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

• Michele Bachmann (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The article is in such poor shape for a number of reason (poor sourcing, weight, BLP violations) that I am proposing a complete rewrite [1]. CENSEI ( talk) 00:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has a lot of fat that needs trimming, but I don't see any serious BLP issues. The one issue that CENSEI has brought up on the talk page was about a paragraph that was sourced to a blog of a political reporter for a well-respected local newspaper. CENSEI argues that it was not a reliable source and should be removed. Others on the talk page disagreed, as do I. Other issues that have been raised include the fact that 1/3 of the references cannot be verified. But this is untrue. A lot cannot be verified by clicking on a link, but that is not a condition of WP:V. These are sources from local newspapers covering the politician.

I've removed the 3 specific instances of information cited to unreliable sources. [2] The only other issue that I see raised is that undue weight is placed on particular aspects of the congresswoman's voting record, with the only specific issue being raised about the 100 hour plan. Congresspeople are only notable for what they do in Congress. It seems noteworthy to note their political opinions and votes. Based on the other sub-sections in the 110th congress, I do not think it is undue weight to talk about the 100 hour plan, as it received major media coverage. If there are other issues that need to be discussed in that section, they should be added instead of information being removed. - Atmoz ( talk) 17:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think that you are entirely correct that only one issue was brought up. The example on talk was only one example of a much larger symptomatic problem. Is, to bring up another specific, The Center for Independent Media a reliable source? Three entire sections in the article are based off of it. I would ask you to look more carefully at the article again.

While you claimed that the material on the 100 hour plan recieved major media coverage, all citations were made to the Mankato Free Press, and to an opinion piece at that, not even a news story. CENSEI ( talk) 00:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Taner Akçam ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There need to be more eyes watching this article, which is the BLP of a Turkish academic teaching at Clark University. The article is usually not very active, but every so often it sees a spate of editors inserting negative material, because Akçam is one of the first Turkish academics to acknowledge and write about the Armenian Genocide. In the past, editors have inserted statements labelling Akçam a terrorist into the article, which once resulted in him being detained at the U.S.-Canada border.

Right now, a new editor, User:Kirlikovali, is inserting the claim that a position Akçam held in 2007 at the U. of Minnesota was funded by Armenians, and therefore his scholarship is biased-- [3] [4]. The "source" for this edit is a letter Kirlikovali says he received from Minnesota's general counsel, printed at User talk:Kirlikovali. Needless to say, this is not an adequate source for the claims made. --Akhilleus ( talk) 21:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the posting of someones twitter account forbidden as providing contact information or is it allowed as is a persons website/blog? -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone is notable enough for an article I'd think their Twitter link could be deemed as public and ok to put in, given Twitter is more or less a kind of blog. Gwen Gale ( talk) 15:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's like anything else: per WP:EL, list the subject's main website, if any, but not a linkfarm full of their Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, etc. accounts. If they only do public contact via Twitter, that would be OK; otherwise, no. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The question of overcategorization, as it applies to the subject of a BLP, is joined, both in recent reversions and re-reversions at the subject's page. Would others with an interest in whether or not the "American Criminal" category is overcategorization where the "Politicians who have been convicted of crimes" categorization is undisputed please chime in on the talk page and with edits, if appropriate? I have in mind WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. What do others think? David in DC ( talk) 19:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If we had a category for "American politicians convicted of crimes" then it would cover both the career and the nationality. A comparable category would be Category:Convicted Italian MPs. However we don't have such a category at present and so two separate categories are needed to properly categorize this subject. That isn't "overcategorization". Since there is no doubt that the subject is American, a politican, and a convicted criminal I don't think that there is any BLP issue here.   Will Beback  talk  20:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm hard-pressed to understand why "Politicians convicted of crimes" and "Political scandals in the United States" don't cover all of these attributes sufficiently. David in DC ( talk) 20:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Because scandals and crimes aren't the same thing. Many scandals don't involve crimes, and not all crimes create scandals. In any case, that's an issue to resolve by creating or reorganizing the categories as a whole, not by deleting valid categories from an individual article.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A bigger issue is the definition of the category itself: membership of Category:American criminals is given by being convicted of a "notable felony" (plus some non-convicted where guilt is undisputed). I don't know where/how "notable felony" is defined... Anyway this category is part of Category:American people by occupation. This seems to elide technically being a criminal (i.e convicted of a felony crime) with being a criminal by occupation, a huge leap. Even if the category weren't placed within the "occupation" category, this same leap occurs with applying Category:American criminals directly to BLPs of people who don't earn the majority of their living through crime (that being the common usage of "criminal" IMO). This leap between technical definition and common usage is problematic to the point of being a WP:NPOV problem. Rd232 ^talk 20:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

RD, this matter received extensive discussion previously, particularly at Category talk:American criminals#Yikes!.   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

RD, there are many people who are notable for their crimes, but who have earned little or any money from them. For example, would we omit Charles Manson from the category because he didn't make a living as a criminal? That doesn't seem to make sense to me. There are many major crimes that don't generate any income.   Will Beback  talk  21:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know where you are, but here in western Pennsylvania this was well-known, and indeed part of a notable controversy: see Bonusgate. It's my opinion that he's a criminal by dint of having pled guilty to a crime: what is a criminal if not this? Oxford defines the noun "criminal" as "A person accused of a crime" (obsolete; this would be POV anyway) or "A person guilty or convicted of a crime." Perhaps this is a problem with the category itself; but the idea of this man being an American criminal is surely not a problem. Nyttend ( talk) 20:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• David in DC, please stop deleting Category:American criminals form articles on people convicted of major crimes until this matter has been resolved.   Will Beback  talk  20:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rd. And this thread is about how the American Criminals category applies to Frank LaGrotta, not other edits extraneous to the Frank LaGrotta article. David in DC ( talk) 20:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you intending to start a fresh thread about the other articles? How is the principle different for those articles? This seems to be a general issue relevant to several politicians.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Happily, Will has proposed that he stop reverting my American Criminals deletions and I stop deleting entirely in the American Criminals category, pending further conversation, consolidated in one place. And I have agreed. It's here. I will next start the thread he proposes. David in DC ( talk) 00:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As I proposed before, the simplest solution might be to create a category to cover nationality, criminality, and political career: Category:American politicians convicted of crimes. Any objections to that?   Will Beback  talk  06:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. David in DC ( talk) 11:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like it solves the problem that started this thread. But there's still my definitional problem with the American Criminals category. But I guess I should take the issue to the talk page of that category, and I can't be bothered. Can't care about everything, and like so many of these huge categories, they don't seem to serve much purpose anyway beyond generating argument; labelling for the sake of labelling. So I'll let it be rather than argue about the labels. Rd232 ^talk 14:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't even solve that. I tried creating the cat and implementing it on two pages, but was quickly reverted. Good Olfactory rightly pointed out that this category, for better or worse, has already been created and deleted as a result of a CfD consensus. It's back to the drawing board. I suggest all furth conversation on this topic move over to the American Criminal Category talk page. David in DC ( talk) 02:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Kyra Phillips (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An issue was raised at WP:COI/N regarding editing of the article on Kyra Phillips by a CNN-based editor. However, in reviewing the article, I perceive that it has more serious BLP issues, which if addressed would probably resolve the COI problem. Over half of the article consists of “criticisms”, mishaps and gaffes, a number of which are cited to blogs, YouTube and dead connections. Could someone here help guide the editors toward developing a more balanced and NPOV article? TIA, Askari Mark (Talk) 04:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

While working to address the COI issue I failed to fully scrutinize the content. I have restored the mishap section, removed the blog and YouTube sources, added more qualified sources, and added detail to the section to present a balanced POV, including Phillips acknowledgment of the mishap. ++ Arx Fortis ( talk) 05:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

These is still an issue of undue weight of the criticism section. While properly sourced, it takes up half the article. Kevin ( talk) 20:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the article a bit (partly to address Kevin's concern, which I share) and left a talkpage comment. Avruch ^T 21:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP article, subject of recent disruption from an WP:SPA, could use some extra eyes, and cleanup with sourcing. Thanks, Cirt ( talk) 21:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Avruch ^T 21:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Avruch ( talk · contribs). :) Cirt ( talk) 22:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on further thought I've proposed it for AfD. Avruch ^T 22:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay sounds reasonable. Cirt ( talk) 23:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The introduction to this article says (among other things) that she is "despised." This article is a BLP. The claim is extremely negative and is not referenced. The article is protected from editing by people like me. Would somebody please immediately remove this potentially libelous claim? 74.1.175.146 ( talk) 23:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Exxolon ( talk) 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda Due (P2) was a quasi-Masonic Lodge that was at the heart of a huge financial scandal in Italy, back in the 1980s... Both the group and the scandal were real, but both has subsequently become fodder for various conspiracy theorists.

The article contains a section on "notable members" of P2, and I have serious concerns about whether such a section passes WP:BLP. The core issue here is that the article lists people (some living, some dead) as being members of P2 based on what are essentially rumors reported in the tabloid press, at various conspiracy theory websites, and other unreliable (or at best semi-reliable) sources. Some (but hardly all) of these sources say that they got their information from an offical report created by the Italian government. That report apparently contains an appendix that lists the names of people found on a rolodex owned by the groops leader. The assumption that the unreliable sources make is that the names on this rolodex were all members of the Lodge (an assumption that is questioned in reliable sources and which is actually warned against in the previous section of our article). In other words, we have a list of "members", supported by citations to rumors that claim their names were on a list that might be a list of members (but might not be).

I have attempted to raise my concerns about this several times on the article's talk page, and tried to remove what I think is a clear BLP violation, but my concerns have been ignored. Please take a look at the article and help resolve this. Blueboar ( talk) 15:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This description of the issue at hand is full of false allegations and misrepresentations of the facts. The list is real and can be found on what I consider a reliable web site. There are other websites that carry the list and the names are consistent. On top of that, the people named in the list in the article all have a second reference. These references are not from the "tabloid press", but news sources such as The Economist, The Independent, The Guardian, Pagina 12, as well as reliable books by a well known journalist and a respected academic. I could also add a range of Italian newspapers such as La Repubblica, Corriere della Sera, as well as even more books. Furthermore, I would have been nice if Blueboar would have noticed me that he was starting this discussion. Clearly he reads the tabloid press too much and takes over the way they report on the facts. - Mafia Expert ( talk) 15:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. All I have done is ask the people who regularly examine BLP concerns to take a look at the article. I will let them take it from here. Blueboar ( talk) 15:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If you take a case to this noticeboard you should at least have the decency to inform those involved and mention it on the talk page. Do you still consider The Economist, The Independent, The Guardian, Pagina 12 to be "tabloid press" or do you want to reconsider the way you presented the case above? - Mafia Expert ( talk) 16:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, adding to your blatant misrepresentation: One source says the list is a COMPILATION of the list and Gelli's Rolodex, not ONLY the Rolodex. - Mafia Expert ( talk) 17:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a formal arbitration panel. It is simply a noticeboard for seeking input on BLP issues. I am asking those who are familiar with the BLP policy to come to the artcile and look at it. There is no requirement that anyone be notified (and given that you found my post within half an hour of my posting it, there was no need to notify you). In any case, I am continuing the discussion at the article's talk page... anyone interested can drop by there and opine. Blueboar ( talk) 17:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, that does not dismiss you of the obligation to present the case in an honest and unbiased way, something you manifestly failed to do. - Mafia Expert ( talk) 18:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that membership in organization was, on its own, illegal... And that there is no way of knowing for sure which of the supposed members actually joined, which were included on the membership list without their knowledge, and which were simply in the Rolodex of Gelli... I'd say that the names themselves, but not necessarily the description of the list and its publication, should be removed. They don't seem to lend much crucial information to the article, and we ought to err on the side of not inaccurately describing "notable" people as having committed a crime. Avruch ^T 21:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The membership of Berlusconi, Calvi, Sindona, high ranking military, not crucial? You must be joking. The membership of the people is common knowledge among anyone who has read a bit about P2. Removing them is making Wikipedia look very, very silly. All names are backed up by other reliable sources and I can add a dozen more if that is required. You want to remove this Berlusconi: False testimony regarding membership of the "Propaganda 2" (P2) masonic lodge as well? - Mafia Expert ( talk) 21:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't suggest removing any of the names from the body of the article, merely the list. The confirmed members whose membership is described, with confirmation as opposed to presented as a possibility, should of course remain. But since most of the list consists of redlinked names, I think those people and others whose membership is not established in fact should be pared from the list. Removing the list is, really, a simpler alternative - its better to have their role described in prose in any case. And no, I'm not joking. Avruch ^T 22:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Avruch, what would you say constitutes confirmation of membership? The problem we are having is two fold... a) Verifying that a given name was in fact on Gelli's list, and b) Verifying that being on this list indicates membership. A lot of sources (some reliable, some semi-reliable, and many unreliable) state that a given person was on the list, but most if not all make the assumption that this means they were members. I would certainly agree to listing those who have admitted membership, but how do we deal with those who are assumed to be members because they were on the list. Blueboar ( talk) 12:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid it is somewhat more complicated than Mr. Blueboar is presenting the issue. What about 'alleged' members who denied their membership but were considered to be members by the Italian Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry or who were convicted by Italian courts? Since the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry considered the list reliable and genuine, all should be included, although we only highlight the most notable members in the list on Wikipedia. - Mafia Expert ( talk) 15:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a compromise position. I have moved the final paragraph (which discusses how being on Gelli's list does not necessarily equate to membership) to the front of the section, and changed the section headers to avoid definitively stating that the list is a list of members... I think we can discuss the fact that the list was found, and note who was on it, as long as we don't state definitively that the list = membership. Hopefully this will be acceptable. Blueboar ( talk) 15:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, that is a fair compromise, I can live with that. - Mafia Expert ( talk) 16:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like an adequate solution to me. Thanks for proposing it. Avruch ^T 16:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Jacqui Smith (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm all for april fools, but i find todays ITN item "A newspaper discovers that pay-per-view porn is amongst a number of unusual things being purchased by British MPs on their claimed expenses." tasteless, and more importantly a potential violation of BLP for Jacqui Smith. If we can't have Fair use content on the front page because we are such a high profile website, then I believe that anything that reeks like a potential BLP issue, should not be allowed either. We are making fun and exposing to a much wider audience the trouble a certain individual is facing (how rightfully that trouble may be). Who are we to decide that that is OK when it is "just" an april fools. I'd like to know what other people think. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree if were a random piece of gossip culled from a scandal sheet, but it's not. Jacqui Smith is not just an MP, she's the Home Secretary;she was already under investigation by a Parliamentary Committee regarding previous expense claims and this latest twist in the story has been widely reported in the UK. The BLP aspect well covered by the Well Known Public Figures clause.-- MoreThings ( talk) 11:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oxford English Limited (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi. Text has been repeatedly added to this article which I believe to be problematic under WP:BLP, including such allegations as "The sexual politics of the group was bizarre." The large chunk of material which includes these allegations is unsourced. The material has been several times restored with the note that sources are pending. Additional input on this matter would be appreciated. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just updating: given the likeliness that this material will be restored without sourcing, the article has been temporarily fully protected. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering the recent rumors regarding an alleged affair with her co-star, some editors have taken to adding this info in her article, which I promptly removed. I also left a note regarding this issue on the talk page. I'm bringing attention to this here, so editors can keep a lookout on the article. -- Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 23:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I responded to the anon who responded to you, but I do have to ask ... do we consider Us Weekly to be a supermarket tabloid and therefore unreliable just because it primarily covers celebrities and is prominently displayed on magazine racks next to checkout counters? What's the basis for that assertion? Daniel Case ( talk) 08:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCES#Questionable sources, a policy I linked to on the talk page. Yes, Us Weekly is considered an unreliable source because they can make up any biased rumor they feel like and publish it, claiming it to be the truth on so-called "evidence". As you said, the tape that claims to be LeAnn Rimes and the man she is allegedly cheating with, but their faces are never visible enough to prove that it is really them. -- Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 21:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

