Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive46

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people

Given the deletion of User:Doc glasgow/BLP watch I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people. This can be used in a somewhat similar manner, but rather than adding a wiki-link you transclude the deletion debate, so, for example purposes only, it would be {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noreen Khan}} rather than [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noreen Khan]]. Note, a bot will also archive the closed debates to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people/archive, which may also prove useful for statistical purposes . Hiding T 16:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Akahi Nui

Overall tone of the article seems hostile. At the very least, a lot of use of "claimed", which is generally to be avoided. I'll try to look into this one myself, but it's outside my area of expertise. - Jmabel | Talk 23:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Caroline_Cox

There is a dispute going on with an editor who is wishing to insert into the article a quote in which an individual has stated that Caroline Cox is an "Armenian nationalist". However Caroline Cox is not an ethnic Armenian, has no Armenian ancestry whatsoever, has no Armenian family members, is not a citizen of Armenia, and does not live in Armenia. For that reason the claim that she is an "Armenian nationalist" cannot be true. I have been arguing that this physical impossibility of the claim being true makes the quote invalid for inclusion in a biography of a living person, regardless of the fact that the quote comes from a verifiable source which has attributed the statement to a named individual. Meowy 17:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why this has been brought up here; the article's been stable for a couple of days after Meowy's last edit, leaving it as he wants; it's not even remotely close to a BLP issue, though. Whether it's possible or not for Baronness Cox to be an Armenian nationalist is irrelevant here, as it certainly doesn't offend any WP:BLP guidelines. The content issue has been discussed on the talk page, which it the correct place for it. It just seems that Meowy doesn't like the drift or conclusion of the discussion there. Cheers, Lindsay 13:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
For my own education, if nothing else, why is a false statement that someone is, for example, an Armenian nationalist (or a Canadian citizen or a Presbyterian) NOT remotely close to a BLP issue? Wanderer57 (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, because BLP issues are about statements which are potentially libellous and/or aren't verifiable, aren't they? I might say, "Wanderer57 is a Canadian Presbyterian" without it being a BLP issue; it might raise questions about my sanity, but if you could verify that i had said it, that fact (that i had said it) might well belong in Wanderer57 ~ cited and sourced, of course. We have plenty of controversial or even questionable statements in articles, properly sourced. Even Meowy doesn't seem to argue that the statement about Baroness Cox was made and is sourceable. Or am i simply showing my complete misunderstanding of BLP? Cheers, Lindsay 16:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
BLP issues are not only about statements which are potentially libellous and/or aren't verifiable. They are about the quality of the information. Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, we are told. The statement is claiming that Caroline Coz is an Armenian, and that is clearly false. It is not a "controversial or even questionable statement", it is a completely false claim. Race or ethnicity is not a matter of personal choice or someone's opinion - we are born with it and can't change it. And it does have the potentual for being libelous: she is a member of the British House of Lords - she would not be permitted to sit there if she were an Armenian citizen, and publishing false claims about her ethnicity could have the potentual to restrict her work or give rise to allegations of a racial bias in her work. Meowy 18:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This issue has previously been discussed at this board, and the conclusion was that the quote does not violate any BLP rules: [1] I see no problem with that quote, it is not criticism or libel, it is a compliment from a person who shares the same views with Cox. Also, one does not have to belong to a certain ethnicity or citizenship to be a nationalist for some country, plus the comment was made to demonstrate the dedication of this person to a certain cause. But most importantly, the info is verifiable, it is properly attributed to the source (and not claimed as fact, only as an opinion of a certain person), and therefore it does not violate the BLP requirements. Grandmaster (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your inputs. Just to try to sum this up, and see if I have it straight:
  1. It is reliably sourced that Frank Pallone, Jr. called Cox a "true Armenian nationalist". Also that Cox was awarded the Mkhitar Gosh Medal by the President of the Republic of Armenia.
  2. This being the case, it is legitimate for the article to include these statements.
  3. It would not be legitimate for our article to say: "Baroness Cox is a true Armenian nationalist", because this would change it from an opinion to a statement that could be taken at face value.
Do I have that correct?
To take this issue a bit further, suppose someone had stated outright that she "is Armenian", and suppose as Meowy suggests, that the statement is seriously detrimental to her in some way. What then? Ought it to be in the article? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It depends on who and how says it. If it is a libel from her opponents, then it is different. But even in that case the opinion could be included with proper attribution. However Mr. Pallone did not criticize Mrs Cox, he complimented her and her dedication to the Armenian issues. Those 2 politicians share the same views and have friendly relations. In this case, it is a notable opinion, and it is not libel or slander, and therefore it cannot be considered to be a violation of BLP rules. Grandmaster (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The source is stating that she is an Armenian! She can't be an "Armenian nationalist" unless she is an Armenian. I did say in the talk page that probably Pallone didn't mean to say it like that, but obviously we can't quess what he meant to say, and given that what he did say is an impossibility, it would be appropriate in the biography of a living person not to include the quote. It probably is relevant (if the article is going to mention her work regarding Armenian issues) to say that she has recieved the "Mkhitar Gosh Medal" - but I've got no opinion on it and it isn't the issue here. In the real world the quote is potentually libelous because it has the potentual to cause undeserved damage to Cox. I'm sure we will get journalists from Azerbaijan cherry-picking the article to write about how Wikipedia states that Cox is an "Armenian", with the aim being to say that her work regarding human rights-issues in Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh is not because she is interested in human rights but because she is an Armenian who is furthering the interests of her race at the expense of others. Meowy 20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Pallone did not say that she was Armenian. Period. He said nothing about her ethnicity or nationality. And it was not a slander, it was a compliment, and it is attributed to Pallone, not claimed as a fact. I don't think anyone will judge her ethnic origins by the words of Pallone, which say nothing about her ethnic roots, when there's a whole article about her biography just above. Grandmaster (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that a person can be an Armenian nationalist without being an Armenian? More importantly, do you think that a reader of the article would assume it? Meowy 21:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you perhaps confusing the noun "nationalist" (one who subscribes to nationalism) with the noun "national" (something more akin to being a citizen)? Certainly one can be an Armenian nationalist without being an Armenian national, i.e., without being an Armenian. TJRC (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A faulty knowledge of English usage is making you err. Obvously one can be an "Armenian nationalist" without being a citizen or Armenia, but one can't be an "Armenian nationalist" without first being (in some definable way) an "Armenian". Meowy 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
One can be an Armenian nationalist without being an ethnic Armenian, if he supports the Armenian nationalist ideas. The compliment about dedication of Cox to the Armenian cause comes from her colleague in the US congress, who shares similar views with her. Grandmaster (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote is in line with WP:BLP and was properly sourced. It's not claimed as fact, rather statement by Pallone is meant to emphasize her staunch belief and support for Armenian cause. Atabek (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Wanderer57, yes you have summed up correctly here in your three points. On your further point, suppose someone has, and suppose it is detrimental, then yes, if it sourced, it should be in the article (if it is notable, not just because it exists). I mean, look at David Irving; we state that his "status as a historian has been widely discredited" and "that he is antisemitic and racist", neither of which can be anything but detrimental statements, but they are sourced properly and valid important information. (And, no, i'm not saying that just because it's in one place it should be in anther, but i'm using the example as a proper example of how it should be done acceptably.)
And, Meowy, yes, a person can be an Armenian nationalist, or any other kind, without being racially or ethnically or "citizenally" Armenian; it simply means that they support the national goals of Armenians. Cheers, Lindsay 21:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A person can't be, based on my reasonably sound understanding of the proper use of the English language helped along by a bit of common sense. Meowy 21:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I can source and attribute a claim that George W Bush is an alien shape changing reptilian that drinks human blood for lunch... A little extreme of an example, but you got the idea. So what if someone called her Armenian nationalist, is that such a noteworthy information that needs to be included in an encyclopedia? Some of you might want to take a look at Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. People are being called a lot things on daily basis are we going to turn wikipedia into a tabloid magazine? Instead the section on her humanitarian work in Armenia and especially Nagorno-Karabakh Republic should be expanded. VartanM (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, more realistically, there are plent of commentators who have accused Bush of being fanatically and blindly pro-Israeli, and his administration of being in the pocket of Jewish lobbyists, but nobody has claimed he is an "Israeli nationalist" because such an assertion would be impossible. But Wikipedia content makes the impossible possible. Meowy 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not an extraordinary claim, it is pretty obvious that Mrs Cox takes a strong position on this issue and the quote comes from the leader of the Armenian Caucus in the US congress. The opinion is notable and deserves inclusion. And edit warring by you is not helpful at all, you agreed to stick to the opinion of the admin when the issue was discussed the first time, now you made a 180 degree turn. Please respect other editors and reach consensus on your edits first. Grandmaster (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that one cannot be a Fragglestanian nationalist unless one is first ethnically Fragglestanian or a resident of, or refugee from, Fragglestan. If one supports Fragglestanian nationhood, one is a Fragglestanian nationalist. Even if one is an ethnic Somali, currently domiciled at Penn State and planning to work in the Falkland/Malvinas islands after graduation, tending to sheep and penguins still suffering from PTSD after the Falklands War. If one continues to advocate Fragglestanian nationhood at Penn State (between classes) and in statements issued from the Falkland/Malvinas Islands (between sheep and penguin therapy sessions,) one continues to be a Fragglestanian nationalist. David in DC (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How about Texas A & M?? Wanderer57 (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Frosty, Heidi & Frank

