A number of scientists listed here are not documented by reliable sources as actually "believing" the beliefs that are ascribed to them in the text. In many cases, nuances of their positions are lost, and, in at least one case, the scientist in question (who I know personally) has an opinion attributed to them that they do not hold. I have tagged the article as a BLP-violation (as indeed it is). I think people need to go through and start removing people when the sources are not reliable and have not actually documented a complete and unambiguous rejection of a "mainstream scientific assessment of global warming". In fact, you may actually need to find that phrase or an extremely close synonym in order for ANY living person to be listed here at all.

I've cross-posted this to Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

ScienceApologist ( talk) 05:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

On my way out, if no one else gets to this in 24 hours, I will. Astronominov 18:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sal the Stockbroker (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I would like someone to look at this before it becomes an edit war, Sal the Stockbroker is a know person and everything on his page has a source. But another user keeps redirecting it to The Howard Stern Show staff (this person should have his own page). Can someone please look at this. thank you // 98.117.40.154 ( talk) 17:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The redirect seems appropriate. I see no evidence the subject meets our Wikipedia:Notability (people) policy for a standalone article. All of the references either refer to the Howard Stern show webpage (i.e. a WP:Primary source which should generally not be used on BLPs and which are definitely not sufficient to establish notability) or to a fan site (i.e. not a WP:Reliable source at all) apparently based on stuff happening in the show (i.e. primary source again). In fact your version is the real BLP problem referring to controversies without any evidence for the existance of a controversy (the fact that something happened doesn't make it a controversy, no matter how controversial it seems to editors) and relying on such unreliable sources, which are referring to a character on an entertainment show, to make claims about the background of a living person. We can't know from the sources given how much of the information is true and how much is simply in-universe info Nil Einne ( talk) 06:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I see this issue has also been dealt with at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Sal the Stockbroker after the above user posted it to WP:AN and it was moved to WP:ANI by another user. This happened within minutes of it being posted here. In future, please DO NOT post the same issue in multiple places unless you have waited sufficient time. If you do have to post it in multiple areas make sure you link between both discussions or better keep one place as the primary place for discussion and simply ask people to visit there Nil Einne ( talk) 06:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there has been an edit war on this article for the last couple of days, even after someone being blocked and the article being semi-protected, the same content is being removed. I don't have a great deal of experience with BLPs but the editors removing content keep on citing BLP policies. This was posted on WP:COIN, here but I think that having some input from other editors would help. Thanks in advance. Smartse ( talk) 18:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Anita_Dunn#White_House_Communications_Director (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a biography article about Anita Dunn who is the White House Communications Director. On October 15, political commentator Glenn Beck spent the better part of his show attacking her for an earlier speech she made. As often happens, this set off a firestorm of POV-pushing and BLP violations by editors, both IP and registered, that had never touched the article before. Generally, these things are easily defended with the backing of Wikipedia policy and partial protection, however this article is not well-known and has not even crossed the threshold of 30 people who watchlist it. As a result, two or three editors have managed to edit-war the page into its current non-NPOV state, filling it with lengthy quotations, [19] using it as a soapbox to repeat Beck's attacks [20] and, most tendentiously, repeatedly reverting any attempt to add her comments in response to Beck, saying it "insults" him [21] [22]. Considering that the article is about her, it would seem that her response would be one of the few relevant aspects of this.

Underneath all this, the real issue is that the entire thing is non-notable to the WP:BLP article. Commentators like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann attack someone every night, but we don't rush to add it to their biographies. It has to be notable to an encyclopedic understanding of the person. This incident generated a couple of editorials on the political right but was not picked up by the news media and disappeared within a news cycle. The only non-editorial reliable source for it was a CNN article reporting on her response (the same one that keeps getting removed). I feel that any mention of the incident is undue WP:WEIGHT in a biography, but if it needs to be mentioned, this can be done in couple of balanced sentences.

But now we have the situation where almost half of the entire biography is made up of this one attack by a political partisan. Anyone that attempts to correct this (myself and one or two other editors) finds that there are editors more than willing to edit-war (one editor violated 3RR within the course of a single hour yesterday). I try very hard to avoid edit-wars so I don't keep up, but at the same time I hate to see a biography article hijacked by those on the attack. The article is currently under full protection (due to the edit-warring) but there is no hope that the situation will be any different when protection expires. So I am hoping the larger community can sort this out and I will agree with whatever consensus is established here.

That said, the two questions are: Does this incident belong in the biography article at all? And if so, how should it be worded? Thanks! -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 01:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding a comment here in support of Loonymonkey's notice here. I actually don't agree with all of Loony's edits on the article, but unlike some of the editors there, his points are considered and reasonable and don't amount to edit-warring. The article could sure use additional eyes. HyperCapitalist ( talk) 01:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than respond to the above, I simply invite all interested parties to read the talk page of the Anita Dunn article, in particular the "Mao and Mother Theresa" section. Judge for yourselves who is striving for neutrality and who is not. PAR ( talk) 02:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sergei Chuyev (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – unreliable data based on unreliable source – Russian Liberation Army web-page.

material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

So page should be deleted. Thanks 94.179.228.87 ( talk) 16:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like the request that the page be deleted, you may create an account and open an AFD. Or if you would not like to register an account, I can help you open the discussion. Someguy1221 ( talk) 07:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after looking myself for sources, I've opened the AFD discussion myself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergei Chuyev. Someguy1221 ( talk) 07:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Can other experienced editors watchlist these articles about some Polish politicians and their party. There are ongoing problems that with the additions of rumours, allegations and innuendo (fascism, alcoholism, sexual orientation), sometimes with sources, though generally not of great quality, [23]. -- Slp1 ( talk) 13:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Some negative, unsourced information has been added twice to Shawn Baldwin. See here and here. The sources that have been used appear to be unreliable. I have posted them for review at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Would someone help keep an eye on this article? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This article could really do with a looking at. Dubious sourcing, some interesting claims. J Milburn ( talk) 13:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dreadful article. I removed some stuff which was weasel, but it is still terrible.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 17:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Does this content violate our policy on BLP sources? I think it does, not to mention WP:UNDUE. APK because, he says, it's true 17:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say it does, it seems excessive to me. I thought it is not ok to in-line link to utube stuff like that? Off2riorob ( talk) 20:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Its been removed by User_talk:DCEdwards1966 Off2riorob ( talk) 20:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking this would be a problem for a while, but never came across the article until now. As those aware of the incident may guess, this is likely to be a big BLP problem for a while and there are already a number of discussions which raise BLP issues so the eyes of BLP aware editors would be helpful Nil Einne ( talk) 11:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, that this is a possible hornet's nest of BLP concerns,and needs to be watched carefully.-- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 14:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In particular, I have concerns about User:Viriditas understanding and acceptance of WP:BLP given his repeated claims at Talk:Colorado balloon incident#Hoax not "Confirmed" that I'm "trying to hide poor research and editing behind policy enforcement" when I explain why it was likely inappropriate to discuss the incident as a hoax when all we had were two not great sources [24] [25]. (For clarity, I only found the article today and Viriditas seemingly likewise so this is an abstract issue.) While he/she hasn't done anything I noticed that I would call a major problem, this sort of lack of acceptance of BLP strikes me as problematic for an experienced editor. I'm clearly not helping the situation and probably made it worse by engaging in somewhat OT debate so would appreciate it if someone with a good knowledge of BLP and good ability to explain it to editors could discuss it with him probably directly on his talk page Nil Einne ( talk) 13:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly that whole discussion is rather daft, upon looking at the edit history I found out the hoax speculation was added 4 hours after the boy was found which was 2:22 hours after the article was created so the whole complaint is about 6 hours at most. However regardless I'm still concerned about Viriditas understanding & acceptance of BLP Nil Einne ( talk) 14:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think the main hinge of the argument is whether or not it is premature to add a hoax category. – xeno ^talk 14:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is. If it's a hoax, they're guilty of numerous criminal charges. We're not judge, juries and executioners. If there is an "alleged hoax" category we could put it there. But criminal charges are pending, the parents are not admitting it's a hoax, and that's that. -- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 14:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the discussion has actually be about either no longer relevant or just completely OT stuff and that's partly my fault. The category issue appears to be the only significant outstanding issue that I noticed Nil Einne ( talk) 14:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories with "alleged" (or "accused") in the name are universally deleted at CFD, because there's no meaningful threshold for inclusion. How many people are alleging, or who is making the allegations? It just turns into a weasel word category implying guilt, and once you've been alleged of something you've always been alleged of something, even if acquitted, so it would never be removed either. Categories simply can't handle that kind of imprecision or hedging, because the category tag will appear at the bottom of the article without qualification, direct sourcing, explanation, etc. I don't think anyone should lose sleep if we have to wait until a reliable determination that this was a hoax to categorize it as a hoax. I simply don't understand the urgency here. Postdlf ( talk) 15:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We have to be careful not to call it a hoax yet because then we could "Richard Jewell" him. Jewell was convicted by NBC but later the police admitted he did not do it and the other guy who bombed the abortion clinic did it. We can say that the sheriff is calling it a hoax if we stay neutral. Mayor of Gotham City ( talk) 01:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, this gentleman is not living, but everything is unsourced. It oringinally had images of the person's government identification -- which I have deleted. Should all of it be deleted? HyperCapitalist ( talk) 02:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK, some of this is probably referenced in the embedded links -- but not sure how much of it. HyperCapitalist ( talk) 02:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is probably not a problem. It should cite sources, that's all. The picture of his I.D. badge is probably a copyright violation. Those badges say they are the property of the authority that issues them. I can't imagine they would like it if someone copied one, for whatever purpose. Steve Dufour ( talk) 02:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Kyung Lah (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm concerned over the weight given to what a Wikipedian is reffering to as a "sex scandal" - and the reliability of sources. It could probably be mentioned that she was forced to quit her job because she was unfaithful if there are reliable sources that state this is what happened, but I'm sure it shouldn't be an entire paragraph screaming "sex scandal". 81.170.235.35 ( talk) 12:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I had removed the section yesterday, I see it was reverted. I removed it again and left a talk page comment here. Other eyes and comments appreciated. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is in response to the article on former KNBC news reporter, Kyung Lah. First, I want to clarify that I didn't actually write this section. From what I know, its been there more months before the controversy arose. I'm only against section blanking it for reasons stated below.