But so can any media outlet. Do we consider The New York Times to be unreliable because Jayson Blair made stuff up and the paper printed it? I'd like to hear something more specific about Us before I fob this one off on "unreliable source". Daniel Case ( talk) 05:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a good reason why the policy on sources is there. New York Times is a reliable source in spite of their gaffe because they paid a a hefty price for their mistake, whereas Us Weekly is purely a tabloid that publishes false and exaggerated stories for readers' enjoyment, and is not meant to be taken seriously. As far as I know, they have no plans on becoming a reputable news source. But I can't force you to believe it if you don't want to, so edit at your own discretion. Just don't be surprised if you were to ever add some information in an article citing Us Weekly as a source, and another editor reverts it, citing my reasons above. -- Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 00:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

WhipIt:What was the hefty price that NYT paid for the Jayson Bliar lies? Yes they did write a coverstory article about how he lied & plagarised. I read your 'hefty price' to mean financially. Did their page views drop or ad revenue drop? 70.108.102.252 ( talk) 18:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What I meant by "hefty price" was the damage to their reputation as a reliable news source. -- Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 06:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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

I've been watchlisting this article for some time due to persistent BLP problems. It concerns a veteran French journalist who has been the target of a fairly virulent online campaign for several years (he is effectively a hate figure in some quarters). He has been accused of various misdeeds by his detractors; the allegations against him are currently the subject of litigation in France and were judged defamatory by a French court in 2006. Unfortunately there have been persistent attempts to use his Wikipedia article to rehash these allegations and present them as fact or otherwise to discredit or impeach him, which raises obvious BLP and potential legal issues for us. I've started a discussion about a rash of recent edits at Talk:Charles Enderlin#Describing defamatory claims and who makes them. Outside input would be appreciated so that we can have the benefit of a second opinion. -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that the entire episode is fisked to death in Muhammad al-Durrah, including covering everything in the Enderlin article in far more detail, there's an argument that the section should be cut down to a paragraph summary with a seemain link to Muhammad al-Durrah. This would also respect WP:WEIGHT - this one episode occupies more than half of this respected journalist's bio. Rd232 ^talk 13:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Chris, you're using BLP as a figleaf here to violate 3rr. There are no "defamatory" claims here. Is it kind of a close call? Nope, not even remotely. What's being added to the article is that some people (per WP:RS), disputed Enderlin's findings. That violates no policy whatever, though trying to suppress it certainly does. And I have no idea why you're using that court case. Even if it were relevant to us here (and it assuredly is not), it was overturned on appeal. But if anyone wants to review Chris's edits and see if even one of them reverted a BLP vio, I'd be happy to hear thoughts. IronDuke 15:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith. This is a sensitive issue (as the court case illustrates) so it is important that everything is probably properly! sourced and clearly attributed and not doing so does create BLP issues, though the severity of those is clearly disputed. Again, as noted above, cutting down the relevant content in the Enderlin article to a summary of Muhammad al-Durrah would help, as this same argument there (where the material is duplicated in much greater detail) would be less contentious than in this bio. PS Muhammad al-Durrah should probably be Muhammad al-Durrah shooting but that's another matter. Rd232 ^talk 15:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, there are some who argue that suggesting an experienced user assume good faith violates that very dictum... bit of a conundrum, perhaps. There has been some pretty loose talk of "defamation." Anybody, besides Chris, want to post here with a straight face that this is going on? IronDuke 18:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "Chris, you're using BLP as a figleaf here to violate 3rr.", and I neither know how experienced you are nor see how it's relevant. Either AGF or provide some evidence - don't insinuate. Also to suggest that referring to AGF is in itself a violation of it per se is nonsensical; the whole point of AGF is not to assume that you know another editor is acting in bad faith. References to AGF may be given in bad faith, it is true; but, as with AGF more generally, editors should avoid carping and insinuation, or make a substantial argument and provide evidence. As to the article, since neither side of the debate has provided diffs and the situation appears fluid it's hard to get much of a grip on it - which is why I only said what I said above, without commenting on specifics. Rd232 ^talk 18:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Here you go: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Content dispute? Sure. "Defamation?" Please. IronDuke 15:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please check talk page Joel Fitzgibbon

I feel that Helen Liu( Liu Haiyan Chinese:刘海燕) of the Australian Diamond Hill Company) deserves a wiki, the reasons and sources

1. The Australian report 30/3/2009 report
2. ninemsn report
3. Independentweekly report
4. Skynews report
5. Livenews report 29/3/2009
6. The Age 26/3/2009 report
7. SMH.com 30/3/2009 report
8. The Age 30/3/2009 report
9. The Australian 1/4/2009 report
10. The Herald Sun 1/4/2009 report
11. Peter Coates's article

I feel that Helen Liu will go down into Australia's political history. Arilang ^talk 11:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to note that I recommended that Arilang bring this matter here, as it has already proved somewhat controversial. I am not familiar with the particulars of this case, but recommended this forum for him to determine the appropriateness of such an article. At question is whether the individual clears WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Currently, she has coverage at Joel Fitzgibbon but is not named there, I presume in deference to Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

With approaching 2000 references to her in the media surrounding this person, her name SHOULD be mentioned, theres no concern for privacy once the name has been widely disseminated and backed up by reliable sources. Note Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_names once the name has been widely disseminated (you could easyly find hundreds of reliable sources for her name) the concern isn't valid anymore and they should be named. As for WP:BLP1E see my comment below to how it's applied (or more accurately, not). —  raeky ^{( talk |  edits)} 15:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

looks a fair clear BLP1E to me - she *might* get a one or two line mention in an article about the politician but that's about it. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT doesn't determine if someone is notable enough for inclusion, only WP:BIO does. ONEEVENT is simply a guideline, and one that is never followed. —  raeky ^{( talk |  edits)} 15:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I object to user Cameron Scott's comment, my reasons:

1. Helen Liu herself is a very prominent patriotic overseas Chinese
2. Helen donated large amount of money to China
3. She shakes hands with many big time politicians, Chinese or Australian

Politicians come and go, but Ms Liu will stay rich and famous regardless of who is in power, Labor or otherwise. Arilang ^talk 16:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think this is a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Can any mention of her be found before 2009? To establish notability there needs to be more coverage than just the Joel Fitzgibbon controversy. -- Surturz ( talk) 13:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The ONEEVENT rule isn't really a hard-fast rule, refer to Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_21#One_event:_actually_policy.3F for some discussion on how it's applied. Provided there is enough reliable secondary sources for her, specifically about her not her as a sideline to the event, then theres grounds for an article provided she meets the WP:BIO qualifications. —  raeky ^{( talk |  edits)} 15:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Seems to be quite a few news articles referencing her: [10] —  raeky ^{( talk |  edits)} 15:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Nguyen Tu Quang (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Poorly referenced WP:BLP article, subject of recent disruptions from WP:SPAs and IPs (see history). Protection requested but no response. Need some help. Thanks-- Amore Mio ( talk) 10:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Anthony Indelicato (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This one is an BLP nightmare, almost totally unsourced, gossipy, and unencyclopedic. The guy may be an unsavoury character, but BLP still applies.  –  ukexpat ( talk) 16:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally unsourced, poorly written, and I have no idea what "spoutus" means, and if it's an attack. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 19:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the extraneous unsourced material, and found a source for the Fan Lan-chin bit. Subject seems to only be notable for one event though. - Atmoz ( talk) 20:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Waugh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Subject apprently wants article deleted, edited article as 84.43.125.213 and left this : (Alexander Waugh) who wishes to have this article deleted, which (since he is said to have written it himself) should present no difficulty to the administrators of Wikipedia. If, however, the tag stating that his entry is "autobiography" is removed he will be happy to have this modest entry retained. The edit summary was (Was unable to delete entry. Have added sentence to draw attention of administrators to my plight. Hope it works AW)

The article was started by User:Awaugh, so I think this is what the autobio tag is referring to, and thus, the edit by the anon ip. I have invited the anon ip to participate in this discussion. Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Gavi Stulberg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article should be deleted immediately, for the following reasons:

a)The citations provided are fictitious. The links do not exist.

b) This individual is not notable. This appears to be an article, written by a group of immature high school students about one of their colleagues. This person is "relatively unknown." He is not a notable subject. Per the wikipedia guidelines:

c) The tone of this article is inappropriate for Wikipedia:

"Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted (see #Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material)."

d) The guidelines for "Biographies of living persons" can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. This article meets the standard for deletion:

"If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, containing primarily unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.241.201 ( talk • contribs)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I've deleted it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunović (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is repeatedly being blanked by Darko Trifunovic ( talk · contribs), who claims to be the subject of the article. It's been the target of a lot of disruptive editing by Serbian and Bosnian editors over the years, as the individual in question appears to be fairly controversial. In the last few months a series of anonymous IPs have repeatedly attempted to replace the article with a poorly written curriculum vitae. The problems appear to be reaching a new stage now, so input from an uninvolved administrator would be appreciated.

I've also posted this to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. -- ChrisO ( talk) 00:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I recommend centralized discussion on ANI Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 00:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - input from BLP/N participants would be welcomed. Please direct any feedback to the AN/I link I posted above. -- ChrisO ( talk) 00:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Gravity Entertainment (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -

An article on a movie production firm. Various IP's and new accounts are repeatedly inserting allegations of criminal conduct by company employees, referenced only by blog entries, which fail WP:RS. Although the article itself is not a biography, the BLP guidelines indicate the policy applies to biographical material about living persons on any page.

There's been a cycle of adding and removing the material - I locked the page for a week to encourage discussion, but the blog-referenced allegations were simply restored as soon as protection expired. I'm considering a longer-term semi-protection but wanted to bring it here for additional sets of eyes first. Euryalus ( talk) 03:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Given your description, a longer term semiprotection seems like a good idea. Additionally, the article as it stands is a pretty good candidate for deletion anyway - unreferenced, no evidence of notability. I'll come back to this tomorrow and look for sources, may propose it for deletion if I can't track down some good ones. Avruch ^T 04:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Soapboxing aside, is Talk:Michelle_Obama#Michelle_Obama.27s_legal_and_health_care_services_career a BLP violation? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 01:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The user seems to have a pattern of asking questions that one can perceive to be soapboxing in disguise. Still, we must assume good faith nonetheless, but you may remove the question (or rant, depending on how you look at it) and leave a polite note in their talk page informing them what is and what is not appropriate to discuss on talk pages. -- Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the discussion and will inform the OQ. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 22:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Edward Lodge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Another editor and I are concerned with what we consider to be libel in the section of "Investigation into banking practices," the claims made in the section, especially the claims made by the Oregon Observer, this claim is made by a non-notable newspaper, and is not even referenced by it or any other source [11]. The removal of this absolutely baseless claim has been reverted many times with no explanation, or additional citations. The only reference, made earlier in the section, is to a blog, which is not peer reviewed or reliable, and whose own disclaimer at the beginning of the page claims: "This page contains articles and tidbits submitted by concerned citizens, for concerned citizens. Take the articles for what they are worth and try to verify their accuracy. It is up to the reader to gauge the article's accuracy." This is not even a remotely reliable source and I hope that this potential libel will remain off the page until more accurate, verifiable documentation is provided. " Miltenburg67 ( talk) 05:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)"