As far as I can see, the Frosty, Heidi & Frank article is a combination of BLP violations and promotion of the show. I've tried to remove at least some of the material which is unreferenced and appears to be a BLP violation (see diffs [2], [3], [4], and the combined diff [5]), only to have it restored by various IP editors and most recently User:Katiestilwell [6].

I had already warned Katiestilwell three times about reverting vandalism reversions and BLP removals (although I think I may have warned Katiestilwell possibly one too many times), and I don't want to get into an edit war over this, and I really don't want to go forward with this without checking out my assumptions and having editors with more experience with and understanding of BLP issues take a look at this. I feel that probably even more needs to come out of the article -- but I'll accept whatever results come of this review. Thank you.

Oh, I will notify User:Katiestilwell as soon as I save here (so I can get a link). -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the first of my diffs above had, due to my initial carelessness, managed to introduce other vandalism into the page (through choosing an inppropriate reversion target), which was later removed. I'll try not to do that again. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Chenjerai Hunzvi

Resolved
 – was formerly a living person, but is now expired --Slp1 (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This article looks like a general BLP train wreck, part of the current feeding frenzy over Zimbabwe and its political figures. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Hunzvi is actually a former living person per the Guardian obit [7], which seems to substantiate a lot of the negative facts about a man who apparently took "Hitler" as his nom-de-guerre. --Slp1 (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin Fierz

Who the hell is this Martin Fierz guy? He's just promoting himself through this site - and even appears on the 'Swiss Chess Players' list amongst such people as Korchnoi... Should't that be removed - the whole entry?

I have marked this with the {{nn}} template; I don't see any BLP issues, though, because there are no negative statements about him in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 17:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

1986 Hvalur sinkings

Two members of Sea Shepherd scuttled two whaling boats in Reykjavik harbour and destroyed a whalemeat factory. They spared a third whaling boat in order not to endanger someone. Part of the Icelandic press called this "terrorism" at the time, but it seems to have been mainly hyperbole. When I encountered the article:

Is this a BLP issue?