Moving on...the controversy over sourcing first arose when somebody tried to delete the "sex scandal" section because it was supported by two broken links (which were also there long before I found the article). I reverted the edit because I found another link that asserted to its authenticity. The source I added is from LA Observed ( http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2005/03/knbc_staffers_f.php)

LA observed is a blog. Although wikipedia states, in its verifiability section, that:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.

It also adds that:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

The blog in question is run by Kevin Roderick, a person who "spent two decades as a staff writer, line editor and senior editor at the Los Angeles Times, specializing in in-depth projects and coverage of politics, urban affairs and the state of California." He also "shared in two Pulitzer Prizes awarded for staff coverage of the Rodney King riots and the Northridge earthquake." You can read more of his extensive credentials at the biography section at LA Observed ( http://www.laobserved.com/kevin.php).

His blog has also been cited as being "widely read by journalists, media professionals, bloggers and politicians and is regularly cited in the national media" by KCRW radio, and "has been named a Best of the Web media blog by Forbes." ( http://www.kcrw.com/people/roderick_kevin?role=host)(http://www.forbes.com/bow/b2c/review.jhtml?id=7814)

The credentials I've listed above, which strongly attests to Mr. Roderick's expertise in the field, and the blog's acceptance in mainstream media should meet wikipedia's reliability requirements. Mr. Roderick's articles have also been cited in several other wikipedia articles ( http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=+site:en.wikipedia.org+LA+observed+and+wikipedia&ei=q4_kSqDKK5iQkQWG5dGxAQ&sa=X&oi=nshc&resnum=1&ct=more-results&ved=0CA0Q2AQ&fp=8ec9ea851cee2c5b). His article on Kyung Lah were also picked up and circulated by at least two other major publishing sources: OhMyNews ( http://english.ohmynews.com/reader_opinion2/opinion_view.asp?code=2078864&menu=c10400&no=303487&rel_no=1&opinion_no=1&page=1&isSerial=&sort_name=&ip_sort=61.73.167.187) and the Los Angeles Business Journal ( http://www.labusinessjournal.com/article.asp?aID=61097007.32228202.1118806.58473302.875901.669&aID2=86053).

I think some people want to delete the "sex scandal" section on the Kyung Lah article because she's still considered to be an important figure and a source of ethnic pride within the Korean-American community. This, however, shouldn't result in section blanking her more unfortunate experiences. Also, if somebody is concerned with WP:UNDUE, they should side-stream the section, rather than deleting it as a whole. The scandal is a significant event in her life because it effectively put an end to her career as a news reporter and relegated her to the position of a news correspondent. The difference between the two is explained at wikipedia's correspondent article.-- 123.224.179.215 ( talk) 13:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about this situation but as you are the person that wants to add this material, could you perhaps cut out the excessive titillating detail and weaker citations and offer perhaps a single line to insert that would not require its own section...something along the lines of ... In sepember 2009 Kyung Lah was dismissed by (whoever) after allegations of improper conduct(1). Off2riorob ( talk) 13:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As we are not censored but are an encyclopaedia I have added a small comment with the strongest cite (imo) this is enough about the incident, have a look and see if you agree. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just asked Xymmax to re-write it, since it was him who first brought up the whole issue with WP:UNDUE. People are already accusing me of POV pushing over the article, so I'm not comfortable with doing the job myself (lest they scrutinize each individual word I write and accuse me of some other violation). I'm sure Xymmax will agree to work with me in side-streaming it. -- 123.224.179.215 ( talk) 13:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't see who originally added it but your uncited addition of .. "who is prominent for her sloppy journalism." here reveals your opinion of her. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• comment. If anyone considers that the citation that is left is not strong enough to support the new comment that I have added feel free to remove the edit. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

please review my edits on the article. The article should at least somewhat clarify her act of "improper conduct," since such a phrase is so vague that it can be interpreted to mean many different things (there is a huge different between personal misconduct and business misconduct). Also, I'll agree to the massive edits (which have been watered down even further by such words as "reportedly" and "allegations") so long as readers have access to the details at LA Observed. I've gone through a lot of work to show that the source is not unreliable, so adding this citation should no longer violate anything.-- 123.224.179.215 ( talk) 14:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You inserted the blog source again by reverting three times. Since the discussion is open, please stop continuing the disruptive behavior.-- Caspian blue 14:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Through my comments above, I've shown that this particular blog is not unreliable and that it meets wikipedia rules. As I posted above, wikipedia says that some blogs are OK by declaring that :

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Why don't you present your case as to why you think the blog doesn't meet these circumstances.-- 123.224.179.215 ( talk) 14:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please make tidy of your statement to increase readability. You can not blame that people ignore your statement. Rarely, some blogs can be accepted, but sources for the BLP articles, especially any negative views should be very reliable, but the blog does not meet the case. Even many sources from New York Times and Washington Post are deleted in Obama due to BLP concerns and fail to get consensus even though they are very reliable. So your logic for the blog is pretty weak and unconvincing.-- Caspian blue 14:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Readability? What do you want me to say? Off2riorob was kind enough to read my comments and agreed to not section blank it. My writing is not esoteric literature. I showed that Kevin Roderick of LA Observed is an extremely reliable person to source since he has an extensive career in journalism. He was a senior editor for the LA Times, the recipient of two Pulitzer prizes, and is now director of the UCLA Newsroom. His blog has been awarded "Best of the Web" by Forbes magazine. What else do I have to show that this guy is an established expert in the field of journalism? If you want more, I've provided so many links above. Plus, his article on Kyung Lah has also been circulated by the Los Angeles Business Journal and OhMyNews, so it's not like his blog is the only site that covered the affair.-- 123.224.179.215 ( talk) 15:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You obviously missed to read my reply to you. "Even sources from NYT and Washington Post are deleted.... for BLP concerns and failing to get consensus" I did not take out the sentence inserted by Off2riorob, so please do not mispresent my view. Moreover, "Extremely reliable person"....you confuse "notable person" with "reliable sources". According to your logic, any headman of state is very reliable news sources..Wow!-- Caspian blue 15:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just take the time to read my explanation above. I stated that KCRW wrote that LA Observed is "widely read by journalists, media professionals, bloggers and politicians and is regularly cited in the national media." Plus, you don't just get Pulitzer prizes and awards from Forbes magazine if you're notable, I'm sure that reliability is also a criteria. Plus, the LA Business Journal that off2riorob included in the article for me cites the LA Observed as its major source. Why can't we cite the original source that a respectable news source presents?

If you are so bothered by LA Observed, I'll agree to withdraw it. It only hurts the readers, because now they can't have direct access to the details and to the original source. I still request that "improper conduct" be clarified, since such a phrase is a weasel word. It's so vague, its almost meaningless unless the reader actually makes the effort to open the citation. People can interpret "improper conduct" in so many ways. Can we at least change "allegations of improper conduct" to "allegations of an affair with the television station's field producer"? If you agree with this, I'll be done with the whole thing.-- 123.224.179.215 ( talk) 15:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Final appeal, we change:

In March 2005, she was reportedly dismissed by KNBC after allegations of improper conduct.

to:

In March 2005, she was reportedly dismissed by KNBC after allegations of having an affair with the television station's field producer.

This statement is consistent with information included in the LA Business Journal source that off2riorob added.-- 123.224.179.215 ( talk) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I feel that what is there is enough, and if people are interested enough they can click on the link to find out more, the citation that we have supporting this are imo not strong and whoever it was, or what position they held is imo excessive detail, you are welcome to get more opinions but imo there is little enough support for this addition that is there. Also IP 123, I see you added your suggestion, please do not add any detail to this edit without getting consensus here or on the talk page there. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry I haven't been around the last few days. My feelings about the article are unchanged. The paragraph that previously was present in the article was not appropriate, but it seems that we have consensus about that. I have no problem with the incident being mentioned in the manner that currently is in the article, as I feel that does not violate WP:UNDUE. I do think that there is no basis to mention the field producer or other persons not related to the biography. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems to me that the edit has been accepted by all parties, or at the least there is a consensus in support of it. I would say this can be closed as resolved. Off2riorob ( talk) 10:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

An admin suggested I post here to get wider input. My biggest but not only concern is the video link, which might be put back by someone. I tried to explain my feelings about it on the Help Desk:

"Daniela Cicarelli I removed a link to a paparazzi sex video and most of the article--it seemed pov and cruel to Cicarelli. Was I right to do this under BLP? Someone has reverted my edit. ThanksRich (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)"

BLP mostly deals with material that is poorly sourced (i.e. libellous), and that doesn't seem to apply here. The material was well-sourced. As the reverting user implied, you should have at least started a discussion on the talk page before removing the material; perhaps some of it could have been saved. Xenon54 / talk / 15:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"ok, thanksRich (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)"

"I've thought about it a bit more, and I think that if what you say is correct wikipedia policy then it's pretty messed up. Linking the video is rather discourteous whether or not i'ts legal and well-sourced. Yes, she is a famous person, but "he" may not be, although that's hardly one of my main points. She and he didn't consent to the video, and if I remember and understood correctly, in the United States, the philosophy behind the "public person" privacy rulings by the Supreme Court was overriding and obvious public interest, and surely this video has no ovverriding and obvious public interest. It is true that this was filmed outside of the USA, but do we want to support a kind of virtual sexual tourism? Surely an unauthorized sex video taken within the usa wouldn't pass muster on wikipedia, and I think we should have a uniform policy.Rich (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)" Rich ( talk) 09:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That was an absolutely horrible article. I stubbed it down for balance. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 13:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - editing by a user who is involved in the subject matter of the article itself as a member of the Linux Community using Wikipedia as a vehicle to disparage and libel the subject of the biography.