Comment: The severity of the claim makes the need for a reliable source particularly strong. Never mind whether the Oregon Observer is a reliable source (actually it's supposed to be the Idaho Observer), the only online reference to this issue (excepting echoes of Wikipedia) is in a website which is clearly not reliable; and the source isn't actually even that website, it's an article allegedly from the Idaho Observer emailed by Some Guy. [12] This is just not good enough, by any stretch of the imagination! Now if someone can find the offline archive for the Idaho Observer and look at that, that might be a WP:RS (I'm not sure, but I think local papers on local issues are generally trusted, especially on something they'd get their ass sued off for if wrong.) PS FYI part of the disputed claim has been printed in a book on Bankruptcy which uses some material from WP: here. Just goes to show... something. Rd232 ^talk 11:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what may be a libelous statement at [13], and tried to strike out the potentially libelous comment made by an anonymous IP editor. Now an edit war is initiated, placing the comment back in. I would appreciate a third opinion whether the potentially libelous statement should be struck. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's best not to remove items from talk pages unless the libel rises to a level that potentially could cause legal troubles for Wikipedia if left in place. This is way short of that. Looie496 ( talk) 18:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be a civility dispute more than a BLP issue. Yes, people on the talk page are calling a living person a liar, but they are doing it with perfectly reasonable external sources and arguments. Wikipedia is not calling this person a liar, the allegations are part of a normal (if rather rude) discussion on the content of an article, and does not go beyond that. Physchim62 (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as a point of order, I remove stuff from talk pages all the time that isn't libelous, ect, not saying if this rises to that level, but talk pages are not forums for writing wahtever folks want to. Anyways, -- Tom (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do that too, I should have said that its not a good idea to remove things for being libelous unless etc. Looie496 ( talk) 21:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Like the last snarky comment from the ip in that thread wiki considers "stealing is bad" a matter of opinion I could be wrong could be removed as not a forum. Thanks for the clarification, makes sense. Anyways, -- Tom (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Fitzgerald (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive61#Jennifer_Fitzgerald You can think what ever you want about my motivation for mentioning this article but it's slanderous, and it's sources are not very reliable. Fodient ( talk) 20:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article is very problematic, based on highly questionable sources and written in a gossipy style. Looie496 ( talk) 21:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Moats (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zach Thomas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,
I'm somewhat concerned about the treatment of a certain police officer in the Ryan Moats and Zach Thomas articles.
For those not familiar with the event, the cop basically robbed Moats of his last chance to see a relative before they died. However, as horrible as that is, it was still within the context of doing his job (however poorly he may have been doing it).
Since then, the only times his name has been mentioned publicly has been in the context of this event (whether directly or indirectly).
The mention in Thomas's article is even more disturbing, as it is only because of a single article that mentioned Thomas's wife, and was still within the context of the issue with Moats.
Keeping this in mind (and I've also tried to explain part of my arguments on the Ryan Moats talk page, so by all means, get a better explanation there), I don't see how the officer's name can be used within the articles. Well, actually, I don't understand how the incident is relevant to Thomas's article at all, since the event didn't even involve Thomas. But my primary concern is with the mention of his name, since that seems to be a significant BLP concern.
As explained in the policy page, names of people who aren't public figures, relating primarily to a single event, should be omitted if it doesn't significantly detract from the article.
Anyways, I would appreciate if a few of you could look at that sectino of the policy page again (the 'privacy of names' section), look at my arguments on the Moats talk page, and then perhaps weigh in? Both in terms of the Moats article and the Thomas article. 209.90.135.248 ( talk) 00:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've looked into it and have removed some of the information on the Ryan Moats page, and have deleted the entire reference to the incident on the Zach Thomas page. In concerns to the Ryan Moats page, I removed the text: "including pulling a gun on Moats, even after Moats's explanation was corroborated by a hospital nurse". This is a completely libelous statement. "Pulling a gun on Moats" infers to the reader that the officer was not acting in official capacity and simply pulled a gun on him. It was also unsourced, but I believe should be left out even if a source is found. I removed the "Moats questioned whether race could have played a factor in the interaction due to the nature and tone of the officer's remarks to the family" statement for obvious reasons, and I removed the jailing for an illegal u-turn section because it has no bearing on this incident whatsoever. I removed the entire section regarding the handcuffing and jailing "incident" on the Zach Thomas article. I can't think of a reason why it was included or considered notable in the first place. Thank you for bring this issue to light. Matty ( talk) 01:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Misinterpretation and misuse of WP:BLP. The information is properly, reliably sourced. The race comment is not a BLP issue - the article simply states Moats opinion. Please review WP:BLP and do not removed sourced material from an article. Grsz ¹¹ 01:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Just so everytone will know there was a discussion ongoing on the talk page there, which has now come to this page. Actually Matty, the issue the IP was bringing up was the naming of the officer in the article. I can see your point on the "pulling his gun" section, however, the questioning by Moats of a possible racial motivation is properly sourced and relevant. It's been added by multiple editors (when an anon IP was blanking it), so I don't understand what your "obvious reasons" for deleting the sentence are. Dayewalker ( talk) 01:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Though the 'race' accusation was, of course, laughable, I do agree that it's still Moat's opinion, and thus relevant to the Moats article. The 'pulled a gun' comment is, indeed, an additional concern, as it has a very accusatory tone. But my primary concern was with the inclusion of his name.

I must say, however, that I find it slightly offensive that anyone is being accused of 'misusing' WP:BLP. Please assume good faith, particularly when it's simply about adhering to a supposedly important policy.

I'd also like to remind Grsz11 that whether or not something is 'sourced' is not always the only concern. If it was, then WP:BLP wouldn't even exist. 209.90.135.248 ( talk) 01:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this was here. I've removed the wife+officer part from Zach Thomas, as I explain here. -- slakr^{\  talk /} 03:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Personal" section in the Moats article should be an embarrassment to this project. Talk about undue weight. This is the only material in that section? So the man's entire personal life is defined by that event? Maybe retitle that section for now and then trim later on after the spotlight has faded. Anyways, Tom (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I find what's there currently very distasteful. You don't need the "When asked if he should be fired" part to convey the story. The whole incident is likely NOT encyclopedic and I vote it be entirely removed. —  raeky ^{( talk |  edits)} 11:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with threeafterthree - massive WP:UNDUE issues. Also I see no reason why the police officer in question should be identified by name. The relevance of the incident in that article is from Moats' interaction with a police officer. Anonymising the police officer would help focus on the issue at hand and lessen the BLP issues re the man who was just doing his job. Moats was a visitor delayed for 13 minutes - there's a lot of bad luck that that time was critical for the person he was visiting, but I'm somewhat skeptical about the encyclopedic value of the whole thing. WP:NOT#NEWS. As to the Thomas' wife thing in the other article: absolutely out, no justification for inclusion at all. Rd232 ^talk 12:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've now removed the officer's name. Hopefully, if anyone disagrees, they'll discuss it on the talk page before reverting. The article doesn't seem to have lost any readability or context from the removal. As for removing the entire incident, well, it does seem to give undue weight. On the other hand, it's very much conceivable that people may very well look up Ryan Moats's article for more information on this subject. Even if I think that content is a bit unnecessary, I still tend to prefer to give readers information they may be searching for. (Presuming, of course, that the information doesn't violate BLP) 209.90.135.182 ( talk) 20:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just to follow up, thanks for the input from others. I don't think, nor was I saying that we need to nuke the entire section. This "incident" was widely reported and is more than well sourced. Just rename the section title, reduce it in size, and leave out the commentary. The incident, which has been pointed out by others but not included in the article, actually reflects on how well this individual handled the situation and didn't allow it to escalate into something truely ugly. If that had been me, I would have kicked the cop in the nuts and been on my way, but I am a hot head :). I renamed the section for now and hopefully over time this "material" can be trimmed back and other relevant facts added to the bio to improve it. Anyways, -- Tom (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Mark S. McNaughton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - You have two SPA's fighting over a former state representative's involvement in a lack of payment of child support. At this point its all just edit warring, vandalism. I could probably go in and fix the article myself, but these two aren't going to stop and I am not in the mood to edit war myself. So I will leave this year for the BLP folks to handle.

• Wolfie36 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chuckle203 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 13:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the entire section. The only source given (and only remotely reliable source I can find - but I'm not sure I consider it reliable either) only gives one para on McNaughton stepping down due to child support controversy - no details. [14] The rest of what was in the article is unsourced, possibly WP:OR. I can find nothing useful in terms of reliable sources. Rd232 ^talk 14:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Roger Chiang (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While cleaning out the catchall Category:American criminals I came across Roger Chiang. The article was peppered with dozens of recently added {fact} tags along with older hat tags. [15] After investigating briefly I decided first to revert to an earlier version and then to delete large unsourced or POV portions, including some that made negative assertions about 3rd parties. [16] [17] An anon restored the material and I deleted it again, asking for sources. Then another IP address, presumably the same person and possibly the subject, reverted again while making a claim of libel. [18] I've now stubbed the article. There appear to be ample sources describing the subject, they just need to be used. I won't make any further edits for the time being except to delete unsourced additions.   Will Beback  talk  19:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a couple of deadlinks (one to youtube) which might conceivably be objectionable. I am not a fan for blocking for legal threats, I'd rather work with people who feel offended, but I think this is a case where someone should consider blocking.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 19:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've left notes on the article talk page and the last anon's talk page pointing to this thread. Blocking would be difficult since a variety of IPs have been used, so it'd be better to work with the person to achieve a lasting accord.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Priscilla Presley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could people with spare time keep an eye on this? I've just removed some nasty BLP violations and lots of unsourced and inappropriate material, and I expect there will be editors trying to add some of it back. And the material that's left could use more eys on it. I just cleaned out the really bad stuff. Amazing that it was allowed to stand in an article on a fairly well-known person for so long. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a prig, but I think that, even after your well-warranted deletions, there is still far too much intimidate detail about her and Elvis's sex lives. OK, her being Mrs. Presley is important to her notability, and it appears to be adequately sourced, but I have my doubts. Seems a bit borderline at least. More input on this definitely would be desirable. Stetsonharry ( talk) 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking Priscilla Presley#Life with Elvis this section should be removed until someone is willing to do a BLP sensitive re-write. A blow-by-blow from a sensationalist book is inappropriate.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 20:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I did the same thing with Ryan O'Neal. Ms. Presley, apart from her life with Elvis, was/is a working actress in her own right and I have neutrality concerns about so much peeking into the bedroom. Stetsonharry ( talk) 20:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan O'Neal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ditto with this article, as with the two above. Approx. half the article devoted to very recent arrests and other salacious material. Have removed but more input would be terrific. Seems that celebrity and show business bios attract this kind of thing. Maybe there should be a "Wikiproject Celebrity Biographies BLP Issues" or something like that. Stetsonharry ( talk) 20:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mehmet Oz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please look into this editing conflict. This discussion was taken from Mehmet Oz's talk page on April 3, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.115.184 ( talk • contribs)

I added a revised section with added referencing on Dr. Oz's dog experiments at Columbia University; to this article on March 28, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.115.184 ( talk • contribs)

I removed this junk. Dr. Oz is not mentioned in any of the source materials. Only on two activist websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.237.196.228 ( talk) 19:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The main source was a 2004 letter from Mary Beth Sweetland to Elizabeth Goldentyer, DVM of the USDA. Dr. Oz and his dogs (as in Oz dogs) are discussed on pages 2 through 5. http://www.columbiacruelty.com/letters/USDA1104.pdf Most of the website information was reproduced from this pdf document. It is usually "activist sites" which make a point of documenting animal abuse. Furthermore, this uncontested information appears to have been online for quite sometime, since the incident took place in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.115.184 ( talk • contribs) , April 2009

The removed section reads:

In 2004, complaints about Dr. Mehmet Oz’s dog experiments were cited in a report produced by an internal investigation conducted by Columbia University into allegations of poor animal care made by Dr. Catherine Dell’Orto, a post-doctoral veterinarian at Columbia. http://www.columbiacruelty.com/feat-pupkillings.asp This letter contains lab animal records from Columbia's internal committee’s investigation, including dogs under Dr. Oz. http://www.columbiacruelty.com/letters/USDA1104.pdf pg 3-5 See also html version of individual reports on dogs used in Dr. Oz's experiments. http://www.columbiacruelty.com/feat-pupkillings-pups1.asp According to the report, highly invasive and stressful experiments on dogs were performed without a humane endpoint.

It does not appear that anyone from the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (IACUC) actually bothered to inspect the dogs used in Oz’s experiments despite the invasiveness of the experiments and the strong potential for suffering. http://www.columbiacruelty.com/letters/USDA1104.pdf , pg 2

Freedom of Information Act requests made by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to the National Institutes of Health revealed that subsequent applications for grants by Dr. Oz have been denied. http://www.columbiacruelty.com/feat-pupkillings.asp

I think that to discuss this in the article, we would need a reliable source such as a story in a high-quality newspaper. Looie496 ( talk) 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

has anyone checked for a mention in Chronicle of Higher Education? They usually cover things like this. DGG ( talk) 07:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

Richard R. Lavigne (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Richard R. Lavigne is sourced by only one local newspaper article, but contains very serious allegations (including murder - even though it is mentioned that Lavigne was exonerated). I am not sure this subject even merits an article as it would appear to be covered in other articles. However, I encountered this article when patrolling the new pages backlog and don't know enough of this matter to see if anything needs to be done here. Some more experienced eyes will be welcome. Thanks. -- Crusio ( talk) 16:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Prodded per WP:ONEEVENT and I'd suggest sending to AfD if the prod is contested. The article is in no shape for Wikipedia and most probably won't be unless the priest claims notability outside that scandal. — Admiral Norton ^{( talk)} 15:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Babak Radmanesh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Newly created page. Subject of the article appears to be notable. However, the content of the page after the first paragraph is potentially libellous, and there are no sources to support these claims. I deleted the offending sections, and the original author restored them without comment. Can you please either get the dodgy comments properly references or stop this user from inserting them? Chris Neville-Smith ( talk) 10:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Someone else has removed the offending paragraphs, and there haven't been any further reversions yet. Will let you know if there is any further trouble. Chris Neville-Smith ( talk) 11:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Update 2: Nope. Spoke too soon. Chris Neville-Smith ( talk) 12:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed again - no verifiable reliable source for the info given - or indeed for anything else, including the alleged relationship with Sami Yusuf, where I also removed some WP:OR. Please watch that article as well. Rd232 ^talk 13:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Also it's clear from the history/contribs that User:Whistleblower1977 is the same as the IP pushing today's edits on both articles. Bear this in mind if it continues. Rd232 ^talk 13:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have given 212 two clear cut warning for edit warning and one for his/her continual violations of our BLP policy. I suggest any further additions and you request a block Nil Einne ( talk) 13:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Now our friend has gone back to editing on Whistleblower1977. Anyone fancy blocking that account? Chris Neville-Smith ( talk) 13:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked both the IP (for a week; length largely because in addition to the edit-warring to insert problematic material without discussion, it inserted a deliberate error, lopping a zero off a sourced concert attendance) and User:Whistleblower1977 for 31 hours. Note that I've also removed the assertion Yusuf is a Shia - there is no source for this and in some circles this is a potentially very damaging thing to say. Also given the lack of sources for Babak Radmanesh (googling doesn't help) I'm not sure if he really is notable or not. Rd232 ^talk 14:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

NB User talk:Whistleblower1977 has a copy of Sami Yusuf from 29 March (with the shia assertion). I'm not entirely happy about that; is it allowed? Rd232 ^talk 14:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

ukexpat has blanked that page. I've put a prod on Babak Radmanesh as there doesn't seem to be much purpose in keeping an article where notability is not established and the only contributor was someone trying to spread unsubstantiated allegations. If someone else wants to keep this, I won't argue. Chris Neville-Smith ( talk) 15:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Tsutomu Shimomura (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kevin Mitnick (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both these articles suggest illegal activity on the part of Shimomura but this is poorly sourced and it's not entirely clear what was allegedly done that is illegal (I presume it's claimed Shimomumra hacked himself to find Mitnick but this isn't stated). Nil Einne ( talk) 13:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Michael A. O'Connor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BerwynTalker ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA is using account to make attack page.