I would also like to know if BLP is applicable to organisations, or if there is anything analogous for organisations. I didn't find anything in the obvious (to me) places. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

I'd be grateful if editors could have a look at WP:AN/I#Request for community review and leave comments there. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Donna Shalala

Our article for Donna Shalala had some pretty nasty material in it. I've removed the most obvious bits but additional eyes and help cleaning it up would be appreciated. I understand that she is a controversial figure in some circles but we still need to follow WP:BLP. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is absolutely terrible. Thanks for bringing it up. FCYTravis (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks to me like any significantly problematic material has been removed. The article is now a bit thin, but I'd be inclined even to take the NPOV tag off of it. - Jmabel | Talk 20:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Russian Mafia#Notable members

Not a single source. I removed the section and was reverted. Corvus cornixtalk 23:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did revert your edit. Let me explain once again. I think it is not necessary to cite sources specifically in the article Russian Mafia, because if you open the individual page for a person in the list, this page already has sources proving connection with mafia. See, for example [8] [9] [10] - these articles have sources proving mafia links. That is why these persons are included in the list in the article Russian Mafia. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Still, one Wikipedia article shouldn't be relying on another for citation. It would be best if at least one solid reference (drawn from the references in those other articles) were provided for each of these. Otherwise, if someone goes and adds an inappropriate name to the list it is going to be very difficult to know they have done so. - Jmabel | Talk 17:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
A related reason. Suppose someone is put on a list based in a reference given in another article. If that reference is deleted or becomes inaccessible, the justification for having the person on the list has vanished but the person is still on the list. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I agree. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Neil Brian Goldberg

Although not a typical attack page, when read carefully, especially if the last paragraph is read first, the main purpose of the article appears to me to be to claim or insinuate dishonest, if not illegal, behaviour on the part of a number of named living people, some of whom are allegedly involved in litigation with the subject of the article. Since WP:BLP applies to other persons, as well as the nominal subject of the article, I would say it applies here. In my view WP:BLP requires immediate deletion of the last paragraph, at least, but I am not sure how much of the article should be removed, since other statements also might be regarded as defamatory. Personally, I think it should be deleted immediately, and recreated as a stub if the subject is deemed notable. The article is not properly sourced; in particular, I could not find a source for "Some refer to Neil Brian Goldberg as 'The most ripped off man in America". --Boson (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I see this now has {{nn}} on it. If the claims made in the article are true, then he's notable. On the other hand, it seems to be all about him not being credited for things, and the few mentions I can find online all seem to come from relatively unreliable sources (in particular, liable to come from the same person who wrote this article). If this can be sourced decently, then it's certainly a worthwhile topic. - Jmabel | Talk 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
As the one who placed the prod, I agree that if what is stated in the article is true, then he is certainly notable, which is why I didn't cite that as a reason for deletion. But the article badly needs sources, followed by a complete rewrite if the article is kept. --Finngall talk 19:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

DeShawn Stevenson

I can't believe this article on DeShawn Stevenson meets any guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShawn_Stevenson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.200.141 (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this page has been the subject of a lot of vandalism and partial reversions over the last 24 hours. I've reverted to the last relatively unvandalized version from yesterday and handed out a stack of mostly level-1 warnings to IPs. I hope the admins will consider protecting the page if the problem persists. --Finngall talk 20:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Help Wanted

Please will some people with an understanding of BLP policy look at

this discussion, and provide some input if you think it is warranted.

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It will probably help if I explain that "MOFB" is used in the discussion as an acronym for the subject of the article, (Viscount) Monckton of Brenchley.
The Viscount's grandfather, by the way, was made a Viscount in recognition of extraordinary service to the British royal family.
Wanderer57 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephen R. Pastore (closed)

Fred Singer

There seems to be an edit war, though a slow one, over a claim that Fred Singer believes in martians. I will try to paint as complete of a picture so I can get some good responses on if this should be included. In 1960 a scientist, Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky, had an article published in scientific magazine named "Astronautics" where he stated that he believed the Mars moon Phobos was created by martians. This was based on calculations that were taken by different astronomers in different locations. Fred Singer wrote into the magazine in question and stated:


It turns out that the calculations were incorrect. 20 years later Fred Singer proposed a manned mission to this moon, not on the grounds that it was martian made, not on the basis that it was artificial, but on the basis that it would be easier to get to then Mars itself.[14] Now, another 20+ years later, in 2008, Lawrence Solomon, a writer for the Financial Post, states that he has spoken to Fred Singer, and Singer says he does not believe in martians. He further went on to state that he attempted to remove this but was reverted repeatedly.[15] Another Wikipedia administrator has directed him to OTRS. In the meantime I am wondering if this is material that should be included for the following reasons:

  1. The person has stated through a representative they do not believe in martians.
  2. Their agreement with Iosif was stated as only being based on the calculations being correct.
  3. The next time the moon is mentioned in terms of their research, it is not classified as artificial, not made by martians at all.

Some have tried removing it all together, I have as well, later simply moving it lower, it was originally in the intro for some reason. I would like I guess a ruling on if it should be included at all. My basic opinion is that if I told you that Phobos was made of plastic, and had graffitti on it that said "Martians made this" and asked if you believed it, knowing in 1960 we as humans did not have the capability to launch it, would you agree martians must have made it? With all evidence pointing to it being artificial, evidence later found to be false, apparently many thought it was artificial, including NASA scientists. But we should not say he did, as if there was no conditional statement, that if all information is correct, then I do. --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul Putner

The following phrase keeps being added by anonymous users:

He was actually never married for 8 years like previously mentioned, and has been now with his girlfriend for over 18 months.