MediaMangler ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has a history of on line harassment of the subject of this bio, and review of the editors editing patterns indicates he is a single purpose account here for promotion of Linux Community views and propoganda and personal attacks on various subjects involved in the politics of Linux. His targets include Groklaw, Darl McBride, The SCO Group, and Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. This editor should be topic banned from the biography in question as his comments and statements do not reflect those of an unbiased third party providing balanced content, but those of an advocate using Wikipedia to promote the goals of a particular group. In the present case, the editor continues to insert libel, remove cited balanced content from the article, and skew the articles content for the purposes of disparaging the subject of the biography. The editor states on their user page they are involved in business interests which compete directly against the subject of this bio's business activities as well. 166.70.238.46 ( talk) 21:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP address 166.70.238.46 is from a banned user. Jeffrey Merkey who is editing once again his biography. [ [32]] who just returned as [ [33]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.221.6 ( talk) 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Geolocate indicates the IP address 24.37.221.6 resolves to Groklaw -- Linux Community advocates who are not disinterested parties. 166.70.238.46 ( talk) 02:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

$ nslookup 24.37.221.6

Name: modemcable006.221-37-24.mc.videotron.ca

Address: 24.37.221.6

Admins, please note that the IP address 166.70.238.46 belongs to the permanently banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, and should be blocked just like the other addresses he uses in that same sub net. Ban extension under the existing arb com case should also be noted. 198.11.26.164 ( talk) 03:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really feel it necessary to respond to the wild accusations made by Mr. Merkey, but I do find his charge that I'm involved in business interests which compete with his to be very odd. I am currently employed by the US Department of Defense and have been so employed for over thirty years. Unless Merkey is claiming to be either a terrorist or an agent of a hostile foreign government, I don't see how the DoD or I can be competing with his business interests. -- MediaMangler ( talk) 03:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

According to this diff [34], the ip is claiming to be Jeff V. Merkey. -- ArglebargleIV ( talk) 01:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I retract this complaint. User:MediaMangler has exhibited a more neutral approach to the subject of this bio in recent days. I attribute the users conduct to being the recipient of years of misinformation by Novell and other sources of negative propaganda distributed by the Mormon dominated Judiciary of Utah and their jaded documents and views. A more accurate view of Novell's actual view of the subject of this bio can be found in the last Annual review the subject of the bio received from Novell located here: Jeff Merkey's website. This user was also was antagonized and subjected to personal attacks as to his motives, which were in all probability undeseved. It is my belief verified information is the solution to misinformation distributed by others for their own agendas. I believe this is the case here. I retract the complaint and appreicate User:MediaManglers more balanced approach to the subject of this bio. 166.70.238.46 ( talk) 02:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The article reads very badly. It would be better for it to focus on his accomplishments, not disputes within the software community -- which most of us don't care about. Steve Dufour ( talk) 02:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to join us in the discussion of the article on the articles talk page. The best way to facilitate change is to participate in the discussions.. - 4twenty42o ( talk) 02:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Henry Morgentaler (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An anon IP editor appears to have done WP:OR research in some "German archives" and is stating in the article that it is "clear" that Morgenthaler lied about having studied medicine in post-war Europe, when applying to the Universite de Montreal. Shall we just remove? // Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not ok at all. I've removed it again. It original research by the IP's own descriptor. If this continues we should consider semiprotecting. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Issue raised in relation of Charles Zentai, who has been charged with Holocaust-related war crime, and may or may not be extradited for trial, depending result of his appeal. While WP:BLP doesn't specifically mention templates, I suspect that large Holocaust template in article about person who has not been properly convicted does not really fit with WP living person related policies. user:Harryzilber disagrees with me believing that template is appropriate in this case. So I thought that most appropriate solution is asking some input here.-- Staberinde ( talk) 19:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Further info can be found at: Talk:Charles_Zentai –NPOV. The Charles Zentai article is also related to a Categorization deletion review here. Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no comments at all?-- Staberinde ( talk) 20:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would say that it's a BLP and thus we should err on the side of caution and not include the template unless he is convicted. – xeno ^talk 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• He is associated with the holocaust topic via his being accused, something nobody denies. If he had other notoriety outside of the accusation I would agree with you. Pirate ^Argh!!1! 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wendy Doniger (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Spdiffy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in theory a new user, edit-wars in order to add the contents of an misspelled email to a biographical article. He believes that that email is absolutely appropriate and necessary in order to describe Doniger's 40 year academic career. I would rather that criticism of her be sourced from scholarly reviews.

The classic BLP violation is negative information that is not reliably sourced. Wikipedia should not be one of the first places to announce that someone fathered a child with a mistress or that some woman teacher had a kid with a student. Ipromise ( talk) 04:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone have a quick look at the above pages to see if is allowed by the WP:BLP guideline? Unlike most new pages it is sources, but it is more or less completely negative. Also, would it pass WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS? Excirial ^{( Contact me, Contribs)} 15:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that it does not pass WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS as the entire article focuses on his sexual misconduct and nothing more. WVBluefield ( talk) 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I sent it off to AFD. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 15:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Compare that article with others who have had scandals and you will see that it is not written in the same way. For example, Sanford, the South Carolina governor or Senator Gary Hart. Ipromise ( talk) 05:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• 87.114.171.154 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This British IP is repeatedly adding non-reliably-sourced negative material to this article without discussion (though he did add links to message-board postings on the talk page, which I removed as irrelevant, since they can't be used as sources). I seem to recall that reversions of BLP violations aren't subject to the three-revert rule; but I've already reverted him three times and I'd rather not deal with this any further. I'm going to drop a final warning on his talk page, but could someone take a look at the matter and suggest a course of action? Block? Page protection? Deor ( talk) 18:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I really hate to say anything remotely sympathetic towards an IP who posts stuff like this one did, but . . . the IP is at least partially correct in pointing out that several of the publishing companies named are defunct (Silver Salamander, for example), and that the guy's reputation has been at least a bit tarnished by his erratic business practices. I don't know the extent of the problems, or whether they were transient or ongoing -- all I really know for sure is that on several occasions I had trouble getting books he published through very reliable specialty dealers because they were reluctant to pay him cash up front for orders, and he was said to be unwilling to take orders without advance payment. How much, if any, of this can be supported by reliable sources I don't know; how much, if any, of it went beyond the standard travails of non/semiprofessional publishers, I don't know. If the IP is who I think he is, based on similar posts elsewhere, this reflects a longrunning dispute between guys working in the same field, and the IP won't go away, but his unpleasantnesses will typically be driveby, not continuous. I know, mostly vaguely, too many folks involved wih one or the other guy to be comfortable about involving myself in this. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care about any of that. WP is not a venue for working out one's disputes with the subjects of our articles. The IP has now reappeared as 92.8.108.93 ( talk · contribs) and is continuing to reinstate the same edits. If there are no sources to back them up, they should not remain in the article. (Actually, the whole article is unsourced, and the notability of the subject seems rather marginal; perhaps someone should AfD it. Nevertheless, as long as it's here, unsourced disparaging material should not be in it.) Deor ( talk) 23:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD should be for non-notable people. Reverts should be for nasty stuff in articles like "so and so is a fag." Mayor of Gotham City ( talk) 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Pelan seems to be of marginal notability, at best. The article just says he published some stories here and there. There is nothing much about him as a person. (Oddly enough the publishing house he is said to have founded redirects to an article on another company where he is not mentioned, unless I missed his name somewhere in the article.) Steve Dufour ( talk) 02:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood your comments but just to be clear you definitely should revert unsourced or poorly sourced negative or contentious material concerning living people usually on sight. While it's perhaps understandable we may feel less sympathy for the people involved, the fact that the details may be true is rarely an excuse to leave them in the article (I don't believe Hullaballoo was suggesting it was, I just felt it needed to be said). If reliable secondary sources are later produced this doesn't mean reverting the material was a mistake. Note that vandalism like "so and so is a fag" is actually IMHO, far less of a problem thant stuff like this (see User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem for example). Given the changing IP, semi protection would likely be a good idea in this case, in fact I'll request it myself. Based on Steve's assessement of the sources which looking at the article is probably accurate an AFD may be a good idea. Edit: Decided not to request semi protection for now. After looking more carefully I noticed the IPs belong to completely different ISPs. While it's possible the IP is using open proxies or editing from a different location I noticed 87 has been back after 92, under a different IP but still in the same 87 range and edit the talk page but not the article after the last warning. It's possible then 92 is not the same as 87 but perhaps a friend or there's some sort of external mention of this (e.g. forum) i.e. WP:Meatpuppetry. I've given 92 a last and only warning. If there's any more such edits, I would definitely request semi protection. Nil Einne ( talk) 07:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime I've removed the material again and have semi protected the article. Repeatedly readding comments about defrauding people without sources are utterly unacceptable, and yes, Nil Einne is right that 3RR does not apply in such cases. I think some semi protection is very well merited given the different IPs, but since I will be off line for a while, so don't mind if others decide differently.-- Slp1 ( talk) 10:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The article Ezra Friedlander was created with the incorrect title Ezra friedlander yesterday. It was deleted twice by NawlinWiki, but the user ( Bogram recreated it with the correctly-capitalized title. I tagged it for PROD due to lack of references and BLP issues, but someone else added several badly-formatted references, two of which were reliable (and one of those two is predominantly about the subject). I tried to clean up the article, or at least format the references properly, but there are a couple of issues:

• The article is a BLP minefield, and I'm still not sure the subject is notable. He's a politician, and as such is a bit more controversial than the article lets on. :) I'd still be in favor of deletion, but it's not CSD:A7 anymore.
• Other than myself, three users and an IP from Brooklyn have contributed non-trivially to the article. None of them has edits to any other article, except for the IP who added a bit of irrelevant data to Marty Markowitz, another Brooklyn politician. I'm doing my best to AGF, but re-creation of deleted articles and separate accounts with exclusive interest in a new article are suspicious.