This article is about a politician, and a user is adding POV in favour of a rival candidate in an election. The article is a short stub after I removed poorly sourced or unsourced content, and the user is re-adding information about a controversy that doesn't appear to be important. I've explained to the user, but I don't want to be involved in an edit war (I've already made three reverts), so I think it would be more appropriate for another user to look at it. — Snigbrook 22:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to jump in. I grew up in Berwyn, only problem it was in a different State on the East coast :). Anyways, going forward, could you try to keep discussions on the talk page so it is centralized? No biggie and thanks for the heads up, cheers, -- Tom (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Time to block the SPA soon. Tom (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Daniella Rush (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I come to seek guidance. I've added information with 2 sources, which User:Morbidthoughts undid. Then I added 2 other sources (none of the total of 4 sources was a Wikipedia mirror), and he again undid. He claims of my talk page User_talk:Debresser#Daniella_Rush that all 4 sources are unreliable. What is your opinion? Debresser ( talk) 15:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you get no answers here, you also have the option of consulting with the reliable sources noticeboard about the reliability of each source outside the context of the Daniella Rush article. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 00:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll consider that if no reactions will be forthcomming here in the next day or so. Debresser ( talk) 01:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Morbidthoughts on this one. We can reasonably assume that the real name of a porn star who acts under a pseudonym is information that requires both reliable sourcing and a sound argument for inclusion. IMBD and realname.of fail the first requirement, and no argument that the real name is relevant has been made. Keep in mind that the mere existence of information isn't enough to justify inclusion. Avruch ^T 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reaction. I argumented on my talk page that her real name can be found on quit a few webpages and forums. Therefore I see no reason not to include it and several to include. What do you say? And what is your opinion about the other two sources? Debresser ( talk) 21:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Feith (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This entire article is probably the worst mess I've seen. I lack the energy to clean it up -- it's a humongous linkfarm, resembling more a random collection of material pro and con than a balanced biography. We've got everything on here from squirrelly not-quite-accusations of manipulating intelligence to unproven rumors about espionage. Ray ^Talk 01:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The professional praise/criticism sections seem way overboard. We have the same folks in both sections? The external links section is also way too much. Anyways, I tweaked the lead about his 2 year teaching, but wouldn't know where else to start. Anyways, Tom (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Outstandingly awful. I'd go so far as to suggest stubifying and using the current version, along with related articles on relevant topics, as source material for a complete rewrite. Rd232 ^talk 03:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out the bios of the men who preceeded and succeeded him. I know this guy single handly started the War and invented waterboarding, but for real? Tom (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reworked the objectionable part of this somewhat. I'm not sure we need the praise/criticism quotes at all, I've moved that and the laundry list of accusations against OSP to the talkpage. In the mean time, I've taken some good content from the Office of Special Plans page and incorporated it with some modification into this article in the "Bush administration" section. Avruch ^T 17:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Could use some more voices probably in the discussion at Talk:Douglas Feith. Avruch ^T 20:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom Dolby (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a statement in Tom Dolby's Biography that is incorrect. Andrew Frist is not the nephew of former U.S. Senator Bill Frist. Andrew Frist is a distant relative of Senator Bill Frist. I know this because I am Andrew's cousin and know who his real uncles are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.189.212 ( talk) 02:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Bill Frist since the citation mentions Ellen and Robert Frist of Indianapolis? Anyways, thank you, -- Tom (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fabiano Caruana (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard ( Rd232 ^talk 05:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)):

I don't know who your programmer is. But this is ridiculous. I just want to say that there is incorrect information on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabiano_Caruana . I click "discussion" and GOD KNOWS how to actually write something. You guys have more instruction on your site than content. WHO HAS TIME TO READ THAT MUCH. Make it more user-friendly to have a discussion on something. Should be simple enough to post, like a forum. Make edits to a page is easy, I've never actually tried to add discussion to a page. Anyway, information about him being a grandmaster is incorrect. He is a level under a grandmaster, he is an International Master. and I don't believe he is the youngest in US history either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajthapar ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"We" have a programmer? Seriously, if I can use(somewhat) this site, anybody can :) Just click on the discussion page and then click on the edit this page tab and off you go. Anyways, Tom (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The statements in the article are supported by good sources, so we'll need better sources to change them. Looie496 ( talk) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Mumia Abu Jamal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Malosinus changed the infobox from Template:Infobox Person to Template:Infobox Criminal. [19] This removed information about the subject's academic career, and added information about his convictions and real(?)/birth(?) name. I reverted, and User:Looper5920 re-reverted. Given that he is not just convicted, but also an author and political activist, I don't think that this infobox is appropriate. The only reason I am not reverting again is that the word "criminal" isn't actually displayed by the template.

I would like to have some clarity how we handle this kind of situation. I believe the global view on Mumia Abu Jamal is that he is very likely a political prisoner. Amnesty International do not say so ("In light of the contradictory and incomplete evidence in this case, Amnesty International can take no position on the guilt or innocence of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Nor has the organization identified him as a political prisoner, although it has previously expressed its concern over the activities of a government counterintelligence program, which appeared to number Abu-Jamal among its targets [...]." [20]), but they are generally extremely cautious with such statements and they clearly hint at the possibility. The European Parliament in various resolutions repeatedly asked for a re-trial. [21] Paris made him an honorary citizen and explicitly called him a political prisoner. [22] [23]

This is a bit of a tough one. An infobox shouldn't be used as a way to sneak controversial claims into an article, but I don't actually see anything there that is controversial. I think the lead of the article could do a better job of summarizing the international fuss, but that's a separate issue I guess. Looie496 ( talk) 02:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Mohamed ElBaradei (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Extremely poor article on this person of some significance (director of the IAEA for last ten years). I've chopped out a number of things that didn't belong, but still it's not going anywhere that's good BLP-wise. It's not a three-alarm libel issue, but it could really do with some eyes on it who are interested in writing a bio, and not in effectively trying to create content forks on the work of the IAEA. Rd232 ^talk 03:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Michael Robertson (businessman) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Leslieaudra ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm reporting this secondary to it having been reported at WP:ANI (see here) at the request of the person who reported it. One part of it can be seen in this edit, but I'm loath to call it simple vandalism. On one hand, the editor is posting questionable information, but on another, he/she is removing poorly/inadequately sourced biographical content. I reverted the article to before the recent edits started as a precautionary measure. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 14:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Anna Baltzer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Henry Delforn ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ethnicity keeps getting introduced into lead and reverted without talk page discussion. Thank you, -- Tom (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Matthew J. Amorello (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One or more editors, usually Alpha Centauri 2021, have made numerous changes to the page.

The edits are disruptive not only to the substance (removing relevant, well-sourced, NPOV information, replacing it with redundant recitations of the subject's official bio--political spin and all), but also in form (removing internal links and citations). This article is being repeatedly edited by a single user to cast Matthew Amorello in a more favorable light. This editor eliminates existing citations and does not include new, relevant ones for their own additions/edits.

Case in point: Matthew Amorello is mainly newsworthy due to his involvement in the Big Dig collapse. However, Alpha Centauri, in his repeated edits, will bring up points regarding Amorello's "spearheading the establishment of the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy, a public private partnership charged with maintaining and operating the newly created parkland in downtown Boston" and his involvement with "the Bruce Springsteen concert to open the Lenny Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, the widest cable stay bridge in the world." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornerstone79 ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I recently added to the article on Toby Keith a section entitled "Feud with Ethan Hawke and Kris Kristofferson". Another user and myself have discussed at length on the articles talk page whether the section should be included in the article and we have both decided that the best thing to do is bring it here. Please read the section and the talk page. BillyJack193 ( talk) 11:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The article for Malaysia's new Prime Minister appears to be overburdened with trivialities and WP:BLP issues. I know nothing of Malaysian politics and am quite busy offline, but if someone with an eye for facts and research could look at this one, Wikipedia would be the better for it. Note that as far as I know there is no *dispute* as such - it being mostly just drive-bys adding the content - this post is more just an alert to those who would not normally edit on South-East Asian politics. I'm uninvolved in the article. Orderinchaos 12:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Reich (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since January, the following paragraph has been repeatedly added and deleted by various editors to the "After the Clinton Administration" section:

On January 23, 2009, CNN host Lou Dobbs characterized earlier remarks by Reich as implying "that race would play a large role in determining who would benefit from the economic stimulus package",[12] airing video of Reich commenting on the package. In the video, Reich said that he was concerned "...that these jobs not simply go to high school people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well."[12]

The following link makes it very clear that the paragraph is based on a misleading and distorting report, and should therefore not be allowed on the page at all:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200901230015?f=h_latest

Ms oritahiti ( talk) 19:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The question to me becomes whether the (mis)reporting of the comment by the press becomes relevant enough to be warranted in his article. In which case, it may be necessary to present enough of the original comment by Reich to give full context. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a few people who are reverting edits to much older versions that eliminates substantial work done recently. The page was formerly a mess with lots of outdated links, synthesis, coatrack, trivia, etc. that I cleaned up. However, instead of adding to it they simply revert for no apparent reason. Could we get a few more eyes on this to keep vandals from it? Startstop123 ( talk) 15:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The "substantial work" consisted in massive deletions, in fact whitewashing the convict by removing well-referenced information. A WP:Biography of a living crook who is quite notable specifically for being a crook by definition must contain all his reported misdeeds. Twri ( talk) 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Rick Berman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a user has been reverting edits for a period of a few months now. I started under an anon IP, then created an account. All is documented on talk page, very throughouly and cleanly. I have added the tags on the page and disputed it many times. The user LSD continued to make edits. I issued a first warning and I request assistance in this matter. Thanks! -- ☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 23:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It helps to explain here if they are removing material because it's poorly sourced or WP:Undue or just out of vandalism, or whatever, since quick look at headings doesn't make clear at all. We startrek fans who love Voyager don't want to see any unsourced biases against that show sneak in :-) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 01:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Something weird going on with Michael Cl-Brown. Was moved there from Michael Brown (Liberal Democrats donor), and may have been BLP stubbed. May also have just been vandalised. Much longer article versions are in the page history, but they may not be BLP-compliant. Not sure if any suitable versions exist. Needs "living people" category added and other categories restored even if left as a stub. Might need moving again to a suitable name. Also need to make sure all references are to the right Michael Brown. Last stable version seems to be here, before it was edited by Special:Contributions/Nellocharlie (has only edited this article). Carcharoth ( talk) 01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What the heck does "Cl" mean? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 02:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the weird bits. I also came across a child murder article. Not strictly BLP, but is there a place to get attention to articles like that? The article in question is here. Does BLP1E apply to murder stories? Carcharoth ( talk) 02:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted all the content deletion - all of the content is well sourced. I have moved the article to the subjects full name Michael Robert Alexander Brown, no idea or obvious explanation for the Michael Cl-Brown. Am going to message the SPA to find out if they have valid reasons for blanking content as noone seems to have engaged them yet. Mfield ( Oi!) 20:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Any advice on what to do about the other article I mentioned above (in my second comment)? Carcharoth ( talk) 21:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Richard Mellon Scaife (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article has many "sourced" nuggets about this man, and I don't think all of them pass the smell test. For example, I removed a segment about alcoholism in his family that was not supported by the alleged source. I duly suggest that this whole article needs a good scrubbing and source checking. Possibly more than 1 mortal can provide. For example, one of the sources here seem to be a mere summary of larger work. Is this a reliable source? What about a gossip column?-- A. Gorilla ( talk) 04:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If there's a lot of poorly sourced junk in there, cut it out, piece by piece with careful edit summaries mentioning BLP violation. Then see if anyone bothers to put any of it back - that's what you can argue about. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Peter Rodney Llewellyn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article makes allegations of fraud. The basis for the allegation is a decade-old newspaper article. The dispute between contributors concerns whether this constitutes sufficient grounds for the allegation. The defamatory nature of the allegations brings an urgency to the need to resolve the matter. There is also an argument that the article should not be included at all because it is related to a single event - which may not have happened - and hence is non-notable. Given these two factors, it is suggested that the article be rapidly deleted. Paul Tree ( talk)

Non-notable. Do an AfD. Far more notable people have been deleted or redirected as nonnotable. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 01:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am contacting you on behalf of Ron Dembo at Zerofootprint. We are trying to update his Biography on Wikipedia as it is currently out of date.

This is the new Biography we are tying to post:

---

Dr. Ron Dembo is the Founder and CEO of Zerofootprint, an organization dedicated to a mass reduction in global environmental impact. Zerofootprint provides software and services to individuals, governments, universities, and corporations that measures and manages carbon footprint and engages employees and citizens worldwide in combating climate change. Zerofootprint came in first place and won Gold in the Climate Change category at the Canadian Environment Awards in 2008.

Prior to founding Zerofootprint, Dr. Dembo was the Founder, CEO, and President of Algorithmics Incorporated, growing it from a start-up to the largest enterprise risk-management software company in the world, with offices in fifteen countries and over 70% of the world's top 100 banks as clients. Algorithmics was consistently voted as one of the top 50 best-managed companies in Canada.

Dr. Dembo has also had a distinguished ten-year academic career at Yale University, where he was cross-appointed between the Department of Computer Science and the School of Management. Dr. Dembo has published over sixty technical papers on finance and mathematical optimization, and holds a number of patents in computational finance. Dr. Dembo is the author of three books: Seeing Tomorrow: Rewriting the Rules of Risk, co-authored with Andrew Freedman, published in April 1998; Upside Downside: Simple Rules of Risk Management for the Smart Investor, co-authored with Daniel Stoffman, published in March 2006; and Everything You Wanted to Know About Offsetting But Were Afraid to Ask, co-authored with Clive Davidson, and released in May 2007.

In May 2007, Dr. Dembo was made a lifetime Fields Institute Fellow. This fellowship is awarded to individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the Fields Institute, its programs, and to the Canadian mathematical community. In July 2007, Dr. Dembo was inducted as a charter member of the Risk Who's Who. Dr. Dembo’s alma mater, the University of Waterloo, honoured Dr. Dembo with a Lifetime Achievement Award in 2007. He is also a member of the University of Waterloo’s Deans Advisory Council in the Faculty of Environment, and a member of the Board of Advisors to the President at the Ontario College of Art and Design University. Dr. Dembo is also the Chair of the Information Technology committee of the Board at Mount Sinai Hospital, and is a member of the Board of Governors of University of Toronto’s NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council) program.

---

Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.182.122 ( talk) 16:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not edit the article yourself? Looie496 ( talk) 18:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like they tried to 4 times yesterday, but their changes were reverted as vandalism. -- Onorem ♠ Dil 18:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, we tried and weren't able to edit. How would you recommend that we edit this page, or are you able to do this from your end? thanks! 206.223.182.122 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC).

Aha. I've notified Victoriagirl ( talk · contribs), who did the reversions, and I've started a thread at Talk:Ron Dembo#recent reverted edits for discussion of the problem. I expect that this is a misunderstanding that can be straightened out once everybody starts communicating. Looie496 ( talk) 20:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Richard Gere (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - an ongoing discussion regarding the appropriateness of the addition of a well known rumour. Could use some extra opinions. Sancho 19:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• I've added my opinion. Thanks for mentioning it here. This involves a section of the article entitled "Urban Legend" repeating a story that Gere had a gerbil lodged in his rectum! I'd have removed it myself but then I saw that there was an extensive discussion on the talk page. I urge an administrator to step in and if necessary protect the page. Stetsonharry ( talk) 20:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • FFS, unreferenced rumours about Gerbils and anuses!! Removed on sight, per WP:BLP. NO WAY.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 20:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Good move. I'd have done so myself but I hesitated when I saw the lengthy discussion. Next time, I delete on sight myself. Apparently this is a recurrent issue, and the page may require protection if it persists. Stetsonharry ( talk) 20:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Every now and then, someone else tries adding that stupid legend. I'd finally stopped watching the page, and sure enough it happened again. One of the biggest (if less obvious) problems is that, yes, false information can be acknowledged in articles. (eg. if someone's accused of a crime they didn't commit, etc) Of course, this assumes that the accusation is notable, well-sourced, and verifiably was made. Being false is beside the point, so long as Wikipedia doesn't imply that it's true.