I have repeatedly removed it as it is unsourced, not encyclopaedic, poorly written, possibly POV and I don't think it meets the privacy standards of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons - it keeps on returning, though. Dancarney (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Deborah Jeane Palfrey

Deborah Jeane Palfrey (aka the DC Madam) has committed suicide today. The article is a magnet for conspiracy theorists, etc. FYI — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden

Repeated attacks on the Dalai Lama by User:Trudy21. I've given her a uw-v3 warning, but I don't want to get into an edit war over this. Corvus cornixtalk 04:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Boris_Johnson#Islam_and_Muslims

There seems to be a lot of OR interpretation and POV wording of this section. Corvus cornixtalk 17:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Alia Sabur

Several editors dispute the Guinness Book of World Records, which says she is the world's youngest professor. In addition, many IP editors are adding a claim that she is Iranian, or of Iranian heritage, or Iranian-American, although no reliable source says so - conspicuously, her own web page does not say so. I'm keeping the tide at bay for now, but would appreciate another pair of eyes, a second opinion, or at least a sanity check. Thanks, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Chad A. Campbell

This new article is unreferenced and says the subject was convicted as a minor of murder and is now up for parole. Seems like serious BLP issues. Should it be stubbed while unreferenced or deleted, or left as is while someone looks for sources as there seem to be per Google News Archive [16], particularly the Syracuse Herald Journal Saturday, September 28, 1991. Edison (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Strangely, this article was called a "horrible attack article" and deleted as "Pure attack page or negative unsourced BLP" and the creator was advised to "get professional help" and it was also pointed out as a copyright violation of a news story [17] verifying the statements in the article. It does not at all appear to be the "inappropriate page" that its author was warned for creating, just a copyright violation about a person convicted of a horrible crime. A properly created and referenced article about the murders or murderer might survive AFD, if the crime and criminal got sufficient coverage over a long enough time. Stubbing to a non-copyright violation version would have been more appropriate. Edison (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

KXAN-TV

OddibeKerfeld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Oddibe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) insists in putting in information about a DWI concerning a reporter at KXAN-TV. This has gone on for months, he has been told it violates WP:BLP and another editor (ChazBeckett) has backed me up. Usually he'll wait a while before putting the information back in. Frankly, I'm not up for fighting this; I usually just fix dab's, and I think he probably thinks I have it out for him, anyway. Can someone more experienced please handle this? Thanks. Paxsimius (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is a solution here to mention the incident but not the name? Who the reporter is isn't important; that the station elected not to report the incident is what matters in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they did run something: http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid:571958 Paxsimius (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Quoting: "The Austin American-Statesman had already published a story on the arrest". Reliable newspaper coverage, so this isn't a traditional BLP concern from the verifiability side of it. It's pretty verifiable that she was arrested and charged with DWI. —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
But doesn't it violate WP:BLP? It has little to do with the station, at this point just digging up an old scandal. Oddebe's argument to insert it was that the station never addressed the issue; in fact, they did. What's the point of having it in there other than to appease a possibly tendentious editor? Paxsimius (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Tricia Walsh-Smith

Wow. No kidding. I've deleted the whole thing per WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E. That article was a flat-out libelous attack page. FCYTravis (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
oh wow, it was bad enough to merit deletion? i thought she or the incident is of note, especially with all the news attention and the 2nd video. but i wont miss it.Latinlover-sa (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
BLP1E is not an a reason for speedy deletion. Normal BLP concerns are. The version in the google cache at least looks ok. I suggest we go back to whatever version was there and then AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

2007 royal blackmail plot

Can an expert in the field check out policy on naming an anon witness in a UK court case re 2007 royal blackmail plot. --mervyn (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Has been actioned by User:Fred_Bauder. Thanks. --mervyn (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Neil Turbin

This article is in disarray. Poorly-sourced statements abound, the article does not conform to NPOV policy in the least, and grammar/style is subpar. Much of the text seems to have been copied directly from another website. I have tried cleaning it up, only to have it reverted by User:Thrashiq without explanation (I have asked him to propose his changes on the talk page and pointed him in the direction of the NPOV article, all to no avail), whose contributions consist solely of this article. 63.199.244.228 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The only thing in disarray is your inaccuracies about this living musical artist, which is demonstrated by your false statements of misperceptions. The article has been sourced directly from only credible sources such as rare articles, historical data and recent interviews with the singer. There is nothing to clean up except for your false accusations of subpar style and poor grammar. Your statement is completely hypocritical in that you're accusing me of not upholding the facts and then you're taking a potshot at my grammar and then saying I'm not adhering to the NPOV rules. Perhaps you can rewrite the bible for Jesus, since you're so high and mighty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrashiq (talk • contribs) 06:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to be uncivil. This is not a personal vendetta. There is a plethora of unsourced and biased statements in this article (example-- "Anthrax rose to #8 on the British charts with the release of "Fistful Of Metal"" and "Neil Turbin is the first powerhouse vocalist of Thrash Metal". To notice that the grammar is unacceptable, all one needs to do is give a cursory glance to the article. I have tried tagging the article as requiring cleanup, only to have Thrashiq remove it soon after. 63.199.244.228 (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it badly needs cleanup. No, I don't see any BLP concerns. BLP policy is not primarily about perfect sourcing for articles, it is about sourcing potentially derogatory information about living people. - Jmabel | Talk 17:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but wouldn't it indeed constitute a BLP concern? While the information in the article is not necessarily libellous, it is stated on the talk page of this article that poorly sourced or unsourced information which is repeatedly inserted should be reported to this noticeboard. Any input/help would be appreciated. 63.199.244.228 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly unsourced phrases like "first powerhouse vocalist of Thrash Metal" are subjective and have no place in the article, but, again, they really aren't a BLP concern (although if someone keeps adding it back without citation, that would be a concern about that user's undestanding of WP:NPOV, quite independent of BLP). But poor sourcing on the chart position of a record, while sloppy, is not usually the sort of thing to worry about unless either you think it might be wrong or you are willing to do the legwork to find the sources yourself. On the other hand, someone would do well to address the pervasive style problems in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 23:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jmabel. I thought it was a BLP issue, as it did involve a biography and though I know derogatory statements are primarily the concern, I thought non-NPOV and unreferenced information was covered too. Now I see it is primarily an issue of cleanup and citing sources. Does there exist some kind of noticeboard where I can bring biased and uncited information which is repeatedly inserted to a larger attention, or should it simply be dealt with on the talk page?63.199.244.228 (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk page is a good place. You can also simply remove unsourced opinions, with an edit summary saying what you are doing. And if you care about the article, I'd say that one of the first things to do is simply to clean it up. - Jmabel | Talk 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Jmabel. I have tried several times to clean it up, only to have everything reverted. I'll bring it up on the talk page and tag the article accordingly. Thanks again.63.199.244.228 (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yisroel Valis