Should I renominate the article for deletion? Can we get some more eyes on the articles and users in question? I'm a little new to BLPs, and figured it was better to come here for advice than BITE anyone... MirrorLockup ( talk) 18:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I did a fairly severe cut-down of unsourced statements. Judging from a Gnews search, the subject of the article is probably not notable, but only marginally so. Feel free to take it to AFD. Ray ^Talk 20:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Good edit...if he is notable, the fact that he's an Orthodox Jew is quite relevant, but you're right that the remaining sources don't say that. There were a couple of other sources that did, but none of them were Reliable. I'll start an AFD in any case. MirrorLockup ( talk) 20:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Another user showed up and re-added one of the non-reliable sources I deleted before [35]. I already removed that. But this user also made the same mistake as the previous users, adding <ref> tags around something that instead should have been an internal wikilink [36]. The quacking is getting louder...is adding non-reliable sources to a low-visibility BLP that's probably going to get deleted anyway disruptive enough to merit a sockpuppet investigation? MirrorLockup ( talk) 12:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob Enyart, a relatively unknown person outside of the Denver area is starting to edit his own biography. He is attempting to remove sourced information related to his child-abuse conviction. Msmothers ( talk) 22:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not forbidden for an article subject to edit his own article. If you can specify how, specifically, his edits violate WP:COI, then we would be in a better position to decide whether his edits improve the article or not. Bwrs ( talk) 02:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The article does seem to be more of an attack piece than a biography of a notable person, I personally really dislike articles like this, more of a rap sheet or a list of all the negative citable things someone who doesn't like him can find on the world wide web, no wonder he wants to edit it. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the article looks like an attack page to me too. Alex Harvey ( talk) 13:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimintheatl ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has been erasing posts that he doesn't like off the talk pages, and disregarding the consensus we have about how the article should be written. // J DIGGITY SPEAKS 02:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide some citations for the claim Jimintheatl has been erasing posts? I didn't look at every single contrib but most of those I have looked at don't show this and don't see anything in the edit summary to indicate he? has done so. I see User:Tedder has been erasing posts when he feels they are off topic (i.e. not about improving the article), usually making it clear in the edit summary. In particular [37] was clear cut offtopic and [38] was also dubious so I don't see any reason to dispute the removals. Given the state of discussion that I'm seeing there, some control may be necessary. P.S. User:A8UDI also did this [39] but I'm not sure whether he intended to remove Tedder's post and in any case Tedder doesn't seem to have felt it worth discussing so it's not really an issue. Nil Einne ( talk) 04:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW from a glance of the page, I agree that Jimintheatl is causing problems. However there's already several people watching including an admin and also who have told him to stop edit warring so I'm not sure whether the's much that can be done. If Jimintheatl refuses to abide by consensus I guess a block is the only solution. Edit: Actually I see Tedder has already blocked Jimintheatl Nil Einne ( talk) 15:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The article itself could be nominated for deletion or merged with Beck's. Steve Dufour ( talk) 17:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the page be semiprotected or at least watched over, since I think it's going to take a beating soon.Richard L. Peterson 71.198.176.141 ( talk) 03:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I suggest

WP:RFPP is the correct noticeboard for page protection but do bring up BLP concerns on this noticeboard. Ipromise ( talk) 05:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• The article probably should be deleted since she is not that notable. Steve Dufour ( talk) 05:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have proposed it for deletion. Bwrs ( talk) 09:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Little Richard has been undergoing considerable editing lately, and it would be very helpful if more good BLP editors could have a look to assist with keeping the tone encyclopedic and ensuring that the sources used are appropriate ... thanks Sssoul ( talk) 07:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Steve Swindells (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) appears to have been largely edited by User:Stephenswindells and User:Danmingo which is the name of his current band therefore there is likely to be a conflict of interest. The article is full of uncited claims and peacock phrases and promotion for forthcoming releases. A note to this effect ( diff) was added to the talk page on 26 Oct without any response. I'm not quite sure what actions are needed/appropriate.— Rod ^talk 19:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The subject doesn't look very notable to me, I would say nominating it for deletion is a good move. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The subject does seem to be part of a notable band and is perhaps he himself is notable but hard to find citations for him, article could use a music experts appraisal, possible improvement or merging with the band. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Its been prodded by a reviewer and given a week to sort itself out, It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: doesn't appear to be all that notable despite the flowery, promotional sounding language throughout. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've de-prodded it. He was a member of Hawkwind and has had his own album and single releases e.g. Shot Down in the Night which was covered by Hawkwind. This is a case for WP:SOFIXIT rather than deletion. Manually de-peacocking or reverting to an early 2007 version and then looking at later changes not by the subject are both options.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 00:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone has added a lengthy section to the Dominic Carter page. The new page details domestic abuse allegations against Carter. The changes were made by someone identified only with an IP address. I don't think the content is appropriate for a Living Person. I tried to change this the other day when the entry included only a sentence or two. Now, its grown to an entire section and it looks like someone with a bias. Could someone take a look at it? Thanks Doctorfun ( talk) 21:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly right, and I've taken a machete to that material. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone is repeatedly posting material on the Al Toon page saying that the city of Altoona PA was named or has been renamed for the former Wisconsin Badger and NY Jets football player without providing any evidence or references to support this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.80.155.7 ( talk) 22:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed as hoax, and notified user. -- JeffBillman ( talk) 00:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Eric Mangini (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Persistent adding of opinion of Rolling Stone journalist and well-known sports talk show host comparing subject of article to fictional children's literature character in unflattering manner. Does not appear to add anything of value to article; i.e. not a critique of subject. -- JeffBillman ( talk) 23:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see any problems. Steve Dufour ( talk) 16:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And for good reason: The offending edits appear to have been removed from the article history. Works for me... -- JeffBillman ( talk) 23:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin attention is needed here. There's an active edit war going on. Some of the info being added I believe violated BLP. Filthyfix ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has blown way past 3rr. Others would be close depending on if the material is covered by the BLP exception. I reverted to the most blp compliant version and tried to direct the issue to the talk page but reversions re-started before I could even finish posting. Some action is needed but I don't know if it should be protection, blocks or other.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 17:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Note, looks like the named user was blocked as I was typing.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 17:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There is discussion at Talk:Carrie Prejean#About the implants regarding how much weight to give the material. Any knowledgable input is more than welcome. John Carter ( talk) 21:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Julie Bindel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - IP User:83.100.165.91 repeatedly adding " misandrist" to the list of descriptors in first sentence of article and reverting its removal. This blatantly violates WP:NPOV and by extension WP:BLP. Note that I more generally take the position that this article errs too much toward Sympathetic Point of View and have already tagged the article for NPOV issues. However, I still find the actions by the above IP editor are uncalled for.// Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 01:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have semi protected the article as there is more than one IP address being used, the source being used to verify the claim doesnt support it. Gnan garra 02:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If an IP edits an article to state that somebody just now died, is that to be treated as ordinary vandalism (it has already been reverted), or do we do something else? Bwrs ( talk) 02:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

depends is it sourced, is the source reliable? Gnan garra 02:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sourced at all. Bwrs ( talk) 02:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

looking at the actual edit its more likely vandalism, doing a google news search doesnt bring up any articles either. IN general terms a quick check(google) for a news article if it doesnt return any hits treat as vandalism if there are lot of edits request protection( WP:RFPP) until it can be confirmed by a reliable source. On a side note to make it easier for others to check please link to the article Gnan garra 02:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I took a bunch of photos over the weekend at the Big Apple Con of the various celebrities and artists, and in placing the pics in the appropriate articles, I've come across a few in which I'm not sure which is the better photo. In three of the cases I'm not sure if the one already in the article is better, and in the fourth, I'm not sure which of the two I took should be used. I could use some opinions on this. I usually just switch the photo when the one in the article is of lesser quality (and there are quite a few of those), but since this is more ambiguous, I'd rather get some objective opinions, rather than create the appearance of just favoring my pics.

1. Daphnee Lynn Duplaix The one currently in the article is cropped off at the top, chopping off her head. The one I took doesn't have that problem, but I'm not sure if the lighting is too bright (which sometimes happens when I use the flash).
2. Michael Hogan The one in the article looks good, though the lighting is a bit dark. The lighting in the one I took is better, I think, but I wanted to be sure.
3. Lou Ferrigno Ferrigno's face is partially in shadow in the photo currently in the article. This isn't a problem in the one I took, but he isn't facing the camera, which I usually prefer.
4. Joanne Kelly I sometimes take a pic of the celebrity I meet with the flash and one without, and usually, the one with is the better one, but in this case, I'm not sure. The one with is the one I put into the article, but I think she looks really good even in the one without, and wanted some feedback.

What do you guys think? Nightscream ( talk) 01:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Note, I'm a fairly harsh critic on pictures. #1 the article pic is better for me as your has a distracting background; #2your is better, but needs to be cropped to portrait format; #3 article pic is better, if too dark; #4 the natural light pic is better, but you need to clone out the dude in the BG.

2 is a great portrait, I'd be very happy if I'd taken it. Kevin ( talk) 01:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My 2¢: Pic #1 - I'm torn. I think your picture is better in general but that annoying piece of paper in the background brings it to a tie. Pic #2 - Yours is better if cropped a bit. Pic #3 - The article one is definitely better. Pic #4 - I like the natural lighting one. I didn't actually notice the tiny guy in the background at first, but as noted by Kevin you need to remove or obscure his image somehow. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of the respondents, however, make sure you add {{Commonscat}} to each article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Have to ditto the above. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 02:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

@Nightscream, I too agree with Kevin and ThaddeusB. -- Túrelio ( talk) 09:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

1. yours would need cropping, the background could be reasonably fixed if annotated on the file page.
2. agree re cropping, shame people don;t use more diffuse lighting for "baldies"
3. stick with the existing - better for the infobox.
4. natural light.

Rich  Farmbrough, 02:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

• Thanks for asking my opinion/s which are as follows:

1. Daphne - yours if you are able to crop image background to remove most if not all of the background - perhaps some photoshop work?
2. Michael - yours
3. Lou - stick with current image
4. Joanne - I like the second image better accept for the curtains parting to reflect person X - so I suggest you keep your alternative - the current one.

-- VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 04:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• My opinions for what they're worth:

1. Daphne - I think the original is better; the new one has lighting problems, and problems with distractions in the background (e.g. a pair of jeans, a poster on the wall behind her head).
2. Michael - I think the new photo is better; I don't like the lanyon he's wearing around his neck in the original. However, I would photoshop the new one to fix up his hair in a few places, and also remove a distracting intrusion of grey in the background in the bottom left corner.
3. Lou - I think the new photo is probably a better photo but is taken in profile, which probably means the original is more appropriate for the infobox. It also has another face intruding in the background.
4. Joanne - I can't decide in this case. Alex Harvey ( talk) 04:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• My opinions, and thank you for asking. (I am using a *bright* contrasty LCD monitor in a dark room) Loosely, I agree with a good number of the above comments. (Is there any rule against using both photos?) But the real question is which you can effectively retouch.

1. Daphne - Existing photo has acceptable contrast, yours (until modified) does not (esp the washed out areas, on my monitor, at least). On the other hand, yours shows more personality, and also, er, attributes for which she is partly known.
2. Michael - Existing photo makes him look more like "the star", I find him harder to identify as Colonel Tigh in yours (for what that's worth!) Both photos need retouching to correct lighting on forehead.
3. Lou - Prefer yours. The shadow on one eye in the existing one might be difficult to correct convincingly.
4. Joanne - Yours is better in several respects.

On aggressive retouching. If you have very good skills, do it. As webmaster I was often asked to reshoot equipment pictures...the cohort in the next cube had been a magazine photo editor, and his standards were outrageously high. I had no alternative to avoid professional criticism from him, except to do color balancing, "unsharp edge", mask backgrounds, and sometimes adjust perspective. (And that's photographing using studio lighting.) I rather like the chance smiling guy in the background of your Joanne. I'd barely modify it at all (the very, very faint white blemish on left halfway between them, even with top of glasses bugs me for some reason), unless it was to standards for some magazine (or Wiki "standards" as mentioned in above comments?) All the others, I'd retouch. The existing one on Lou I might delete, even without your substitute. Best Regards, Piano non troppo ( talk) 07:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't have much to add to the above; substantial retouching as suggested might change things, but at the moment I prefer the current article photo for #1 and the natural light version for #4. Rd232 ^talk 08:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for asking.

1. Daphne: yours iff you make the contrast/saturation much more subdued
2. Michael: yours
3. Lou: stick with current one
4. Joanne:slightly leaning towards yours.

Hope it helps. -- Cycl^opia - ^talk 11:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cyclopia's views. — Cheers, JackLee ^{– talk–} 13:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm no photography expert at all, but I would say #1 yours with cropping, #2 yours, #3 status quo and #4 I'm really ambivalent but I guess the second one. - Draeco ( talk) 16:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with Draeco (as to both the choices and the disclaimer of expert status). As to Joanne Kelly, both are good, maybe I'd lean a tiny bit toward the natural light photo provided you can eliminate the mystery head behind the curtain (would be a cute detail in a random photo, but IMHO not the most appropriate detail for the top-of-the-page infobox photo). Hope you had a good time at Big Apple Con. Best,-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Another two cents: Daphne: replace with yours. Michael: replace with yours. Lou: do not replace, yours is worse. The much more engaged facial expression and sharper focus of the existing photo trumps the better lighting of yours. Joanne: replace with the unflashed one; the lighting and facial expression are both better. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I could only come to a clear conclusion for 1, 2 and 4. 1 although the improvements are good (I was confused by the above comments first until I realised the image had been changed) I still feel the existing image is better. The cut off hair is annoying but since this isn't Marge Simpson the highlight problem (not sure if that's the right word) in your image IMHO means it's worse. 2 yours is better although obviously needs cropping. As for 4 I agree with many above natural light is better. One thing it may be better to crop each image as appropriate then put a page, e.g. sandbox where you show each image the right thumbnail pixel size. That way it's easier to compare between versions. Comparing images of different size may not always give the right idea. Nil Einne ( talk) 20:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. But I need some clarification on something:

• Zscout370, Kim D. Petersen and Turelio, all three of you stated that you agreed with Kevin and ThaddeusB. But Kevin and Thaddeus did not agree themselves on Daphne's pic. Which pic of Daphnee did you prefer?
• Piano non troppo, Cyclopia and JackLee, you said that you prefer "my" Joanne Kelly pic. But both of them are mine. Which one were you referring to?
• Most of you said that you preferred my Daphnee pic, but only if it was modified to crop it, and/or fix the contrast/saturation. I can crop it in PhotoShop, but I don't know how to fix saturation/contrast. Are any of you able to do that? Could you then upload it to the Commons (with a "2" placed at the end of an identical file name)? Do you know anyone who can? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 00:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

10.17.09JoanneKellyByLuigiNovi2.jpg was the one I would consider printing and putting on my wall. Also, if you are not able to fix contrast now, I'd suggest you get a shareware program (there might even be a free "lite" Photoshop). www.tucows.com can be a good source, otherwise. Photo retouching can be extraordinarily complicated, but moving a single slider and seeing how you like the change is dead easy (and fun). Regards, Piano non troppo ( talk) 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW on 21 October I uploaded a version of the Daphnée pic with the background clutter removed. Unfortunately parts of her forehead, nose and cleavage are irrecoverably overexposed (you can avoid this in future by setting your EX-Z750's exposure compensation to under-expose by 2/3 of a stop). Anyway, I have now uploaded another version (timestamp xx:57) with her chemise a little less saturated and reduced brightness/contrast of flesh tones, and a further version (timestamp yy:49) that uses blurring to restore colour/texture to the over-exposed areas. The differences are quite subtle and may not be enough to rescue the image. Anyway, I hope this helps. The decision about cropping is up to you! Cheers - Pointillist ( talk) 22:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the Menu in my camera, I see that there are "Contrast" and "Saturation" functions, so I should be able to fiddle with those the next time I cover an event, but where is exposure compensation or the stop manipulation?

Where did you upload these new version of the Daphne pic? I don't see them at the Big Apple Con page. Nightscream ( talk) 15:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the new versions are on commons at 10.17.09DaphneeLynnDuplaixByLuigiNovi.jpg. I checked on the Casio website and the tech spec for the EX-Z750 says it offers exposure compensation up to ±2 EV in ⅓-stop increments, but I'm afraid I don't know where to find that setting on the camera's menu. All I can say is that it is worth looking for, because over-exposure is impossible (or very difficult) to fix whereas slight under-exposure is easy to correct. - Pointillist ( talk) 16:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

My comments as experienced user. Kasaalan ( talk) 21:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Daphne_Duplaix.JPG top part cropped is not good, though photograph is good.
1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10.17.09DaphneeLynnDuplaixByLuigiNovi.jpg good yet overexposed and needs some cropping to balance photograph
1. You may use both photographs, except top cropping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Daphne_Duplaix.JPG is better as image quality. Yet if you like I can fix your photograph issues with image editor. Daphnee Lynn Duplaix
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Hogan_Dragon_Con_2008.jpg red eye, wrong depth of field, eyes looking right, some top cropping might be useful
2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10.18.09MichaelHoganByLuigiNovi.jpg angle weird, he doesn't stand still but lean therefore proportions got wrong, weird smile, head leaned one side, forehead is overexposed by flashlight, you should adjust your flashlight levels try shifting exposure setting
3. Might be useful as a side reference. Cannot be used as standalone image.
4. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10.17.09JoanneKellyByLuigiNovi2.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:10.17.09JoanneKellyByLuigiNovi3.jpg nice photographs, really good work. I will check side by side then tell which one is better.
4. Both photographs are same, except you photomontaged one with panting black, over background. But it is not good, I prefer original one. But why you mentioned about flash, both photographs are same it is not an flash-without flash comparison. Kasaalan ( talk) 22:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you brought up that 2008 Michael Hogan image, since it's not mine, and I never mentioned it. As for his posture/pose/smile, those would seem to be determined by his natural physiognomy and/or his personal choice. I've already cropped that photo and placed it in the article.

As I explained regarding Joanne Kelly, one photo was taken with the flash, and the other without. Because of what the others said here, I placed the one without the flash in her article.

Pointillist, thank you very much. Btw, how did you manage to remove the old Daphne pic from the Commons? There are some old versions of photos of mine I'd like to get rid of in favor of retouched versions, but don't know how to do that. Nightscream ( talk) 15:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I've replied in more detail on my talk page. - Pointillist ( talk) 18:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I criticized as professional as I can, my opinions are the same. Generally except Joanne Kelly your photographs require underexposure manipulation in photo editor. It isn't about flash or not, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:10.17.09JoanneKellyByLuigiNovi3.jpg it appears you photo-manipulated and erased the man in the background from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10.17.09JoanneKellyByLuigiNovi2.jpg. I didn't check with photoshop so I am not certain. If you have done so you should avoid that photograph. Kasaalan ( talk) 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Experienced BLP-sensitive eyes desperately need at the article. I had been attempting to assist, but simply don't have time available right now, and probably won't for the next couple of days. High profile story, especially in California, and attracting well-meaning but inexperienced editors who need assistance. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, messy. Shouldn't the article be in some place like a news place? Off2riorob ( talk) 22:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've AFDd it. It belongs on WikiNews. Black Kite 14:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There may be several issues, but the BLP question has not been violated because no names of the suspects or victim has been released. Let's keep it (names) off Wikipedia until there is a complete and lengthy discussion. Ipromise ( talk) 04:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Dennis Ketcham inspired Dennis the Menace (U.S.) at the age of 4. However, he doesn't appear to have any other notability and I'm not sure we should have an article detailing the woes of this otherwise private person (given BLP1E).