        However, in this case, there isn't even a single source referring to anyone actually making this accusation. In the absence of such a source, the best we're left with is sources of people debunking the legend. This means that: Wikipedia says that (for example) snopes says that someone asked them about a legend that someone else may or may not have believed was true. How many degrees of separation is that?!? 209.90.135.182 ( talk) 20:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

        • Anyone inserting crap like this should be blocked on sight.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Well no, that'd be going too far. Anyone inserting crap like this should be referred to WP:BLP and then blocked on sight if they don't straighten up and fly right.(always wanted an excuse to use that phrase!) 209.90.135.182 ( talk) 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't know how long this "rumor"/urban legend has been linked to Gere, but I know the same "story" was tied to a tv personallity in Philly during the early 80s. I swear that the "story" came across as "true" with hospital reports ect. I won't name the person obviously, they do have an article here, but most Philly folks around in the 80s will probably know who I am talking about. Anyways, agree with remove on site and block accordingly....unless you have 5x8 color glossies of course :) Cheers,-- Tom (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Five points:

• We've already discussed this. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive15 and Talk:Richard Gere/General Archive2#Deleting references to the gerbil legend.
• From Abba to Zoom: A Pop Culture Encyclopedia of the Late 20th Century ( ISBN  9780740751189) mentions that Gere is "plagued by a rather nasty urban legend" in its entry for "Richard Gere" on page 180. Looking at the entry for "ghosts" on the very same page, it's clear that our editorial standards are a lot higher than Mansour's. They should probably remain so. And even Mansour, with his low standards, isn't specific on this matter.
• One source observes that in the early 1970s this tale was told of some other Hollywood star. I've just checked xyr article. I'm happy to report that it contains not a mention of it, nor any indication on the talk page that editors are even aware of it. Recentism, curse that it is, has operated in our favour for once.
• We used to have an article on gerbilling. We even had an AFD discussion of it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerbilling. It was speedily deleted for being "non-notable trivia", nonetheless.
• There are sources that cover this urban legend, in depth. A proper verifiable article on gerbilling (which the deleted content is not) could probably be written, using sources written by experts writing in their fields of expertise, including Noreen Dresser: folklorist, anthropologist, and Los Angeles Times columnist. Jan Harold Brunvand has covered it, too. None of those sources give Gere prominence, or even detail him at all. (Dresser doesn't name him, for example. Neither does Brunvand.) This is, quite simply, something that isn't about Gere. Even if we had a proper article on the subject, it would barely touch upon him, since the sources don't.

Uncle G ( talk) 04:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The Richard Gere article has been full-protected by an uninvolved admin for "Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy"; protection to expire in two weeks. — Becksguy ( talk) 04:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, I'm not sure that this can really be considered 'resolved'. Yes, the protection has kept the BLP violation out for now, but there's still great disagreement on the article's talk page as to whether or not BLP even applies here. It would be helpful if someone else could aid in the discussion in terms of the policy (either for, or against), to help us break from the somewhat redundant circular arguments about notability and such.

I really believe (though this is merely my personal opinion) that personal preferences (along with mild canvassing) are starting to trump the actual policies on these matters. In any event, a fresh opinion (again, for or against) might be beneficial, considering the nature of the material that may be reintroduced in about a week. 209.90.133.75 ( talk) 20:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've just declined a speedy on Robert Sungenis as the article is not unsourced. But its rather negative and could do with attention from someone who has at least a basic understanding of Christian theology (NB this isn't an attack on the current editors there, its an admission of my own lack of knowledge) Ϣere SpielChequers 07:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Karl Keating he is one of the biggest, well known Catholic apologists out there. If anyone deserves a long, detailed biography (i.e., relevance) he does, yet he gets a few measly paragraphs. Why? Because no one wants to attack him. This is a biography of a living person, and clearly it is getting out of control.

Wikipedia is being used as a platform to extend what is being done on the general internet to attack Robert Sungenis. Please unblock me. We need to discuss this, and the notice for biographies of living persons needs to be put back up to remind everyone of the policies. The article is not proportionate to other similar articles on Wikipedia. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Wyattmj ( talk) 14:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is getting way out of hand. It is being used to track every movement of Robert Sungenis and then used as a launch pad to attack him.

Let's review the BLP policy:

"Wikipedia is a high-profile, widely-viewed website with an international scope, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies."

"The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves."

Reliable secondary sources are mainstream magazines, news reports, etc. Not internet chatter. Most of what is in this article is from Sungenis' own writings, with mainly Liam Patrick's interpretation. This is original research.

From original research:

"Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. This material is of a primary source character. "

This is what is occuring here.

Back to BLP:

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides;"

The article is overwhelmed by Liam Patrick's (and others to be fair) original research based on Sungenis' writings.

"When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic."

"n the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. "

Obviously there is not an overwhelming amount of third party material, so Robert Sungenis is not to be considered a "significant public figure".

"Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution."

I see lack of caution, especially in using even Sungenis' own material, which is being turned into original research.

I understand that Patrick Liam is frustrated that he cannot use the attack websites and blogs as sources, so he has turned to Sungenis' own writings to attempt to follow the policy guidelins. Godd for him. Unfortunately this has turned into Liam Patrick's original research.Proportionality is highly skewed in this article. Karl Keating is one of the best known, most active Catholic apologists out there, and compare the articles. Mr. Keating's article is encyclopedic. Robert SUngnis' is not. Wyattmj (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Wyattmj ( talk) 18:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have stubbed it per BLP concerns.-- Slp1 ( talk) 22:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What I see is something that looks like a board member of Sungenis' organization trying his best to keep Sungenis' controversial and troubled history out of the public view as best as possible again.  ;-) (That is you, right? WyattMJ - Mark Wyatt? If not, let me know!) I still find it very strange because Sungenis is no such shrinking violet - he seems to unabashedly thrive on the public controversy. His board member Mark Wyatt, not so much! LOL. I disagree that it is original research to cite Sungenis' own words, writings and works on very public issues and developments. It looks like WyattMJ kind of wants to have it both ways again. We already went through this a year or two ago. We can't cite the third parties who have carefully documented the issues related to Sungenis' multiple controversies because they aren't good enough for him - even though Sungenis himself has written back and forth, arguing with these very individuals on his own website. And I kind of notice that WyattMJ never challenges the factual accuracy of the work cited, which is interesting. Then, when citations are given from Sungenis' own words and works on the very topics under consideration, he claims that it is "original research." Well, that's ridiculous.  :-) We've already gone through this before. This is why it looks as if he's striving again to find a way to exclude every source that accurately and thoroughly documents Sungenis' controversial history so that people don't see it - or see very, very little of it.

And as for Karl Keating - why Keating's article has so little that is troubled or controversial compared to Sungenis? Well, perhaps because Keating has not been any where near as controversial and hasn't gotten into the kinds of situations that Sungenis has? Maybe? I'll bet we don't find a lot of controversy and trouble being written about in the articles on Scott Hahn or Benedict Groeschel, either. I haven't looked, but it's just a hunch.

I suggest that rather than cutting out material, Sungenis' board member adds more material that he thinks is positive to balance it out. The material is accurate, I and others have checked and rechecked it. It has been plainly out in public, it is legitimate information that people have a right to know about - it's not exactly hidden by Sungenis himself!

So, by all means - he should add some more sections on other topics. It has been a while since those kinds of things have been updated. As his board member, WyattMJ probably knows quite a bit about that. So he should go for it!  :-)

One little note - something that just got cut out of the article (not by me) was originally put in by WyattMJ and it didn't have a source. It was from an unpublished letter from his bishop's vicar. But I left it in all this time because it seemed well-attested and factual, backed up by other statements Sungenis has made in other places.

Liam Patrick ( talk) 01:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I see after the speedy had been removed, that a prod was placed on the article. Since it is quite clear from the discussion above that deletion would not be uncontroversial, I removed it. DGG ( talk) 21:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I just copy edited the lead to remove unsourced material. Anyways, Tom (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

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

This article has been problematic for POV, OR and BLP for months, and recently underwent a major revision. The questionable material is being re-introduced into the article. I propose that this article be blocked from general view until concerns regarding possible libelous content, and clearly objectionable BLP content, be reviewed and resolved. -- Ibinthinkin ( talk) 14:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize and might agree if looked at page. We need a Lord of the BLP to stop this sort of nonsense! :-( CarolMooreDC ( talk) 01:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of recent editing, and some difference of opinion, but it looks more like disputes over relative weight. That is, the relative emphasis to be put on things that are all considered to be true. There is some critique of sources, which is good. I don't see any defamation, or libelous content. Am I missing something? I have notified User:TrustTruth, since he is one of the editors. DGG is satisfied with the neutrality of the article and Ibinthinkin was OK with removing the NPOV tag. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm previously uninvolved, but I do see a problem here. The section on his "degrees" alleges a controversy, but does not detail it. Things are not controversial because they are verifiability contradictory (that's OR) they are controversial because someone has criticised him for it, and the criticism is significant. This sections needs clear attribution "controversy emerged when x said y, and what x is saying is z".-- Scott Mac (Doc) 17:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is not the least problem showing it in detail. The person who brought this here objected to including the details on grounds of BLP. As everything was in fact sourced, including from material published by or with the cooperation of the subject of the article, the complaint seemed to be based on proportional weight. The amount of space devoted to was therefore reduced to a minimum. if it is felt balance requires more, it's all in the page history. This is not a problem with BLP, except to the extent that someone is trying to censor the article to reflect a unreasonably positive, rather than a neutral POV. I have asked ibinthinking several times to specify just what he thinks libellous in the present article, and have gotten no clear response. I think the specific content he objects to is presenting the material as a table, and in my opinion, that is because the table presentation shows the information clearly. Scott on a note on the page objects to including the word controversy, but I think this is documented but the documentation was by and large removed as emphasising the negative.. The material can just as readily presented without using that word. The actual fact of the variation in his report of degrees, and the fact that all but a bachelor's degree come from unaccredited schools with a timing that suggests that little or no academic work was done for them, is obviously pertinent to the career of a college president. In fairness, the article came to my attention because of complaints from an editor who finally admitted to be representing the college that there was unsourced negative material being inserted--and so there was, by the editor Trust Truth, with negative innuendoes in a remarkably unfair way, one of the worst hatchet jobs I've seen here. I started removing it, and others continued. I know I sound a little impatient, but that's because I have little confidence in the good faith of either of the two contending parties, especially after repeated emails from some of them. This complaint is an attempt to whitewash a biography.there are also repeated suggestions and attempts from opposite parties to delete the article, based on an apparent view that if does not reflect their own viewpoint, whether unduly negative or unduly positive. then it is better not to have the article. This is a case of our BLP policy working properly to get an article neutral despite repeated and consistent efforts to bias it in opposite directions. NPOV applies to BLP, although the subjects and their critics may wish otherwise. To the extent that Ibinthinking represents the subject he should be glad we removed the actual bias against him, and let it rest there. DGG ( talk) 18:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with DGG's characterization here. As I have noted repeatedly on the talk page for the article, the sources that are cited to support the allegations made by TrustTruth against the subject of the article, namely, that he published contradictory chronologies of his educational history and fabricated degrees, do not establish the assertion. I further have noted that his inclusion of cached CV's constitutes original research and his insistence on leading the reader to draw conclusions about the character and competence of the subject, and his repeated sensationalizing of discrepancies of the subject's past (which the subject himself disclosed years ago of his own volition, and in several places), and his emphasis on "controversy" that is not a notable feature of the subject's life (other than as a DIRECT result of this editor's OR for WP) constitute a serious problem for this article. I have engaged the discussion of how to fairly represent the less flattering aspects of the subject's history and have never shied away from including them in the article, as will be noted by my edits and my discussion. I appeal to administrators to review the previous versions of the article (TrustTruth himself provides a convenient link in the article's talk page to the version he seems to be recommending as more appropriate), as well as the discussion on the talk page. DGG's accusation that I am trying to whitewash the biography is unfounded, and I believe any objective analysis of my edits and of my attempts to reason with the other editors will vindicate me.

I urge multiple BLP group admins to make an exhaustive review of the edits and the discussion. -- Ibinthinkin ( talk) 12:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I want to bring the Varg Vikernes page to people's attention. The whole discussion board is a mess and filled with supporters of the guy. These are people who will dispute, obscure, or even remove, information that Vikernes is a convicted murderer because they believe he is innocent. This has a tendency to seep into the article itself, and has been doing so for a long time now. I've had legitimate citations removed apparently because they revealed his racist, pseudo-neo-Nazi ideology a little too clearly. I made the edits on 09/27/08, and I have not logged in since. I found today that not only were they deleted, but that two different people made their way to my talk page and accused me of libel and improper editing, with an air of authority that they clearly do not have. FYI, I have more than enough academic education to know about proper citations. I can post the quotes in question if requested, or inquisitive minds can check my edit history and go to the edits in questions (09/27/08).

To make a long story short, here is the core of the problem: Vikernes, an obscure Norwegian musician, has a small, but rabid cult following. They have made it clear through edits and explicitly clear on the discussion page that the only true credible source on the topic of Varg Vikernes is...Varg Vikernes. Surprise, surprise.

To the people in charge of this project, PLEASE keep a close eye on this one. Put it on the watch list. At least put up a disclaimer on there. People are actively making edits that use Vikernes' own writing on his web page as a source. Not only that, but they are claiming on the discussion board that his webpage is a more credible source than anything else out there. Keep in mind he is a convicted murderer, and all credible evidence points to him being both a pathological liar and someone in a perpetual state of identity crisis. When I made a comment on the discussion board, admittedly an opinionated one, that the section detailing the murder was clearly written with the intent of making Vikernes appear wrongly accused and unjustly imprisoned, the reply I got was this: "Think about it for a second - Varg's account of the murder is the most accurate one, because Euronymous [the victim] can't exactly give his side of the story, and Snorre was having a smoke outside while it happened. Also, there's no reason for Varg to lie about the murder, he's already been in prison for 14 years... its not like lying is going to get him out." ( Temple-of-Monkeys) I rest my case, sirs and madams.