This article needs to looked at by someone experienced with BLP notability regarding crimes--BirgitteSB 13:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've passed it to AFD. (Alleged) domestic child murder is a tragic situation, but hardly uncommon. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Zhirinovsky

I wonder if folks could have a look at Vladimir Zhirinovsky. I realise he's a colourful character but is it biographical for a BLP to have 75% of the article in the controversy section? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I could imagine reorganizing the material, but any article on Zhirinovsky that isn't simply an attack piece is going to be at least 75% controversial! - Jmabel | Talk 02:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What is the practise with regard to having section headings titled "Controversies" in a BLP? I think that we shouldn't be hitting the reader over the head with such a section heading. I know that Rachel Marsden had such a section heading but it seemed to have been removed and much of that section was also removed. Also, the article on Zhirinovsky seems to just take every possible controversial thing he's said and lump it into the controversies section and that doesn't really seem biographical to me. Also, there seems to be an understandable but unencyclopedic tendency to try to "get" the subject if you look at some of the comments made on the talk page. Your thoughts? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In general, it's a lot better if this material can be parceled out into separate, more appropriate sections. Yes, a "controversy" section is generally a bad idea. - Jmabel | Talk 19:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jmabel. This person is so controversial (and he is working hard to gain publicity by creating controversies around himself) that we can not made his article as one giant "controversy" section.Biophys (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
We need to be more selective of inclusion to the article and add major events and make them more biographical. For example Zhirinovsky disregarding the blockade and providing help to Saddam Husseins regime after the First Gulf war is a major event. Zhirinovsky making snarky remarks regarding the Baltic States or Georgia or whatever country needs either minor mention or no mention at all. There should be perhaps some sort of blanket statement that he has made controversial remarks about other nations but we don't need to cite every single one of them. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Zhirinovsky’s remarks on the Baltic nations and Georgia reflect political views of the parliamentary vice-speaker of the largest country in the world as well as millions of people who has voted for him and his party. They are well sourced and should stay, albeit somewhat reorganized. We can rename the Controversies section into "Political views" or something along this line, and divide it into subsections separately describing Zhirinovsky’s attitude towards Western world, Jews/Israel, post-Soviet nations, etc. Since his support to Saddam is a notable part of his political activities at the heydays of the LDP, it should go to the Liberal-Democratic_Party section.--KoberTalk 05:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it definitely needs to be reorganised and renamed. Remember particularly when it comes to a BLP, when we saying something is a controversy, we need to establish it is a controversy in the article. It is not suffiucient that wikipedians think it is controversial. To use my favourite example, if some person says people of race X should be exterminated, that is likely to be seen as a controversial statement to many. However in the absence of a source establishing a controversy, there should still be no controversy as far as wikipedia is concerned Nil Einne (talk)

Robert J. Marks II

Looking at the article Robert J. Marks II, I'm interested to know what other people think of the length of the "controversy" section, especially the length of the block quotes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dennis Brutus

Patrick Bond, a close friend and colleague of Dennis Brutus, has asked me if anything can be done about the damage caused by two drive-by vandals to the biography of Dennis Brutus. W.naidu on 2007-11-10 and Inkani.2 on 2007-12-03 inserted false, defamatory, and harmful references to Trotskyism in the Dennis Brutus biography. Brutus, age 83, is a director of Public Information Research. Thank you, Daniel Brandt, PIR president 68.92.159.221 (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that there are no sources listed for the assertions, I have removed them per WP:BLP and watchlisted the page. FCYTravis (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Greg Oden

He has been warned plenty of times to stop, but has continued. As such, the user has been blocked. --Aude (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If a person may or may not be alive, how does BLP apply?

In the article Historical pederastic couples there is this entry:

Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein and Lucien Trueb

Monty fell passionately in love the twelve-year-old Swiss youth in 1946, and would spend time with him at his chalet in Gstaad. The intimacy only went as far as bathing the boy and towelling him off. They corresponded for many years.

Two references are given from reliable sources: Was Bernie a Bertie?, The Times Online, David Aaronovitch, May 5, 2006 and The General of Love who was one of the boys, The Independent, Nicholas Fearn, October 14, 2001.

Montgomery is, of course, dead, but my question concerns the alleged object of his affections, Lucien Trueb. Trueb is reported to have been 12 in 1946, which would make him 74 now, if he were alive. However, although I've found evidence in Google searches of a number of "Lucien Truebs", one of whom appears to be an expert on Swiss watches, I haven't yet confirmed that Trueb is still alive. Given that, how do BLP rules apply?

I should also add that although there are two reliable sources given for the article entry, they both, in fact, point to a single source as the originator of this claim, a biography by Nigel Hamilton called The Full Monty. As far as I know (although I haven't done extensive research on the question), Hamilton's claims about Montgomery's sexuality have not been supported by evidence provided by others, so this claim comes from a single unsupported source. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is not known that the person has died, assume they are alive. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This can be carried a little too far - see Sada Abe. Kelly hi! 22:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Thank you. Great article. Maybe I won't go to Japan after all. ;o) Wanderer57 (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that was just me advertising Dekkappai, who is truly a great article writer (in my opinion) on obscure but interesting subjects. Kelly hi! 23:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Right. I guess a person is alive until proven dead.Bless sins (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, federal FOIA regs assume a 100-year cuto-off for undocumented deaths. In other words, if a person would be over one hundred years old, we can assume he is dead for federal privacy purposes.Verklempt (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's cut-off (bad choice of words?) is 123 years, see eg Category:Living people. Andjam (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if the person is dead (or senile), it could be damaging to the family if untrue. IMO, a single unsupported source of negative "publicity" shouldn't be included regardless. --Faith (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP is concerned with more than just privacy issues, it covers also libel issues. AFAICT the age limit does not apply to libel instances, and if he's not in fact dead, we need to apply the policy (which, in essence means, if we don't know for sure he is dead, we need to assume that he is alive). ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Seth Tobias