I bring this up here because the article talk page obviously gets very little traffic, and I'm not sure (before asking here) whether it should be nominated for deletion. Please advise. AlmostReadytoFly ( talk) 12:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Boldly redirected to the only thing he's famous for. Hipocrite ( talk) 12:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Needs more eyes. A user who dislikes my contributions elsewhere is trying to goad me into an edit war over this transparent BLP violation. Hipocrite ( talk) 12:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no cabal. Neuromancer ( talk) 12:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisted.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 12:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I brought my concerns with this article up here a couple months ago but did not receive any input, so I'm giving it another shot. This article has many issues, most notably it appears to be essentially a PR piece for Joni Eerekson Tata. My main concern is with the lack of reliable sources and the tone. Given the subjec matter, I'm worried that if I start single handedly cutting out unsourced or POV commentary from the article it won't be appreciated by her large following. I brought up my concerns with the neutrality of the article on the talk page in September, but no one has commented. Is there anyone here who could read over the article and help cut back the worst of the puffery and POV comments? Any suggestions? -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 17:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Really what should happen is sources found, which shouldn't be too hard, and the article rewritten. Steve Dufour ( talk) 23:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There are some pretty strong allegations in the Thomas A. Tarrants article and it is completely unsourced. Should it be speedy deleted under G10 or is it salvageable? Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 21:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. The standard procedure is for BLP violations to be removed until sourced. Since it's a new article, that means deleting it. It can be undeleted if sources are provided. Someguy1221 ( talk) 21:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I generally try to add references to biography articles when patrolling the New Pages backlog, but in this case it seemed predominantly negative and I wasn't sure it should even remain given its current state. I will simply tag any similar articles for speedy moving forward. I'm surprised it lasted a month! -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 21:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Marietta, Georgia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two IPs (perhaps the same person) keep vandalizing this page with unreferenced comment about Melanie Oudin. They continue to post" Oudin also has the long-time nickname of "The Little Chicken," a nod to the Big Chicken landmark of her hometown'

There is no refence that this is true and in fact may be a slur against this young lady. The IPs are 66.191.125.116 98.251.120.123

They are also vandalizing the entry for "Big Chicken" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.232.57 ( talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 September 2009

This is the wrong place to put it. Marietta, Georgia is not a person and this is the BLP board. Try the vandalism board for recent vandalism, AN for a long term problem. Mayor of Gotham City ( talk) 01:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The change concerned a living person therefore BLP applies. I'm not saying that this wouldn't be better handled somewhere else but this is definitely a potential BLP issue and is not off topic here Nil Einne ( talk) 20:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Martin Landau (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An IP keeps changing his Date of Birth to 1931 against cited and reliable sources claiming iMDB and his grandma are better. As I pointed out sources indicate otherwise. // Q ^{T C} 08:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've given the IP a final warning (as they've been warned before on other matters and it was also made clear their edits were inappropriate). In future, it may be best in cases like this to just give warnings and if they don't stop, ask for them to be blocked on WP:ANI or WP:AIV if they ignore such warnings. (Technically warnings may not be necessary if you're clearly told them they need to stop, but it's helpful to have one to avoid any admins who feel they weren't sufficiently warned. You can safely ignore any requests not to edit their talk page (which belongs to the community) although editors are entitled to remove content from their talk page if they desire (it's taken as a sign it was read). Nil Einne ( talk) 18:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I see the IP could easily have been given a WP:3RR warning too Nil Einne ( talk) 13:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a source that says IMDB is not reliable? Maybe it is proper that some claim (does Martin Landau claim?) that he was born in 1931? From a BLP violation standpoint, there doesn't seem to be a major violation. Ipromise ( talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

IMDB has routinely been found not to be RS by WP standards. See WP:Citing IMDb proposal, and innumerable RS/N queries where it is deemed non-RS. Collect ( talk) 14:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A number of unsourced derogatory comments about Todd English have been added over the past few hours. Below are urls to diffs illustrating these change, which appear to violate your policies on such matters. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Todd_English&action=historysubmit&diff=324206668&oldid=324172933 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Todd_English&action=historysubmit&diff=324206668&oldid=323340582 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvogeljr ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any problems like that, so probably removed. The whole artice desperately needs to be rewritten however. Steve Dufour ( talk) 16:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the least of its problems - the article is a complete dog's breakfast, a humongous spam-fest, and needs to be heavily edited into an encyclopedic article. In any event the BLP violations have been reverted. –  ukexpat ( talk) 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%!!! BTW when did chefs become such celebrities/controversial people? Steve Dufour ( talk) 16:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Claims of notability for the academic Hooshang Heshmat are not supported by any reliable secondary sources. This article could be saved from deletion if sources can be found, but if not, what should be the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hooshang Heshmat? -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 11:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The outcome of the Afd discussion is in the hands of the admin who reviews it when its time has run. –  ukexpat ( talk) 16:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Could someone help with an ongoing dispute at this article? The question is if it is alright to include inaccurate information on someone if that information is found in a "Pulitzer Prize-award winning reliable source", but still known to be inaccurate. Steve Dufour ( talk) 14:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The information is supported by independent reliable secondary sources. Steve Dufour ( talk · contribs) is a bit disingenuous here, as he makes an unsupported claim, above. Cirt ( talk) 19:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted there was already an WP:RFC on this issue. And it should be noted further that, contrary to the consensus of that RFC, Steve Dufour ( talk · contribs) edited to remove the entire section of material [40]. Cirt ( talk) 19:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I still think it is wrong for a WP article to repeat an inaccurate statement, even it that statement is from a "reliable source." Steve Dufour ( talk) 23:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

From the policy page WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (emphasis on original page text). Cirt ( talk) 05:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

But doesn't WP policy hold BLPs to a higher standard? Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

High standard of sources - yes. High standard does not mean opinions of individual Wikipedia editors equals truth. Cirt ( talk) 02:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability is important. Truth is also important but BLP violations can't be excused because they are true. Nobody should think that false information is ok as long as there is a source. That could be a BLP violation. Ipromise ( talk) 04:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: The sentence in question was removed [41]. Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 08:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Who collapsed this? Its unsigned. I see it was collapsed after yet another uninvolved editor came in to say "hey should she have an article." Good luck fighting that fight (against a separate article) forever.-- Milowent ( talk) 18:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Unless she does something independently notable, such acting, professional singing, or any one of the many other things by which a minor child can become notable (one of which is not simply being the daughter of a famous man), she will not have an article. The loudness of the complaints about this fact do not have any effect on who is right and who is wrong. U A 18:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is it normal to collapse discussions like this? Why not wait until whatever the regular archiving schedule is (is there one?)-- Milowent ( talk) 07:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  It's normal to collapse (or simply archive) discussions that are serving no real purpose, yes. This is one of those discussions. U A 16:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am the one responsible for collapsing the discussion. Unitanode collapsed it and wrote that he was archiving a rehashed and settle debate (paraphrasing it). I objected because the archiving policy for this board is clear but I only re-worded it to "collapsing discussion", taking out the word "archiving" and other words. Prematuring ending the discussion is actually the worse thing to do because it will only cast doubt on the discussion. The better thing to do would be to allow the usual automated archiving of this thread which will happen in about 7 days. It would clear away all doubt to uncollapse it but I won't do it as I've done enough housekeeping for this board. Ipromise ( talk) 05:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the BLP noticeboard. From a BLP standpoint, there is no violation (let's hope that it says this way for all of Wikipedia). Ipromise ( talk) 04:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at Barack, Michelle, Malia, etc. I see that Malia doesn't have an article. This is clearly wrong, not sure why there is such a fuss to shield her. If she is non-notable, then her name should be kept private but she is clearly notable, even her family parades her on TV and even gave an interview. The excuse of being a daughter is just an excuse. Look at Bo (dog). He is even less notable and has never even given an interview. If Malia is not allowed, then Bo, Millie (Bush dog), Socks (Clinton cat), Fala (FDR dog) should all be deleted--but this is silly to delete them. Malia is more notable than Sasha so there shouldn't be any question about Malia having an article.

Even if there is no concensus, the AFD default is to keep, not delete. Come on, folks, let's get real. Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia without Malia. Midemer ( talk) 23:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

He is a Japanese Unification Church member who was held against his will by his family for 12 years. The article has few sources and only gives his side, not his family's -- who are also living persons of course. He is also filing a lawsuit against them, it seems. Redddogg ( talk) 16:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This article is really a mess. I am a UC member and on Mr. Goto's "side." However the article mentions a "deprogramer" by name and accuses him of serious crimes, without sources. Steve Dufour ( talk) 17:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Now nominated for deletion. Redddogg ( talk) 17:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The parenthetical portion of the title is a terrible choice. Even if this article is kept, it should be renamed. I'm not aware of any other biography which is classified as "(religious persecution)". *** Crotalus *** 16:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure "deprogramming subject" is any better, and it should probably not have been renamed while the Afd discussion was in progress. –  ukexpat ( talk) 18:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It is also possible that WP:BLP1E would apply here as well. Cirt ( talk) 18:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• In an odd twist of events. Cirt has started an article on Daniel Fefferman, one of the editors involved in this dispute. Redddogg ( talk) 01:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That is unusual, however Cirt's article on Dan is not bad. Steve Dufour ( talk) 16:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you! :) Cirt ( talk) 08:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Several editors want to state as fact that the accused shooter is guilty, and have removed "alleged" as a descriptor, which I see as required by WP:BLP when there has as been no trial and no confession. A second effort was to say that "according to authorities" an individual is the shooter, which again constitutes an unacceptable presumption of guilt. The preliminary nature of the press coverage is shown by the fact that earlier in the day the main suspect was said to be shot dead, only to come back to life, and that two others were said also to be shooters, only to be exonerated. Some eyes on the article would be welcome. Also see Talk:Fort Hood shooting#Allegedly". Edison ( talk) 06:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiCrime is pretty fussy about this, and since it's general practice (and law, but not the focus on Wiki) to use "Alleged" it's entirely inappropriate to remove it. "Police say" and the like is used with deceased persons who never stood trial; Lee Harvey Oswald and Chris Benoit being famous and much-argued precedents, respectively. It's pretty much the worst type of BLP violation imaginable to state in clear text that someone is guilty of murder if not convicted, and even if a guilty plea is ever given in court it's still not official until a judge accepts that and goes to sentencing. Arguments like "it has to be" or no matter how obvious it may or may not be are meaningless... it's just how it's done. When this started I got protection for the article of the full proper name of the suspect but that'll be up in 2 days and there's going to be a massive mess of things being created to get in its place as a separate article aside from the incident itself. There are about 20 name variant redirects and I suppose those will all need to be grouped up bulk redirect or deletion/salting. Edison-- if you have any ideas on how you're hoping to keep an eye on all these articles, leave me a message. When the incident article page is unprotected that'll be a mess, too. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Anya Ayoung-Chee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Look at the history of this article since November 5th. There's a quiet battle been fought between a number of anons and newbies inserting and removing some uncited allegations that, regardless of any truth, are highly defamatory. Just a heads-up that this should be watchlisted by more people. • Anakin ^(talk) 18:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Would protection against edits by new or anonymous editors be warranted, do you think? — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Just visited the page and absolutely it would. Requesting. 86.44.26.158 ( talk) 22:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Jake Wartenberg ( talk · contribs) has protected it for a month. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