There are people who are actively making an effort to keep things objective on the page, but it is clear this battle has been going on for far too long to not have an administrator put this article on notice. With the fact that Vikernes has been granted parole after serving 16 years of a 21 year sentence, I can only see things getting worse. The ultimate reason this article needs tending to is not because he is an important guy, but because he is another right-wing extremist mental-case with a following, and these people need to be kept in check. Thanks for your time. Fermentor ( talk) 08:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thre is no active controversy over the article now. Twri ( talk) 16:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Eliseo Soriano (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The lead sentence of this article is on the borderline of a possible BLP violation because he is described as "an international fugitive" in regards to a sexual assault case against him. I would like outside input on this. // w^{L< speak· check>} 21:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If the bottom paragraph of the article is correct (saying that he's currently in hiding, with an international warrant out for his arrest), the first sentence of the lead seems appropriate to me. Looie496 ( talk) 16:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Looie496 is correct. That sentence is sourced from high-end broadsheets and the actual wanted page in the official website of the Interpol. – Shannon Rose ( talk) 21:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I also suspect that the article is subject of heavy meat/ sockpuppetry by numerous new accounts. Twri ( talk) 16:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I hold the same suspicion. Would you suggest a checkuser or should we petition for outright blocks? – Shannon Rose ( talk) 21:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

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

I nominated Susan Boyle for AFD, see here per WP:N, as I'm not sure she satisfies notability guidelines. Do we have specific guidelines regarding whether talent-show auditionees are notable? D.M.N. ( talk) 18:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. You should take a look at Paul Potts to understand the background here. If there is any rule that says this article should be deleted, then it's an IAR situation. Looie496 ( talk) 20:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a bit of a difference between Potts and Boyle - Potts won the competition, Boyle is still only (an apparently talented) contestant. –  ukexpat ( talk) 20:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please review this. It's ok, I'll wait.

Great. Now I'd like to hear from folks who haven't yet spoken. Should Otto Kerner be an American Criminal? Lead Belly? Frank LaGrotta? What's the standard? Thanks for your kind consideration. David in DC ( talk) 01:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Up in the Frank LaGrotta thread, Will has suggested a solution that makes sense to me. David in DC ( talk) 11:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, the solution category Will suggested has already been created and deleted. I tried to implement it on two pages and Good Olfactory caught it before I could do to much damage. OK, what's another solution? One is that I think all further conversation about this should now go to the American Criminal Category Talk page. David in DC ( talk) 02:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion would benefit from the wisdom of a few more people than me, Will Beback, Rd, and Just Getting It Right. David in DC ( talk) 05:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• The issue that's probably best dealt with here is whether adding a "criminal" category to someone notably convicted of a felony violates BLP. If someone is sentenced to a year or more in prison, and loses his career due to the crime, is it undue weight to add a category to reflect that? That is the argument, and a specific case being offered is Otto Kerner, Jr., a governor of Illinois who was later appointed federal judge. He was later convicted of having accepted bribes as governor, forcing his resignation from the bench. Where does BLP demand that we avoid adding the article to Category:Americans convicted of bribery?   Will Beback  talk  05:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Americans convicted of bribery is waaaaaay better than American Criminals. It labels the act, not the person. Not sure why you ask for it to go back to the BLP noticeboard and then use Otto Kerner as the archetype, but, lets pretend he's alive. The most notable thing he did was the Kerner Commission, which was prescient about the causes of urban rioting and the central factors of class, poverty and race. He was a Governor, a judge, and a bribe-taker. All the facts belong in the article. But the values embodied in BLP, and in the guidelines about categorization of people (living or dead) argue for the editorial discretion that favors the "convicted of bribery" cat over the American criminal one. David in DC ( talk) 07:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

People convicted of crime are called "criminals". We have Category:American criminals which has many subcategories to cover specific crimes. The only people who should be in the parent categories are those who don't happen to fit into any of the subcategories, just like with any category. So if the crime is notable and well-sourced, where is the BLP violation? Even if the subject has done other wonderful things, that doesn't erase the criminal conviction. Martha Stewart has done many things besides making false statements to federal investigators, but she was notably convicted of having done so. There's no BLP violation in adding that article to category: American perjurors, a subcategory of Category:American criminals.   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"People convicted of crime are called "criminals"".... it's exactly that sort of sweeping statement that illustrates the B(L)P issues about adding this category. As I've said before on this subject, we have to be very careful about labelling people who have convictions of some kind with the label "criminal". And it's really unnecessary: why can't we avoid this issue with greater precision: Category:Americans convicted of felonies? Or whatever definition is wanted, but focussing on the act, not the (somewhat subjective and contentious) label. Rd232 ^talk 11:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We routinely use similar labels for other categories. We have things like "Presidents of the United States" instead of "People elected U.S. President" and "Harvard University alumni" instead of "People who have attended Harvard University". People who are elected to the presidency (and are sworn in) are "presidents", people who have attended colleges are "alumni", and people who are convicted of crimes are "criminals". It's not a value judgment.   Will Beback  talk  20:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is impressively irrelevant. Kudos. Rd232 ^talk 20:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. People who vote are "voters". People steer cars are "drivers". People who commit burglaries are "burglars". People who commit rape are "rapists". Where is the BLP violation?   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a category for "American drivers" should include only people who make their living as drivers, not everyone who has ever driven a car. Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, but the question here is about whether categorizing someone convicted of a notable crime as a "criminal" is a BLP violation. (And by extension, calling someone a "murderer" who's been convicted of murder, calling someone a "rapist" who's been convicted of rape , and so on). While being a criminal is a negative, that doesn't mean that it's an inappropriate categorization. Or does it?   Will Beback  talk  19:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This RfC desperately needs contributors other than me, Will and JustGettingItRight. David in DC ( talk) 19:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sections in the Helen Jones-Kelley and Joe the Plumber articles could possibly be UNDUE and might include undue allegations per the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services database search controversy. Can other editors lend some suggestions and/or advice on whether any of the information in these two articles violates UNDUE or/or BLP? Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 23:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All of the material has been taken verbatim from RS sources. No wording contrary to RS sources has been used. Collect ( talk) 23:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue raised, Collect. The issue is whether the event has been given undue weight. I think to a great degree that it is given undue weight, as the search controversy can better be covered in depth at the rather newly created Ohio Department of Job and Family Services database search controversy. At a minimum, I think Helen_Jones-Kelley#Ohio_newspaper_editorial_comments_on_Jones-Kelley needs to be removed from the article about Jones-Kelly. This is a BLP, and hopefully our readers are able to draw their own conclusions about her actions and don't need negative editorials to tell them how to feel. AniMate ^talk 00:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If you review the history of that article, you will note that all positive material was invited to be added. It is not WP's fault if such was not found for her actions. Collect ( talk) 00:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect is right here. That the majority of well-sourced material is negative does not make an UNDUE issue by any stretch of the imagination. The point of UNDUE is when there is undue weight on something out of proportion to the existing sources. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to the way in which the event is covered, but I feel a collection of negative editorials isn't appropriate. Our readers can draw their own conclusions, as my objections are to a collection of opinion pieces. AniMate ^talk 00:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest that the content that is notable, and backed by reliable sources on each BLP (for Helen Jones-Kelley and Joe the Plumber), stay in each article as long as it does not violate BLP and is not UNDUE. Information that is indirectly related in each article can be linked/moved/merged to Ohio Department of Job and Family Services database search controversy. Material in each BLP that is not related to the BLP, and/or is in violation of BLP, should be removed. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 02:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree with Ism schism's approach and have the following comments:

• Right now both the Joe the Plumber and Helen Jones Kelly articles have long sections about the database controversy that are overlapping. There is a main article dedicated to the controversy which allows for summary and wikilinking.
• Furthermore there are instances where the language should be more neutral. A previous version of the section contained language with speculation and innuendo that the actions by Jones-Kelly were illegal. We now know that no laws were broken by Jones-Kelly when she asked a subordinate to do the database searches. An official investigation found no evidence that laws were broken. For this reason, there is no purpose to include past speculation that they could have been "illegal."
• Likewise the catalog of negative editorials in the Jones-Kelly article are gratuitous. We can do better than that. Mattnad ( talk) 09:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Update The catalog of negative editorials in the Helen Jones-Kelley article has been removed. Also, the information in the Joe the Plumber article has been shortened in relation to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services database search controversy. Presently, what remains is the question; is the information in the Jones-Kelley and the Joe the Plumber articles/BLPs concerning the controversy UNDUE and/or in violation of BLP? Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 22:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Well, I don't see anything there right now that violates WP:BLP, but the article's style is rather bad. The lead doesn't describe Jones-Kelley's involvement in the Joe the Plumber scandal, and is rather terribly vague. Similarly, the section on the document scandal uses passive voice and refrains from describing her actions, which is also, IMO, going too far and compromising Wikipedia's quality. Ray ^Talk 21:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment At this point, I do not see anything that strongly violates WP:BLP in either article. Does anyone disagree? If these two BLPs are not in violation of UNDUE and/or in violation of BLP, then this issue might be on its way towards resolution, hopefully. Any other comments? Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 00:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone check out Miguel Cima? It, well, feels rather odd. Notability might be there, but some very strange sections and I'm not sure the pictures are genuine - might need confirmation from the uploader about those. The last section in particular needs serious attention or removal. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Traced it to this edit. Last section is completely unsourced. Suspect the pictures may be fake as well. Am reverting to the version before that edit and re-adding the bot-edits. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Should be OK now. Could someone check? Carcharoth ( talk) 00:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a candidate for AfD to me. Sourced to myspace pages and online resumes? Avruch ^T 16:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. Carcharoth ( talk) 17:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Could we have a few days of semiprotection on Phil Spector (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? In the wake of today's guilty verdict, it is hard to stem the tide of IP-editor vandalism. TJRC ( talk) 21:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's now been done. Thank you, User:Ryan Postlethwaite. TJRC ( talk) 23:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. I'm concerned about the use of the LBGT category in the Lindsay Lohan article.
It isn't that I think she's obviously straight or anything (having a girlfriend, ex or not, kinda makes it hard to make a claim like that with a straight face). However, the BLP policy page says that you can't add that sort of category unless they "self-identify" as such.
The article includes two relevant quotes. In relation to her being bisexual, she says, "Maybe. Yeah." (So, it's a little iffy, but an argument could be made for including it, in spite of the 'maybe') But she then follows it with a disclaimer, "I don't want to classify myself." It would seem, to me, that that insufficiently meets the "self-identifying" requirement. (saying, "I don't want to classify myself" seems close enough to, "I don't want to categorize myself)
Anyways, the category has been removed before, for precisely that reason, but it then got re-added (without even an edit summary). It originally got readded with a 'lesbian' category (in spite of her explicitly stating that she isn't lesbian), but only that one got removed by another editor.
I've made a note on the article's talk page, but sometimes those aren't used very much and I lack the ability to edit it myself, so I prefer to list these types of concerns on the BLP noticeboard as well. (in other words, I think a discussion fits the article's talk page best, but I felt this was the best way to get the attention of people familiar with BLP policy) 209.90.133.75 ( talk) 18:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, all we know is that she had an open and widely covered romantic relationship with another notable celebrity, who is female. Maybe there is a category for that, e.g. "famous same sex celebrity couples" or "famous celebrity couples". If there isn't an appropriate category it could indicate that it is not worth categorizing. It may still be of interest to a project on sexuality. But indeed, use of categories to indicate personal details that are disputed or unsourced in the text (in this case sexual orientation) is problematic. Wikidemon ( talk) 02:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the dispute is. Unless/until Lohan comes out of the closet, the link shouldn't be added. Wikipedia should be all about the nuetrallity. Lots42 ( talk) 02:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say leave the categories out for now. Anyways, Tom (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The folk at WP:LGBT come across this often. We watch articles of BLPs who are rumored at least to be in same sex relationships. We actively remove the category from Jodie Foster because her own statements do not confirm the type of relationship she has/had with another woman. However, Lohan has confirmed she is/was in a relationship with another woman. Though she does not wish to categorize herself as lesbian or bisexual, she has neither denied being in a relationship with another woman similar to Michelle Rodriguez who has denied it, or Little Richard, who claims he was gay and is no longer so. I am not cognizant of all the things Lohan has said about her relationship with Ronson, but it is clear that she has never denied it. I believe a similar issue arose with Angelina Jolie, who admitted she is attracted to men and women, but never used the term "bisexual". It's my opinion that if the subject meets the definition of bisexual in their own statements, the tag should stay. -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Her article should remain tagged with the LGBT Project since it covers any information/persons regarding same-sex relationships (Lohan not only confirmed she was in a relationship but claimed to be in love when she discussed their break-up), but I wouldn't add any particular category (i.e. Bisexual women) since it is entirely possible she may never date another woman again and "identify" as "straight" from this point forward (regardless of whether or not anyone believes it). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the Bookkeeper here. Her article definitely belongs in the LGBT project, but lets keep the categories to what she self-identifies. LadyofShalott ^Weave 22:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A project tag is not the same as a category. She's certainly within the scope of the project, regardless of her sexual orientation. We used to have a disclaimer, or an optional parameter to the project banner where we could add a disclaimer that use of the project tag in no way symbolizes anyone's sexual orientation. I haven't seen it used in a long time and forget which BLP article it was that caused us to add that option in the first place. Regardless, project tags aren't BLP violations. - ✰ ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh yes, the "Explanation" parameter. We've used it before when we couldn't get others to fully understand project tags:

{{LGBTProject | class=Start | importance=Mid | explanation=WHY THIS PROJECT TAG IS HERE}}

That's how it would be used. - ✰ ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment the talkpage LGBT banner is a no-brainer, whether she outs herself or not, her same-sex relationship with Ronson is widely publicized so the LGBT project can help there. With the cats Moni3 has it correct, Lohan herself has made statements about Ronson being the love of her life and has a history of high-profile relationships with men so Category:Bisexual people is most appropriate for now. -- Banjeboi 22:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we -are- talking about real people, Wikipedia's strict 'facts only' policy for real people should mean that we wait until the person comes out of the closet. - Lots42 ( talk · contribs) 23:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Does her telling the world she's in love with a woman not qualify? -- Moni3 ( talk) 00:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, she may never decide to date someone of the same sex ever again. At which point it would even been illogical to classify her as ex-gay since she never admitted to being bisexual or lesbian in the first place. Pleanty of LGB people claim to be "in love" with members of the opposite sex despite the fact that it is a total farce. Unless she is a self identified bisexual, she should not be catergorized as such. I'm wholeheartedly against catergorizing anyone who does not wish to be catergorized, which as an open LGBT person I'm am ashamed to say we often get so swept up in the movement we forget its not our place to drag people out of the closet kicking and screaming. Regardless of whether or not we're thinking "of course she's fucking bisexual, any moron can see that" it still is not out place to take her right to identify herself out of her hands being NPOV editors. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well we aren't categorizing her as such. Multiple reliable sources are and the categories on sexuality and religion currently follow the sourced content - in theory at least - I've rarely seen it used accept to remove people from LGBT cats. -- Banjeboi 00:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was our standard to use whatever categorization the person used herself (as in this case). Some folks, who the media may label as bisexual prefer not to label themselves, while others may prefer terms such as pansexual, or some other descriptor. I don't think we should impose an orientation from the outside if she does not want to use a term, even if other sources do. LadyofShalott ^Weave 01:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In the Harper's Bazaar, there's this exchange:

• Would she classify herself as bisexual? "Maybe. Yeah." Lesbian? "No." She goes on, "I don't want to classify myself. First of all, you never know what's going to happen — tomorrow, in a month, a year from now, five years from now. I appreciate people, and it doesn't matter who they are, and I feel blessed to be able to feel comfortable enough with myself that I can say that." She sees herself getting married "eventually," but whether to a man or a woman, "I don't know." [24]

To my reading, she does say she'd classify herself as a bisexual, but not as a lesbian.   Will Beback  talk  03:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Um... as far as 'bisexual' is concerned, 'maybe' is one of the most ambiguous/uncertain words you can use. And, as far as what she'd "classify" herself as... well... "I don't want to classify myself." That pretty much has to be the most important fact, above all else. 209.90.135.158 ( talk) 17:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So skive the cat, she self-identifies as "don't classify me." Who says "bisexual," "lesbian" and "straight" are the only "categories" a girl can fall into? As an aside and only to nudge towards the pith about categories and so on, even DSM has its bounds (unless someone can say they'll never publish another edition, not). Gwen Gale ( talk) 17:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have had an email request to delete the above article by its creator Mrsmuck ( talk · contribs) because "the subject of the article was not responsible for the content uploaded and has requested an immediate deletion". I have no doubt that this is a sincere request but I am not sure how to progress it as WP:CSD#G7 probably does not apply because another editor has made a significant contribution. The subject is of borderline notability and I want to honour her request to delete but I am not sure I have a rationale to speedy delete. Thoughts? -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 13:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the reason given isn't valid. Wikipedia is written from sources, not subjects. The article, in my opinion, doesn't qualify for CSD. Best to open an AFD and let it be known that the subject requests deletion. لenna vecia 15:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Article deleted as a copyvio; the original article, on which all subsequent edits were based, is nearly verbatim from Jones' website. Risker ( talk) 05:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources given for this person are in Russian. I have asked for the relevant text from the sources to be placed on the talk page with translations. But my removal of text which does not have sources was reverted with the comment "not allegations, but facts rather. sourced in Russian" but without anything on the talk page. I think for such facts then there should be translations given of the Russian sources on the talk page, so non Russian speakers can judge if the sources back up the facts on the page or even is such names as "В России начали составлять список запрещенных книг" is a reliable source. I would appreciate if some other editors would look in and see if my requests are reasonable. -- PBS ( talk) 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I sympathize with your point of view, but Wikipedia policy says translations are encouraged but not required. Looie496 ( talk) 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources:Because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source has been used correctly. Where editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

It should have link to decent translation (Yahoo or Google translate). Make sure it is WP:RS in other respects too. When in doubt, leave it out. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 01:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe fifty years from now it might work, but today even Russian-to-English robot translation may be utterly misleading (English-to-Russian hopeless). In BLP matters the translation must render subtle tone, probable innuendo and all the not-so-obvious context that is completely unknown to the robot. "Not now" :) NVO ( talk) 10:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't have someone called an Anti-Semite on the basis of the poster's assertion that the source backs it up. We can only have serious allegations if they are supported by sources that the average reader can check and confirm. Otherwise what's to stop me posting any libel and sourcing it from an obscure language, in the safe knowledge that most Wikipedians can't check. We need quality control on negative BLP material, and foreign language sources do not provide it. I have reverted.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 01:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this 100%, and I personally would like to see the policy changed to require English sources at least in tricky situations, but this topic has been much-fought-over and the current result is what it is. Also you have to be careful not to take this logic too far: I don't think we want to force people to rely entirely on sources that are available online, on the grounds that those are the only ones the "average" reader can access. Looie496 ( talk) 01:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think for negative BLP material we need to have high standards. The more negative, the higher the standard. We need to have a quality control that actually works and doesn't depend on massive research to spot a 3-second-to-create libel. -- Scott Mac (Doc) 01:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, btw, the chap is not edit warring to keep clear BLP violations on the page. Can people watch list the article? We don't want our articles to take the POV of the SPLC as factual.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 01:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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

This bio is being vandalized by someone close to the subject. At first she was inserting herself into the biographical background, which I toned down, in order to focus on Barron as subject (and to follow guidelines--her work history can't be referenced properly).

Now she's vandalizing the page by discrediting the content of the bio. I don't think she knows there's a talk page to dispute claims on the bio, or at least, she's never used it. She's posted as two anonymous editors: Integrityplus, and AlmaDenise. The content of the edits is very personal information about Barron's career background. Could other editors keep a look-out on this page? I just deleted a potentially libelous sentence that was placed in the middle of the article, claiming the subject is lying about his work background and I'm worried she'll strike again. It's been going on since 2/09. Thanks much, everyone. -- Utilizer ( talk) 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I placed a warning on the user's talk page (the most recent account) regarding unsourced claims in BLPs. If she strikes again, post to my talk page and I'll protect the article, or go here. لenna vecia 20:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

One more of several continuing problems at Gilad Atzmon. Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source says Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:...2. it does not involve claims about third parties
This diff also contained in this section includes fully quoted sections of these diffs (I.E., 1, 2, 3, 4 , 5, 6) where the editor trying to include this material against BLP policy has attacked both the subject of the article and other editors, just to show this editor’s strong POV. If people can't deal with this issue here, I'll bring to WP:NPOVN notice board:

• Gilad Atzmon wrote an article on the website he co-founded - Palestine Think Tank which is basically self-published articles by its contributors. The article harshly criticizes Nick Cohen for comments in his article Hatred is turning me into a Jew, alleging that Cohen excuses Islamophobia, etc. Therefore it has claims about third parties that doesn’t belong in either the Cohen or Atzmon articles.
• Never the less, some editors want to cherry pick a quote from the article, totally out of context in this sentence: In his article "Hatred has turned him into a Jew - Deconstructing Nick Cohen" Atzmon writes "In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory."{REF: http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/03/07/hatred-has-turned-him-into-a-jew-deconstructing-nick-cohen/}
• If it is considered allowable, for NPOV it needs the full context of being a reply to a Cohen article which Atzmon thinks proves Cohen is a racist. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 03:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link of the Gilad Atzmon article being referenced

Hatred has turned him into a Jew - Deconstructing Nick Cohen Drsmoo ( talk) 08:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

[Deleted subsection header; Rewritten intro]: Here's the context of what Atzmon actually says showing the quote out of context is POV:

ATZMON: Noticeably, when writing to Jews, Cohen allows himself to employ the most racist ideas and expressions. “As long as the conspiracy theories of the counter-enlightenment come from ideologues with dark rather than white skins, nominally liberal men and women will not speak out.” Someone should remind the Observer columnist that ideologies do not have ‘skin’ and ideologues cannot choose the colour of their skin either. Hence, referring to ideologues with dark skin is far beyond bigotry. It is racism per se. And yet, Cohen will get away with it because he is ‘Kosher’ as he himself admitted. In contemporary Britain a Dutch right-wing racist MP is deported for making a film, yet a racist can be a prominent columnist for the Observer. This is actually a good thing. It is probably the last remnant of Britain’s legendary liberalism. In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory. You might want to ask yourself why we stop a Dutch MP yet we let Melanie Philips and Nick Cohen celebrate their symptoms on paper. One possible answer is that we expect a Dutch Christian to be a Humanist, yet we allow the racially orientated tribal campaigner to be a racist bigot. We expect them to advocate wars, we expect them to refer to people’s skin and colour.'

CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This is all very hard to follow - I took a look and ended up changing something else. Wikipedia coverage of any person that controversial in the political arena, who uses such charged language, is going to present some thorny BLP and NPOV issues. How to get the gist of what he is about, and the context, without implicitly endorsing either him or his critics? This particular issue looks to be more of a sourcing problem than a BLP or NPOV problem. The quote in question is "In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory". He did write that, didn't he? It's hardly a BLP violation against Atzmon to repeat what he said. But I agree that it should either be put in context or not included at all. Provocative words, out of context, confuse more than they enlighten. But what basis is there for putting it in context? I could find no reliable sources that comment on what he meant by that, only an analysis of his own words. Trying to explain it, with reference to his own piece, is a form of original research. We're supposed to simply report on what the sources say, not conduct an analysis of them. Wikidemon ( talk) 16:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the BLP vio against Nick Cohen, that's unavoidable because it's in the title. One partial solution, which might be a bit awkward, is to avoid repeating that title in the body of the article. If it must be repeated inline as an attribution you could say something like "In an opinion piece written in 2009,[cite] Atzmon..." But to repeat the above point, and after reading both Cohen's and Atzmon's editorials, those can't really be used at all without a third party trying to explain them. Trying to sift through opposing partisans' incendiary essays to figure out which way the flames are flying really does seem like original research. Wikidemon ( talk) 16:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a solution is to include only the quote, and have the title available in the link, the statement itself is extremely relevant to Atzmon's views a well as the tone of the article, as he declares racism to be a Jewish trait(not a trait of Nick Cohen) it is completely irrelavent to the topic to include his criticisms of Nick Cohen, as the article is not about Nick Cohen, however as criticisms of Jewish identity are central to Atzmon's writings, and he has already described Judaism as ""very much a supremacist, racist tendency" It is important to include hi statement that "In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory." It is in line with and reinforces his earlier statements, I can see no legitimate reason for it not to be included. Drsmoo ( talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is a) it's self-published opinion and we were trying to keep that sort of thing down to a minimum on important issues; b) by itself it's a throw a way line that just makes him look bad taken out of context and c) the only context is that Atzmon is charging Cohen with racism; at the very least that whole paragraph would have to be quoted, if a summary is considered WP:OR. But that's a self-published claim vs. Cohen which is vs. BLP. Those three issues together make it vs. BLP to include the quote at all. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 22:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon, the best way forward is to insert the quote and allow it to stand for itself. The meaning is clear, any attempt to "explain" it is simply more POV. A paragraph on Nick Cohen is simply irrelavent to the article, not to mention that his use of Melanie Philips(also Jewish) as an example of "racial tribalism"(as Atzmon puts it.) His attribution of Racism to the Jewish epople as a whole has no relavence to Nick Cohen, and it is an argument he has made many times before. Drsmoo ( talk) 01:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

<backdent>Actually the only question is, is the article self-published, if it is on Palestine Think Tank. I've been assuming it is. Maybe it's not, in which case the context must be mentioned. Will check it out. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 12:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A compromise avoiding BLP issues?

I think this issue of what you can used from self-published sources is important and glad at least one independent person has commented. Meanwhile, if people think it is OK to use a general statement from Atzmon in what is an article mostly making claims about specific individuals, why not merely mention the actual quote that Atzmon refs to with a link to it, per this:

[Atzmon] has criticized statements like Nick Cohen's "As long as the conspiracy theories of the counter-enlightenment come from ideologues with dark rather than white skins, nominally liberal men and women will not speak out.” He charges "In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory."REF: Gilad Atzmon, Hatred Has Turned Him into a Jew, Palestine Think Tank, March 7, 2009. and REF:Nick Cohen, Hatred is turning me into a Jew, The Jewish Chronicle. February 12, 2009

Forgot to sign couple days ago: CarolMooreDC ( talk) 19:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Coatrack tag

FYI, per Wikipedia:COATRACK I've put that tag on since it is clear that the POV is not to provide balanced view point on Atzmon's views and criticism of those, but to keep adding and adding out of context primary sources to show that wikipedia can be used to annihilate any one who some people consider antisemites. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 15:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the user above should be using language such as "it is clear" particularly when the consensus on the article found that she had manipulated it to her POV. Drsmoo ( talk) 19:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI. There has been an Wikipedia:OTRS on this and it is finally getting some proper administrative attention, so may be we can stop bringing it here all the time. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 14:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This page records (with good sources) an arrest, in 2007, but no later details nor any conviction. Without a conviction, the alleged criminal's name does not belong here, nor does The Bishop belong in the American Criminals category. Would someone please update this page with the results of the prosecution. Otherwise it's ripe for an AfD. It's stale, uninformative, and unencyclopedic to have an article that stops with the charges and arrest in 2007. David in DC ( talk) 17:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

CliffC ( talk · contribs) just updated the article with information that a subset of charges were dismissed on 6 March 2009 but others left intact, so this case has clearly not been decided yet. I don't think BLP forbids having articles about cases that are active, and it looks to me like everything is neutral and well-sourced at this point. (Note also that the suspect's name actually never appears in the article, although it is available in the referenced sources.) Looie496 ( talk) 16:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I edited out the name before I posted this note. David in DC ( talk) 00:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the article could be tweeked a bit so it is more about the unsolved case than the suspect. There would be no notability problem then and less BLP issues. Steve Dufour ( talk) 07:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, the notability of the whole thing could be questioned. But still the fact that someone is sending pipe-bombs through the mail is somewhat more notable than the fact that someone got arrested for it. Even if he is found guilty his notability is questionable since no one was hurt. But an unknown terrorist out there at large is worth mentioning. Steve Dufour ( talk) 07:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I still keep coming across issues where people falsely say "blogs can't be sources"--an out and out incorrect statement--I've whipped up Wikipedia:Blogs as sources/ WP:BLOGS as a quick reference distilled from RS & BLP policy pages to give a quick clue on how blogs are allowed to be used from certain websites, and how on what articles. Any feedback on the talk is appreciated there. rootology ( C)( T) 03:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• By blogs people generally mean blogs that are not from staff members of newspapers, with editorial control. By blogs people are referring to a lack of editorial control by a publication. Under limited circumstances one's own blog can be used to source things. WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The author has sent an email to OTRS ( otrs:2009031310056877) in regards to his article. I don't see any blatant BLP issues but I think the articles needs a review for sourcing, particularly the "Windsor-Essex Development Commission" section. I've blocked WEWhistleBlower ( talk · contribs) as a SPA with a clear agenda. If anybody could take a look at the article it would be appreciated, thanks. BJ ^Talk 06:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned this one up a bit. Didn't see any BLP vios, however. لenna vecia 04:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Another subject request ( otrs:2009041210030322). The disputed is edit is this which was removed here and restored here. Thanks. BJ ^Talk 07:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Material removed by User:Threeafterthree and the article protected by User:Mbisanz. لenna vecia 03:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes to this page have been made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Abrams

The sources are not legitimate sources, but anonymous blogs. Having deleted them, a number of users continue to post information that is not properly sourced. Based on the blog sources, these changes to this page appear to malicious in nature

Please advise

"Chill687",

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chill687 ( talk • contribs) 05:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a reputable source, that is the newsletter of the American Political Science Association, which is regularly published in the American Political Science Review. As this whole scandal started at the polisci board (which is semi-anonymous) I feel that a link and a reference is justified. In any case, the APSR should be reputable enough and the newsletter succinctly wraps the whole scandal up. Elliep ( talk) 06:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The link is to the journal homepage of the American Political Science Review - a journal. There is no newsletter there. Nor would a journal which just came out and is prepared months in advance ever cover something like this, an anonymous board. This is malicious in nature, whoever you are, and these are still non valid references. To the editors, please protect this entry. This user failed to document the claim. "Chill687" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chill687 ( talk • contribs) 07:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the article as non-notable. It seems like he has just written a few articles, but there are no secondary sources cited that say anything about him. Steve Dufour ( talk) 07:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Steve Dufouris correct. The entry should be removed for lack of notability. That being said, the earlier posts were not sourced and appeared to be of a personal nature and should be removed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chill687 ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Could do with someone dropping by - Benjiboi insists on constantly changing the article to their version claiming BLP/NPOV issues when the current version was the consensus view to avoid BLP/NPOV issues based on a discussion last year that already involved an admin. Benjiboi is unwilling to discuss things on a point by point basis and claims the old version just had issues and was "rubbish". Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ ( talk) 11:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've started an RfC in hopes it will be more binding. Two editors, at least one with COI, and I engaged in an edit war. I was trying to rework some, IMHO, poorly sourced and POV material.