Can someone take a look at that article. Came across it while removing vandalism, and the sources in the article seem less than ideal for a BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that he's dead, it's not a BLP concern as such, but I would say that having 3/4 of an article focus on scandalous and even salacious aspects of someone's death is almost certainly excessive. - Jmabel | Talk 17:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I've proposed it for deletion. Being a person interviewed on TV finance shows is not notable, nor is being gay, nor is being murdered, nor are all three together. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Although do bear in mind that the could be BLP concerned for other people, e.g. Tiger Nil Einne (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Akahi Nui

Overall tone of the article seems hostile. At the very least, a lot of use of "claimed", which is generally to be avoided. I'll try to look into this one myself, but it's outside my area of expertise. - Jmabel | Talk 23:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This was archived without so much as a single person responding to it in any way. If people think my expressed concerns are invalid, I would like to see someone say so explicitly, rather than just ignore what I've said. I believe my track record on Wikipedia should make it clear that I am the farthest thing from a troll, and trolls are about the only category of contributors where ignoring them is the right thing to do. - Jmabel | Talk 17:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually I looked at the article, decided it was way out of my line, and left it. Quite likely others did the same.
If there's a Wikiproject:Hawai'i, someone there might be helpful. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It's Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii, but no one there has been any help either, and I still believe this is a BLP matter. As in, if we can't fix this we might be better off reducing this to a single sentence. - Jmabel | Talk 20:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Not an expert on these matters but not that 'claim to the throne' and 'pretender to the throne' are AFAIK fairly normal usage and not consider degratory. On the other hand, claims birth and claims direct may be a problem Nil Einne (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
All I can really say is, compare how Quentin Kawānanakoa is written. There is not even any suggestion that he has any rivals in his claims to the throne, whereas the article on Akahi Nui seems to be devoted largely to disputing his claim. - Jmabel | Talk 23:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin

Are the sources provided enough to have this text included in the Vladimir Putin article? --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 19:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, there have been some allegations that Putin secretly owns a large fortune. According to former Chairman of the Russian State Duma Ivan Rybkin[18] [19] [20] [21], Putin controls a 4.5% stake in Gazprom, 37% in Surgutneftegaz and 50% in the oil-trading company Gunvor run by a close friend of Putin — Gennady Timchenko.Gennadi Timchenko: Russia's most low-profile billionaire Sobesednik № 10, March 7, 2007Миллиардер Тимченко, "друг Путина", стал одним из крупнейших в мире продавцов нефти. The aggregate estimated value of these holdings would easily make Putin Russia's richest person. "Putin's total personal fortune would amount to no less than $41 billion, placing him among the 10 richest in the world," says the Swedish economist Anders Åslund.Unmasking President Putin's Grandiose Myth, Russia's New Oligarchy. For Putin and Friends, a Gusher of Questionable Deals. In December, 2007, Belkovsky elaborated on his claims: "Putin's name doesn't appear on any shareholders' register, of course. There is a non-transparent scheme of successive ownership of offshore companies and funds. The final point is in Zug [in Switzerland] and Liechtenstein. Vladimir Putin should be the beneficiary owner."Putin, the Kremlin power struggle and the $40bn fortune.

Well, it's gossip, there's no doubt about that. But it's well sourced gossip. The fact that there is no actual evidence to the claims and that it's based on nothing more than accusations which could indeed do harm to his reputation leads me to favor removing it. I don't think it should be wikipedias job to promote and spread dubious gossip, no matter how many well known newspapers have repeated it. However I don't think any wiki policies back my opinion up, aside from a broad interpretation of WP:HARM. It says on deleting sourced content: "In particular, possibly false allegations that would significantly harm an individual's life should be avoided.", but also: "Unconfirmed allegations may only be included in Wikipedia where they have already been widely publicised by the mainstream news media". Krawndawg (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Policy clearly allows it because of the wide reportage, and we're not talking about some small-town sheriff here, but the (former) head honcho of Russia. - Merzbow (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Merzbow is correct. We're talking about major international coverage of these allegations. Whether or not they are correct, we would be doing an extreme disservice to our readers but not including them. Indeed, their removal would constitute whitewashing. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this text violates several policies:

  • Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material which states: "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy."
  • Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources which states: "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;"
  • in addition, because this text was put into the article intro, it also violates Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight which states: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all."

You can also find more on the subject here.

Cfeet77 (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We have multiple reliable sources about these allegations. No one disputed that allegations indeed have been made by several notable people including Rybkin, Belkovsky and Ashlund. The allegations are not presented as "truth" in the article, and they are notable enough to be included.Biophys (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that you remove Aslund from your list. To my knowledge Aslund is a journalist who simply quotes opinion of Rybkin and Belkovsky. He does not endorse the view by himself. We not have only Rybkin and Belkovsky remaining on our balance sheet. Both are marginal figures on the Russian political scene as of today. Cfeet77 (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If you feel that neither Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material nor Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources rules are violated, I still feel that the Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight rule is violated. Cfeet77 (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, Aslund endorses views by Rybkin and Belkovsky and adds his own view.Biophys (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC).
But I added a reference to a recent book by Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky who also endorsed this view and provided their own view on the Putin's corruption. So, we do have a lot of good, even secondary sources.Biophys (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Urs Bühler