There is a dispute going on regarding whether or not gerontologist Robert Young's Yahoo! Group by itself is sufficient enough to debunk a claim that a living person is not the age that they claim to be. I do not personally feel that it is, and it has been removed in the past by myself and others, but I've been wrong a lot lately on Wikipedia, so I thought I'd bring it here and let the community decide. Robert can post here and give you his opinion himself. Personally I don't care enough anymore to say any more than this, but there should be an official consensus on whether or not it should be considered reliable enough for WP:BLP. The discussion is here. Cheers, CP 19:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: right now, I'm the world's leading expert. Wikipolicy on "verifiability" allows exceptions to be made if the person posting the material is an expert in the field. Further, it's not "original research" if the material is published elsewhere prior to Wikipedia.

The "original research" policy has been misused/abused for too long now: it's time to stop. Again, it's NOT "original research" as the research was not posted on Wikipedia, originally. How difficult is that to understand? Ryoung122 05:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The material must be published in a reliable source to be included in Wikipedia. A Yahoo! group does not count. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 15:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Let's take a look at WP: RS policies on "self-published" material:

Self-published sources Main articles: Self-published sources (online and paper) and WP:SELFPUB

Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used in limited circumstances, with caution:

   * When produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

By this definition, which has been on WP:RS in more or less the same form for YEARS, I am an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in this field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. For example:

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/rej.2009.0857

Thus, by definition, use of material from me could be used from "self-published" sources. The WOP group fits that criteria, as I control/moderate all comments and have for 7+ years. Ryoung122 15:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Can you show us evidence that there is substantial independent evidence for the groups reliability? Specifically, please note any citations by other reputable sources, and if you could, note any doubts expressed in reliable sources about the groups accuracy? Hipocrite ( talk) 15:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear what the content is at the Yahoo group. Is it Robert Young's personal statements that he happens to self-publish in that forum, or is it some kind of crowd-sourced information that is gathered there? In the former case I'm not entirely sure that establishing the chronological age of various people is the sort of field for which experts exist in the sense meant here, as in say Greek language scholars being considered experts in Greek language. Here it is a simple question of the truth of various factual claims about people's ages, a question about which a particular person may be the most well-informed or determined, but where there are not (I assume, I may be wrong) all the trappings of peer-review journals, conferences, faculty appointments, professional honors, and so on. If there is no special standing to the field, then Wikipedia must get to the source rather than taking an expert's word for it. In the latter case, with few exceptions crowd-sourced sites are generally not accepted as reliable sources. As partial exceptions people do sometimes report content from IMDB, rottentomatoes, and metacritic for films, youtube for youtube hit counts, etc., but this is not uncontroversial and is generally done with an in-line attribution. - Wikidemon ( talk) 15:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt think that a yahoo group by itself is a reliable source even with a "gerontologist" moderating the forumn, its still not a reliable source in that there is no editorial responsibility/liability. Young appears have a high standing within the field and his conclusions are published through 3rd parties like Guiness Book of Records, the yahoo page is similar to a discussion on an article talk page intersting in and of its self but not reliable as a source to which we could attribute any facts. Also note that if the age of the person is of dispute then there would be 3rd party media sources that would include such information to which we can attribute that the age of the BLP is disputed. Gnan garra 15:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute between myself and JBSupreme at Max B as to whether using the official online records of Bergen County Sherriff's Dept. and those of the Department of Correctional Services, New York State to source the subject's DOB constitutes WP:OR. Views please. See article history from Nov 3 on for dispute. 86.44.58.6 ( talk) 19:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

To cut through some of the history to the refs in question: [56] is the official lookup tool of the dept. (from the sidebar at http://www.bcsd.us/ ). Name search "Charly Wingate" with box checked (his alias is provided in the record). http://nysdocslookup.docs.state.ny.us/GCA00P00/WIQ3/WINQ130 is a supplementary ref from an earlier conviction. The subject's real name and convictions are supported by third party reporting, these are just for the DOB. 86.44.58.6 ( talk) 19:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is akin to walking into the hospital for birth records. If a third party publication has not reported on the date of birth neither should we. Sorry dude but this really is the textbook definition of original research. P.S. please log in with your real account next time. JBsupreme ( talk) 20:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me to characterize this as OR; the only question is whether including such info in a BLP is appropriate weighting. Looie496 ( talk) 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, like I just said, this fits the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of original research. If you have to go to the Bergen County Sherriff's database and then cross reference it against other criminal records to make sure you have the right "Charly Wingate" then you're overstepping your bounds as an editor on Wikipedia. We cite reliable third party publications here, especially when dealing with biographies of living people. We do NOT, I repeat, ABSOLUTELY do not go out of our way to dig up information in criminal databases in order to, AHEM, RESEARCH, a date of birth! JBsupreme ( talk) 08:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If those records exist - and they apparently do - they are a perfectly valid primary source for the information. There's no OR in that at all. Original Research consists of substituting our own opinion or work instead of finding independent reliable verifyable facts or externally reliably published opinions to cite. Those records are reliable sources by our standards - published and maintained by government agencies, etc. We don't need a secondary source to quote them to use them, as far as they are just reporting facts.

Regarding appropriateness in the article - that's a different question, and one which we should err on the side of leaving out if other sources don't include it. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 10:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

All we are talking about is the date of birth, I don't see how or where appropriateness comes into it? 86.44.26.158 ( talk) 21:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[jibe removed, with apologies] 86.44.26.158 ( talk) 22:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Precedent on WP is that court records, although primary sources, ought not be used in articles. [57] states one reason why court records which are used for (say) DOB are bad for use in WP because they will therefore also inject material not suited per WP:BLP. In the case at hand, use of a court record does not simply verify DOB but provides material not otherwise usable in a BLP. There is no way to use a court record for a simgle clean fact, hence it can not be used. Collect ( talk) 12:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever about your logic or your characterization of that discussion, these are not court records - please check the given links. 86.44.26.158 ( talk) 21:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the issue of BLP was brought up, it would be helpful to read WP:BLP. In particular in terms of birthdates it says:

Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known persons where the dates:

• have been published in one or more reliable sources linked to the persons such that it may reasonably be inferred that the persons do not object to their release; or
• have otherwise been widely published.

It's quite clear the sources currently don't meet either of these criteria. In terms of primary sources it says:

Exercise great care in using material from primary sources. 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. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability.

I'm not seeing any evidence this source has been cited by another secondary source. As it stands therefore, it appears that those trying to include the birthdate have violated BLP in two different ways. In fact, from my experience at WP:BLP/N this is one of the more obvious violations since it's directly address in policy (other then unsourced nonsense) even if some of the explainations were not perfect. Nil Einne ( talk) 10:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The thinking behind it seems very weak to me: from the policy page, "With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private." If their DOB is a matter of public record I cannot see that there can be any expectation of that, and using a public record vs. waiting for a newspaper to do so seems a meaningless distinction. But that is policy. 86.44.19.103 ( talk) 16:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

not perfect isn't the same as wrong. 86.44.19.103 ( talk) 16:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The back end of new pages patrol occasionally turns up something that's difficult to assess properly in a short time. This appears to be a carefully referenced list, but was uncategorized. Could use a review by a few more sets of eyes to make certain it's compliant with WP:BLP. Durova ³⁶⁰ 18:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• List of mass murderers and spree killers by number of victims: Workplace killings

• Susan Hutchison (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dow Constantine (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A high profile, very contentious political campaign in Seattle Washington (no small county this; this is the highest elected office in a county of over 2 million people) is heating up as November 3rd elections approach. The campaigns have gotten ugly, and not surprisingly this is spilling over into the articles. Currently, I believe they are neutral, but efforts by supporters & detractors attempting to control candidate's Wikipedia pages may have reached the point of extensive socking (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/He pled guilty). Both of these articles could really benefit from more watchers who don't care and can help ensure that they remain neutral. I suspect the situation will cool down after the dust settles following election day. If you have room on your watchlist, please consider keeping an eye out. :) -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The dust didn't settle on Susan Hutchison. Currently, there's one tendentious editor making some borderline and some unacceptable alterations. In addition to adding unsourced controversial information, s/he is moving the "controversy" section to greater prominence (and this is where he or she is placing unsourced controversial information) and removing sourced positive material. See [58]. Help still needed. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article about J. Z. Knight had 13 successive edits of deliberate vandalism by User:Dreadlight. Angryapathy ( talk) 07:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any problems. The intro should be rewritten so it is about her importance, not about the claims she makes to supernatural communication -- not that that couldn't be true but WP is written for (and about) people in this world. Steve Dufour ( talk) 17:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I removed the vandalism, but the user put items in like, "JZ has been know to channel Satan and Hitler," among many other acts of vandalism. See the diffs [59]. Angryapathy ( talk) 19:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

On this article, an editor is reverting the removal of an unsourced quote by Brittny Gastineau as "vandalism". The quote is from the movie Bruno and talks about how the subject thought that another famous living person (Jamie Lynn Spears) should have had an aborotion. My question is, is it apporpitate to add unsourced quotes to a biography of a living person? I also think this content is trivial and shouldn't be in the article. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.18.229 ( talk) 19:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not unsourced to state what her role was in the movie. Removing these facts is vandalism. Spidey104 ( talk) 23:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh...you're involved and not exactly a neutral party. i would like some input from someone not involved and someone who understands what vandalism actually is. Also the unsourced quote has been removed with just a mention of her apperance in teh film which should be enough. Rewording content is NOT VANDALISM. who wrote this?