The RfC is here

The following is the old and proposed versions of the same content which is at dispute. The old version was reached under a consensus of editors at the time in 2008. The new version claims to address some policy concerns. Any insight into which version may serve the subject and our readers best is appreciated.

Please comment at the RfC.

Seperately I'm concerned about georgiagrrl ( talk · contribs) as a SPA. -- Banjeboi 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• RfC appears to be an abuse of process to force through a rewrite without actually discussing in detail what's wrong with the current version. Would appreciate some administrator involvement here as situation appears to be deadlocked. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ ( talk) 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the abuse of process - can you be more specific about how a request for comments is a tactic to avoid discussion? This talkpage could definitely use a wider audience because while the new version seems (to me) be an obvious improvement, the reception to the RfC is unaccountably mixed. (Also, any theories as to how we got three users named Zoe responding to the same RfC?) Avruch ^T 18:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi was repeatedly given the chance to discuss perceived problems with the existing consensus version but just reverted back to their version, which seems to be a common tactic employed by that user. A point-by-point discussion that I attempted to start at the end of "Recent edits undone" on the talk page was ignored, instead Benjiboi just posted the RfC asking people to comment on the two versions without referencing the extensive prior discussions on the topic. RfCs are a mechanism to promote discussion on an issue, not to mis-state the nature of a dispute in an attempt to force through one's own pet rewrite of an issue without being willing to engage in discussion on a topic. If you haven't already, I'd ask that you check out the earlier entries on the talk page and in the archive - it's not just one users work but the consensus view that he's claiming suffers from POV issues. The proposed version just pushes the pro-Bindel line and falls foul of POV issues even more so. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ ( talk) 19:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That consensus, again, was sadly wrong, we do not use blogs to source negative content on BLPs and we do not insert negative POV commentary like "caused even more widespread discomfort" and "despite continuing disapproval of her views". Wikipedia is not a blog and not a battleground. -- Banjeboi 00:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Brewster McCracken (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a candidate to a coming election in Austin, Texas.
This guy Austinadams2k ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not look good to me - Have a look at his contribs and see, for example, this diff.
Jerome Potts ( talk) 15:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Early contribs indicate a user who is unfamiliar with editing our project. I have added a welcome template to his talk page specific to editors whose first edits were not well cited. لenna vecia 01:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I might be having problems with the correct formatting of this post as I am the library. Anywho, the important part is the following link. I believe it needs careful examination by more expeirenced editors then I. Lots and lots of weirdness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Pennington#Bloopers_and_mishaps

I've tagged the article as having been unreferenced since Aug 07. I also removed the copyvio link. The section itself doesn't seem to have necessarily contentious material. Seems like humorous bloopers, nothing to damage a reputation. There doesn't appear to be any harmful vandalism in the history either, but I've added it to my watchlist. لenna vecia 03:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Airi & Meiri (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been plagued with some really shady sources, including lots of biographical "facts" sourced directly to sales sites, as well as a dozen plus sales sites cited as sources for factual claims. Some extra eyes on this would be appreciated. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 13:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dekkappai has reverted to a preferred version using these sources twice. I could really use a hand here. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 13:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Some more eyes would be appreciated. The latest kerfluffle is over some inferred claims from another catalog/promotional site. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 00:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I can be of any help, because I don't read Japanese and nor am I a particularly experienced Wikipedian, but I just wanted to say that you are fighting the good fight there. IceCreamEmpress ( talk) 04:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The best thing to do is locate an editor who can verify for us what the sources say, and whether they are reliable. From there we might be of more use. — R ² 16:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not really the dispute. The dispute is that these links are catalog links, and from them inferences are being made about their career, marketing, etc. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 20:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone check out the disagreement on this article's talk page: Hak Ja Han? It's not really a serious BLP problem but still a difference of opinion about proper sources for an article on a living person. It has been at a standstill for quite a while. Steve Dufour ( talk) 02:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This disagreement is going on and on. Could someone step in. If I am wrong please tell me so. Thanks. Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Commented, but more comments would be good. لenna vecia 04:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jennavecia ( talk · contribs) that more comments at the ongoing Request for Comment would be a good thing. Cirt ( talk) 22:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

An IP user(unregistered) feels that I've been biased in my edits at this page. He goes on say "Alturism indulging in biased edits and deleting uncomfortable truths about their hero." Please do reverse my edits, if you find this user's accusations to be right. - Altruism ^{T a l k - Contribs.} 07:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've given the article a clean up, removing all unsourced information that is unduly positive or unduly negative. Currently it is sourced by one obscure website. Tempted to nominate it for deletion actually. — R ² 09:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Carmine Avellino (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Unreferenced biography of a mobster. The only reference is a New Jersey government site that only lists people who are banned from casinos. -- Blanchardb - ^{Me• MyEars• MyMouth}- timed 11:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hans Kleppen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Doma-w continually adding an unsourced date of death to the Hans Kleppen article without any explanation. 71.42.216.98 ( talk) 19:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit reverted and giving an informal reminder about sourcing controversial info. — R ² 19:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In order to have an organized page centralizing all the tasks relating to biographies of living people, a WikiProject has been created. There are several areas in need of greater attention, each listed on the project page. This is a project-wide problem that needs everyone's attention. Please take a look and help where you can. لenna vecia 20:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Austinites is totally uncited. It needs references so people can prove that the people on the list really are Austin natives. WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• I reverted a user who removed the tag because "rvt BLPunreferenced template - Each article has its own references" - The sources need to be in the article. We cannot rely on people having to go to other articles to look for sources. If other articles have sources, copy them and put them in List of Austinites. WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I will work on this tomorrow. لenna vecia 03:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't able to do it, as other things came up. Striking to be picked up by someone else. لenna vecia 05:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Mohammad Shahabuddin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'd like some advice/help with this one, I'm not sure how far to go in cleaning it up. I've run across another simple one today also, Sadhu Yadav which I will deal with, I wonder how many other similar BLP violations there are on Asian politicians? Roll on flagged revisions, it hadn't occurred to me how widespread this probably is. // Dougweller ( talk) 11:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do you believe there are BLP violations here? Looie496 ( talk) 17:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Simply because I've assumed that all assertions of criminality should be sourced. I find things like "Few opponents dare campaign publicly for fear; in addition, he is widely believed to have rigged many polling stations in the past." -- quite possibly true, but no sources. I also see sources such as [25] which is, it says "A resource center for the promotion of Hindutva", hardly a RS. Dougweller ( talk) 13:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ciaexposed ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this user's only edits are to Bobby Pittman, which appear to be defamatory/libelous. _scootey ^talk 06:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

He was given a level one warning, let's see if he continues. — R ² 06:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In the following reverts and edits: [26], [27], [28], [29] apparently disruptive editor [30], kept adding allegations that are both harmful and are a form of personal attack to the page. I suggest clearing the page history to comply with BLP requirements. I have checked all possible reliable sources and could only find some blog sites or personal attack sites that should not be used as a sources for BLPs. This editor is blocked, but BLPs needs to be watched. Wikidās ॐ 12:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is dire and needs sandblasting, it's a loveletter as it current stands. I'm going to turn the flamethrowers on it. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The entry here is about three articles Satsvarupa dasa Goswami. Hridayananda dasa Goswami and Jayapataka Swami. Which of the three you are talking about? Wikidās ॐ 12:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

God, I'd only noticed the first one, they all need work - looks like I'll need my bigger flamethrower.. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've stubbed Jayapataka Swami which was fairly lengthy and completely unsourced. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Deborah Peagler article seems entirely non-neutral, and inflamatory towards Steve Cooley.

131.111.139.103 ( talk) 13:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I am applying what redactions are necessary to Deborah Peagler (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).  Sandstein  17:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, you can also fix errors in Wikipedia yourself.  Sandstein  17:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of days ago, I raised some concerns on the talk page of this article (see Talk:Jennifer Fitzgerald#BLP concerns). The article is named as a biography, but it's not. It's almost completely about her alleged affair with George H. W. Bush. One of the primary authors of the article ( User:Daniel Case) agrees that it should be renamed, though neither of us is sure what a better name would be. I also question the appropriateness of the article, as it's based on allegations and rumors. Some more eyes on the article and some opinions would be appreciated. Thanks. لenna vecia 19:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, while I agree with Jenna about the naming issue, I would disagree with the characterization that it's "based on allegations and rumors". These were all reported on during a U.S. presidential campaign, have been discussed subsequent to it, and I have done my damnedest over the years to make everything reliably sourced. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I implied such, Daniel. I tried to word it in such a way as to apply your agreement only to the naming issue. لenna vecia 06:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not really central to this discussion, but I just removed a paragraph about Linda Tripp. It was mostly about rumors she had some role in leaking this story. No real sources, just a Larry King transcript where she denied involvement. Both BLP and RS issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the title should be changed, preferably without mentioning Jennifer at all, since she is not the notable person in all this. The incident it only notable because of the link to President Bush, and the title should reflect that. Take 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson as a example. The title needs to mention the incident (child sexual abuse, or adultery in this case), the notable person (Michael Jackson, or Bush in this case). Finally the title needs to clarify that nothing has been proven, so "accusation" or "allegation" thrown in will help. Titles with words such as "controversy" or "scandal" should be avoided. — R ² 18:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Susan Roesgen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Lots of NPOV and BLP issues regarding a recent controversy this reporter has been in. Also undue weight issues - the article is basically a stub without the controversy. Keeping a lid on it so far but help is always nice. Gamaliel ( talk) 15:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Gave it a clean, what remains is reliably sourced. It's not ideal, but it's not the worse case of WP:UNDUE I've ever seen. If we can expand other areas of the article it should be passable. — R ² 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just gone back to the article and the volume of content has greatly expanded. There is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE here. — R ² 01:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a history with user:Vintagekits. I would therefore appreciate it if someone else were to check whether Crosby is sufficiently "disgraced" to satisfy WP:RS. The diff is at [31]. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No. And as I've argued on the Talk page, it's irrelevant how good the sources are, WP does not editorialise. Rd232 ^talk 01:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

After reading this page I have a few comments. First, this page seems libelous, also this page is discriminatory and inflammatory. Non-neutral and partial. It does not state or reference any of Council President Conyers accomplishments as a teacher, an public school administrator, nor a President pro tempor of City Council nor as President. I have a serious problem with bigoted pages created with no facts but just the opinions of others who do not like her. The only thing factual that I saw was that she was being investigated by the FBI, however they have determined that she has not done anything wrong. Someone please assist me in rectification of these issues and i'd greatly appreciate it. Kcgs1989 ( talk) 23:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the claims in the article all seemed to be sourced. Is there anything in particular you're challenging? Also, for any achievements she has, feel free to add those to the article and include a source for them. If you need help with that, just post it here. لenna vecia 04:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Failing to submit receipts for travel? If that belongs in an article, I'm going to do my best to see that nobody ever writes an article about me. Looie496 ( talk) 02:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that the majority of the article deals with the fallout from his assault on his partner, and only a little with the illustrious career which preceded the details becoming public less than a year ago. On the other hand, the events of the past year have had massive publicity in New Zealand, for example his conviction a few days ago was given the first ten minutes of the hour-long prime time news on TV3 (and probably a similar coverage on the other main channel), and occupied much of the front page and all of page 2 of the New Zealand Herald the following day. The accuracy of testimonials were again headlined on the television news and in the newspapers a day later, and his suicide attempt yesterday was the lead story on TV3 yesterday and in the Herald this morning. Such coverage has been frequent since July last year.

Our article is reasonably well-sourced, and I believe it is neutral in tone. While it was created in response to the assault details becoming public in July 2008, it would have been reasonable for an article to have been created on Veitch as a well known sports broadcaster before that. This isn't someone famous only for one event, although he has certainly become much more famous in New Zealand as a result of that event. There is no problem with the behaviour of any editor of the article. In short, this is not a flagrant abuse of the BLP policy.

I feel uneasy about the article although it's only a tiny proportion of the flood of material in the NZ media about Veitch at the moment. Is it okay for the article to have its current weighting, or is this "undue weight"? Is it acceptable to leave it for a few years in the hope that new material will be added on his past and future endeavours, and eventually this will become one section of many documenting his life. Should we attempt to reduce the detail in the article to improve the balance? For example, we could remove most of the "Resignation from media work" section.- gadfium 05:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you are in a better position to answer these questions than anybody unfamiliar with the story would be. Are your questions rhetorical, or do you actually expect some useful input here? Looie496 ( talk) 02:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My question is whether the present article is acceptable under the BLP criteria, and if not then what is the most productive approach to take to fix it. It isn't a rhetorical question.- gadfium 02:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to be snarky -- I think you're in a better position to answer that question than anybody else around here. Do what you think is right, and if you meet resistance, then there will be something specific to ask for help with. If there are sources t back up the statements, it basically comes down to issues of appropriate weight, and that's always best judged by somebody familiar with the topic. Looie496 ( talk) 02:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)