While on vandal patrol, I found and removed a vandal edit [22] to this article. The vandalism was by a different editor from the one I come to this noticeboard about. Then I noticed that since April 1, 2008, the article has stated that he dated one woman during a certain period and another woman in another period. This is certainly not defamatory or particularly controversial, but it was unreferenced and unverified, so per WP:BLP and WP:V I removed it. User:Jecat, who has edited only this article has added back the history of the subject's dating life without comment[23] , [24] , [25] . I have done lots of vandal whacking, but have not run into someone (a newbie) who is apparently in good faith re-adding unreferenced information to a biographical article, so I would appreciate an evaluation of whether it would be appropriate for me to block someone re-adding the unsourced info, if they do so after my final warning. I could not myself find any reliable sources which linked the article subject with either of the women, only mirrors of Wikipedia and blogs. Usually people I have blocked have been blatant vandals, not just re-adding unsourced material which if true would be non-controversial, but which appear unverifiable and unsourced. Edison (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question seems to have been in good faith adding back information she believed to be true,after removing vandalism and seems to have ceased reverting [26]. But should unsourced statements about who someone dated when be left in biographical articles? Is it a blockable offense to repeatedly re-add it? Edison (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I consider this incident resolved except for the policy question of whether unreferenced personal information about a living person should be deleted. Edison (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
If by deleted you mean removed from an article (or talk page) then yes definitely. If by deleted you mean deleting the revision then possibly but it isn't that important unless potentially libellious or private information Nil Einne (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, as for blocking, I would say there's no need it the addition was in good faith and stopped when warned although it may be a good idea to inform them of BLP Nil Einne (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity sex tape and User:Sceptre

I've never had a dispute like this, so I hope this is the right place. It involves, primarily, several editors to the celebrity sex tape article and User:Sceptre. He blanked the page four times without raising any concerns on the talk page ([27] [28], [29], [30]), and submitted the page for protection when it turned out other editors were reverting his blanking. (Protection was declined.) When that didn't work, he nominated the article for deletion. Without waiting for that article to complete that process, he decided to go on blanking the article in whole or in part ([31], [32], [33], [34], [35]), again only invoking BLP (and despite the fact that some of the material he keeps blanking relates to people who are dead). And when warned about 3RR, he cited that 3RR doesn't apply in cases of BLP violations, apparently paying no heed to the fact that he is in the distinct minority believing the material to be a violation of BLP. While other editors in the AfD have voted for deletion, no one else seems to think it's a "textbook" case. Still not getting his way, User:Sceptre again submitted the page for protection. I'd kind of like to have some outside eyes, particularly those associated with BLP patrol, to help quell this edit warring, because at this point I think it's clear an external solution is needed. Ford MF (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Because you're failing to see what the problem with the section is.
Steve Bennett wrote:
> I'm happy to be corrected, but I was under the
> impression that as long as we can convey that the information is not
> guaranteed accurate (by the use of cite tags), then "speculative"
> information is better than none.

Absolutely not.  Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your
words.  We are not tabloid journalism, we are an  encyclopedia.

> As a reader, often you approach a topic knowing nothing at all. If
> Wikipedia can at least give you a broad outline of the topic with some
> clues as to where it fits with respect to other topics, then it's
> doing well. Whether or not it's a neutral, balanced and totally
> factually accurate article is a secondary concern to me, as a reader.

That can be true to a degree and in some cases, but this is not the sort
of thing that I am talking about at all.
Whole article fails the post by Jimbo's reply. The "rumoured sex tapes" section doubly so. And even if they're dead, there exists a thing called basic human dignity - how is this sort of tabloiding acceptable or ethical by anyone's standards? Sceptre (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
With an "article" like this one, it is not a matter of Sceptre (or another editor) justifying why it should be deleted. It is a matter of people who think it should be in Wikipedia justifying why it should be here.
Wikipedia does not have a mandate to publish every piece of information we can find. The question of whether something is worth publishing does come into it. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
and afd is the place to discuss it, not deciding by unilateral blanking without consensus. (I note that opinion at the AfD appears to be divided.) And attempts to interpret BLP as referring to the non-living have been rejected by the community. However, the "rumored" section was indeed a problem, and it would have been quite in order to insist on deleting that. DGG (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that the issue of whether this is "worth" publishing is properly put to AfD for the community to decide. The rumored/disputed section has the same problem as the rest of the article - too much of a list and not enough of a discussion of the underlying phonomenon. However, suggesting the rumored tape section is an insult to "basic human dignity" is really just way over the top. Slavery was an affront to basic human dignity; suggesting someone may have had sex in front of a camera is not.--Kubigula (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom appears to disagree, unanimously, referring to the implicit understanding of BLP "should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects" (Passed 11 to 0, 2 July 2007) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Faith (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosalind Picard

More eyes on Rosalind Picard would be helpful. There's a potential COATRACK situation with a single incident being taken out of proportion. Discussion is at Talk:Rosalind_Picard#Undue_weight, please comment there if interested. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

James Tour is also being similarly manipulated, in my opinion. We do not have an edit war yet, but I fear we might soon. More eyes would help. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

IvanAnywhere

I am not sure this robot would fall under WP:BLP . It is created for Ivan Bowman's physical presence in SyBase 1500 miles away. The article describes the creation of the robot and how it (er... he) interacts with other workers in the office. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've posted it to WP:COIN. It looks to me to be a promo piece for Sybase iAnywhere. Is it even notable? 82.25.236.14 (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Larry Silverstein

The Larry Silverstein article is target of egregious BLP violations from time to time. There was a particularly nasty one yesterday by User:Frank1993, which remained for 1+ hour until someone else came along and reverted. [36] I was off yesterday, so unfortunately missed. I would like to see these edits reverted immediately. It would help tremendously to get more folks watching the page for things like this in the future. --Aude (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. FCYTravis (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert J. Marks II

Robert J. Marks II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The subject has removed from the web information about his religious beliefs and activities. There are no other reliable sources for this information. I have removed from the article claims for which we no longer have sources. A group of editors has made many reversions to a version of the article in violation of WP:BLP. A charge that I am in violation of 3RR is sure to come soon, and I would appreciate help with this matter. ThomHImself (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like new sources have been found for those statements, with one exception, which is appropriately tagged as a broken citation. Barring that single bit, what exactly is the problem? Celarnor Talk to me 09:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I posted above for comments about the section Robert_J._Marks_II#The_Evolutionary_Informatics_Lab_website_controversy. I think the quotes at the end are somewhat excessive. Since there is a "main article" for that section, I don't see that it needs to go into such depth about that topic on the BLP page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Behemoth (band)