I never claimed rewording content was vandalism. Removing the content IS vandalism and that is what I was constantly fixing. The rewording of the content was done AFTER I re-added the information to revert the vandalism that was removing the content. You are portraying events contrary to facts. Now that the content is reworded ,with the necessary information still included, I am happy with how it stands. Spidey104 ( talk) 14:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the above comment and I AM NOT portraying events contrary to fact. you have reverted rewritten content even if that means repeating the same info twice and called vandalism. That can be seen in this link [60] It was the next to last edit you made to the article when you finally stopped edit warring which I appreciate. Now 128.104.213.238 has taken up your cause of including an unsourced inflammatory comment about another living person. I'll assume good faith for now but i find that coincidental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.34.240 ( talk) 19:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it ironic that 70.243.34.240 is accusing me of continuing an edit war on an article that he himself has edited under at least one other address ( 70.241.18.229). I have continued to make edits to other articles since I stopped touching the Brittny article, so what evidence do you have to prove that it is me? I only just now noticed that this edit war was continuing because I was about to remove this page from my watchlist. Spidey104 ( talk) 16:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. 128.104.213.238 ( talk) 16:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not ironic to have a rotating ip address. My isp gives me a new ip everytime I log on. You can also mark all the talk pages of the ip's I use but it is not sockpupperty to use different ips to edit. I haven't been acting like I'm different people or used the different ips to create fake support for my edits or anything so you can find it ironic all you want but youre sadly mistaken and you know it. If I were you Id find the fact that the 128.104.213.238 ip hasn't edited once since June 2009 and only appeared to help you re-add the text youve been readding to the article since July 2009 [61] more ironic than my valid ip change. There's also the fact that they edited three times in the last three days about thirty minutes after you. [62] [63] [64] I guess you can't be the same person though because you warned them on their talk page and then they told you (twenty-six minutes later) that they will probably keep on edit warring [65]. Plus they even vandalized your page which no sockpuppet would ever do [66]. Unless you want to battle wits some more about sockpuppetry this issue is resolved because the BLP violating text has been removed for the tiem being. I wont be surprised if 128.104.213.238 shows back up to start the game again though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.34.210 ( talk) 02:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's rather convenient that you have a rotating IP address so you can do whatever you want without anyone linking you to a string of edits. You should just register. I on the other hand continue to use this one and only IP address so that everyone knows it's me. I'll eventually register, but only after this conflict has been solved as I want people to know it was me the whole time and not think it's two separate people. 128.104.213.238 ( talk) 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I have now registered because it was the only way to try to keep my fight alive. 128.104.truth ( talk) 21:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone uninvolved in this particular dispute, I think that the sourcing policy involving direct citations to creative works (movies, books, TV shows, etc) is often interpreted inappropriately. While such citations are appropriate for content involving in-universe aspects of fictional works, they are not appropriate for verifying "real-world" claims. They amount to no more than an editor's assertion that "I read it in a book" or "I saw it on TV," or something similar. An in-universe claim about a fictional character is quite unlikely to result in harm to any real person, so the usual cautions about original research and primary sourcing can be less restrictive; when a real person is involved; WP:BLP and the principles behind it require stronger, more reliable sourcing than an editor's assertion/recollection. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 16:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Daniela Santanchè (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - inaccurate information, insults, no references. she is an prominent italian politician, i read the word idiot in the article, is not encyclopedic..

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Daniela_Santanchè&diff=324762689&oldid=324685689

I've removed the "idiot" comment. I don't know if there are any other inaccuracies in the article, but it looks like more sources are needed. snigbrook ( talk) 02:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed more, including an image. The sourcing here sucks.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 16:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Differences of opinion on what material to include or not. I am a personal friend of the subject so other opinions are needed. Thanks. Steve Dufour ( talk) 04:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Note the article makes use of multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt ( talk) 05:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In the words of Steve Dufour ( talk · contribs) (higher up on this same noticeboard), Cirt's article on Dan is not bad.. Cirt ( talk) 05:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

But Dan himself is not notable by WP's official standards and the article is nominated for deletion. Steve Dufour ( talk) 06:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Fefferman.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 15:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read and comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal: "Cry BLP" blocks. Jclemens ( talk) 05:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I made my comment, however WP policies on civility prevented me from expressing the full depth of my feelings on the issue. Steve Dufour ( talk) 06:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone more knowledgeable than me have a look? This article is completely unsourced. I thought I was in the right by stubifying it, but I've been reverted twice. The article is currently at AFD and will likely be gone in a few days anyway, so I guess it doesn't make a big difference either way, but I'm just curious as to whether I was doing the right thing or not. 71.162.20.205 ( talk) 13:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Born:9th June 1946 in Cradley Heath.

Keith was a born sportsman. He played pro football for Birmingham City, Aston Villa then finished his career in the States. Keith also became Britsh & European Karate Champion he held the title for an incredible 6 years Keith was a warwickshire county squash player. Keith is also a Padi Pro Masterdiver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.175.89 ( talk) 20:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't have an article on Keith Durn, and no Keith Durn has ever played for Aston Villa or been European "Karate champ". We have a Keith Dunn, but he's 103 years old if still alive. -- NellieBly ( talk) 05:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

See [67] - the edit summary removing these accurately cited texts reads "At General Stubblebine request this violation of Wikipedia' policy on biographies of living persons was removed as he said it libelous and misrepresentative of the actual events and remarks made.". There's obviously COI, but my concern right now is that the sources are reliable sources from our viewpoint and I have no reason to see they are misrepresentative. If there is libel in the book or article I don't understand why he hasn't sued. I've reverted once already but I'm bringing it here for other input. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The material that is being removed is supported by a reliable source (a book review in the Guardian, at this link), but it's easy to see how the article's subject could be offended by that material -- and by the whole article. The article consists largely of a string of factoids that, taken together, make him out to be a crackpot. The factoid about belief in walking through walls is one of many isolated factoids that might(?) seem less ridiculous if there were some more context for it. Let's not restore it until there's more context for it.
I've added some material about his military career (to provide a bit of balance) and I've marked several facts in the article that are not supported by citations (and should be deleted if they are not sourced soon). In addition to sourcing, some additional expansion and rewriting are needed to put the factoids in better context. -- Orlady ( talk) 16:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why Stubblebine might not want it in his article, but that isn't our problem. Here's a recent article in the UK's Daily Telegraph, a respectable newspaper and a reliable source (although I prefer the Guardian) [68]. I'm sure he doesn't like it either. But it is these beliefs and behavior that make him particularly notable (and the recent film has brought him back in the news), and I think they need to be in the article. I like this bit "in his mind, there was never any doubt that the ability to pass through solid objects would one day be a common tool in the intelligence-gathering arsenal. Nonetheless, he was continuously frustrated by his own, rather embarrassing, lack of success.'I still think it's a great idea,' says General Stubblebine. 'I simply kept bumping my nose. It's a disappointment - just like levitation.' Dougweller ( talk) 16:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying the information should be excluded, but it needs to be discussed in context. The context, as near as I can determine from the very limited research I have done, is that he believes that humans have many psychic powers that could be very advantageous to the military, if only they were appropriately investigated. The Ronson book (which can be previewed online at Google books) discusses his idea about walking through walls at some length -- and in the context of these other beliefs. Present the full story of his beliefs and views, not a few isolated quotations about specific odd beliefs. -- Orlady ( talk) 19:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a clear idea of what you want, why not do that yourself? Dougweller ( talk) 21:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

By posting here, you were asking for administrators (and others) to comment on the BLP issue in an article of interest to you. The fact that I responded to your request does not obligate me to research the topic and rewrite the article for you. -- Orlady ( talk) 01:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the material re. walking through walls on the grounds that the reference cited, a major British newspaper, easily meets the bar for WP:RS. Moreover, an unconfirmed indication that the subject might object to this statement is not grounds for removal on WP. If the subject does object, he can do so by utilising the protocols at WP:BLPHELP, which are specifically designed for situations such as this. Vitaminman ( talk) 00:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph, and it should be left out until consensus is reached on how this information (or allegation) should be included, if at all. Some information available on the internet (not meeting WP:RS criteria) suggests that that the presentation in the Guardian article does not provide relevant context. (It's written in non-journalistic style anyway, as it does not indicate whether the Ronson or the article's author actually support the allegation.) It might just as well be gossip that Stubblebine felt was too ridiculous to merit some kind of formal denial. Such BLP sensitive information should always be based on more than one source.   Cs32en  00:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Question: If enumerating his various (well-sourced) views "makes him out to be a crackpot", where's the problem? Crackpots exist. If this guy's views paint him as what he is, why is that a problem? U A 01:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need to be cautious of material only sourced by the book, with an eye to BLP and NPOV. The Guardian article is just a book review, after all, correct? However, if his prominence in the book is a part of his notability, then it deserves some mention. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Much of the Ronson book is available online. He is discussed extensively in that book. If an interested Wikipedian were to read the book, they should be able to provide a good discussion of Stubblebine's views. The single flip remark about him that was included in the Guardian book review may be true, but that one fact is not presented in the context that the full book provides. -- Orlady ( talk) 01:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I also linked to a Telegraph Daily Mail article which gives some context. Yes Orlady I asked for comment and you provided it. You also edited the article and removed what appears to be key information about the subject. I still think that when you did that and showed you had some idea what you thought should be there that shrugging aside all other responsibility is not the way to go. I for one don't want to find myself in a position where I add something and all you do is remove it because it isn't what you think should be there. Why can't we use the Telegraph Daily Mail article? Dougweller ( talk) 06:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are actually numerous articles in publications that conform to WP:RS in which the walking-through-walls issue is mentioned. Here's another one: [69] Stubblebine's prominence in Ronson's book - which itself can be regarded as a WP:RS - is indeed a part of his notability and most certainly deserves mention. Vitaminman ( talk) 09:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)