A lot of anons are making BLP violation edits to Behemoth (band) today, I've reverted, but best to keep an eye on it. Corvus cornixtalk 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Donny Long

There is a current edit war going on by several users over the Donny Long article. A user, donnylong, has participated in the war in an attempt to remove contentious material that is not adequately sourced, but was reverted and warned for vandalism by other users. I am assuming that he is the subject of this article. Vinh1313 (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I should add that the user, donnylong, does not have clean hands either and has been reported to WP:AN/I. Vinh1313 (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this was the best thing to do, or even if what I did was the proper thing to do, but I courtesy blanked the page, as there appears to be no appropriate version of the page to revert to (one version had a legal threat, others had contested BLP violations). —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

John J. Myers

Concerning this edit. I think an expert (no coi user ) should have a look at it and see if this removal of content is legit. User:Jgoodness (coi user according to his user page) removed it twice and I reverted it (meanwhile someone else reverted back to the version previous to my rv...I'll leave it this way); since it looked like censorship of material to me (user has a coi concerning that topic). Reported User:Jgoodness here and it was suggested to bring it up here. User Dœ αTΩC 20:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The material that was removed was borderline tabloid journalism inserted only to smear the subject by association and implication. I can't imagine anyone could defend this as encyclopaedic in tone, content or intent. Verifiability is not a means trump neutral point of view. CIreland (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I reverted it, and I think its earlier removal by User:Jgoodness was legitimate within WP:COI guidelines. It clearly advances a hostile argument based on original synthesis of sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I thank you for being open minded about this removal of scandalous and inaccurate information. As noted on my most recent edit summary, the final item related to a legal action that was indeed dismissed by a Federal Court as frivolous. The other references also contain inaccuracies and incorrect inferrences. The writers who placed these items in here are, indeed, involved in legal action against the Archdiocese and are using this as a forum for their views, which have not been proven in court to be accurate. User: JGoodness 20:45, 5 May 2008 {UTC}
I have Semi-protected the page in question for a couple of months, given the general opinions here and the continuing addition of the material. I suspect that *some* mention of the situation may be appropiate in the article, given the sourcing of some of it to the Dallas Morning News, but the repeatedly added paragraph is far, far from meeting the project's guidelines, so even if something should be there, it is not this. If someone wants to undertake to write such a section that meets BLP and NPOV requirements, then good luck. You'll need it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody direct me to the guidelines for posting this material? My opinion is that Mr. Goodness is engaged in vandalous activity and will delete any unfavorable references to the Archbishop no matter how factual they are. His profile here basically confirms that. His is classic WP:COI . Archbishop Myers is a public figure and as such the public deserves to know about actions he engaged in, even if Mr. Goodness feels we are not entitled to that information. The Catholic Church Sex Scandal was an international story and Archbishop Myers was involved. He did transfer at least two priests accused of sexual crimes as reported in the Dallas Morning News and Peoria Press. Archbishop Myers denies wrongdoing but that does not give Mr. Goodness the right to delete the references. Further Mr. Goodness is providing false information, right here in this post, to advance his cause. He states "The writers who placed these items in here are, indeed, involved in legal action against the Archdiocese". I challenge Mr. Goodness to provide the names of those "writers" and list the docket numbers here. He cannot because I am the writer and I have no pending action against the Archdiocese or anybody connected to it. I repeat my contention, Mr. Goodness is a professional censor who is employed by the Archdiocese of Newark. He should be strictly prohibited from censoring information concerning the Archdiocese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpfsr (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not taking sides in this debate, but if "I am the writer" indicates you are the writer of the cited material, then WP:COI would apply to you as well. Faith (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not the writer of the posted material, I posted it. It is Mr. Goodness who said "The writers who placed these items in here are, indeed, involved in legal action against the Archdiocese". I merely referred to Mr. Goodness' incorrect term in order to prove he will go to any length, including posting blatant lies here, in order to advance his cause, i.e the censoring of any material he deems too negative for the public to see, no matter if that material is based in fact and strongly cited. Bpfsr (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Further to my point that Mr. Goodness will tell any lie possible to advance his cause I refer you to his statement that "As noted on my most recent edit summary, the final item related to a legal action that was indeed dismissed by a Federal Court as frivolous." I contacted the person who brought that suit, Father Robert Hoatson, and he told me, "One count of my federal lawsuit was dismissed (the organized crime part) but all other charges were remanded to State Supreme Court in NY because they are state charges." The cited legal action is therefore still pending and since Mr. Goodness is an employee of the Archdiocese that would make him WP:COI which should make his further deletions of said material a vandalous act.Bpfsr (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Peter Woroniecki

Could a BLP expert take a look at this? I ran across it by accident; my opinion is that it needs a serious pruning. If you look at the source section, it's chock full of primary sources and original research, including invitations to contact detective agencies for verification. Kelly hi! 05:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not the detective agency, the law office that subpoenaed Woroniecki is the citation or source of the information, The subpoena is on file with the Texas State Courts and available through their Public Information Act.72.64.40.169 (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not acceptable to use public records to disseminate otherwise-unpublished information - especially information such as street addresses. I have removed the paragraph - do not reinsert it unless you have a reliable source which covered the matter. FCYTravis (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I was unaware that street addresses weren't permissable. It was just the general address of one of the many random RV parks this preacher has docked in over the last 30 years. The address was only factual information related to where Atty. Parnham successfully found him through his PI. I don't understand how an official gov't document with an assigned case number isn't acceptable if it is referenced through "open public record." Just not wikified enough yet, I guess. Thanks, Travis.71.251.184.207 (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that we do not report what has not already been reported by other reliable, secondary sources. The rule of thumb is that if your only source for something is a public record, it doesn't belong in their biography. I love investigative journalism (I am a journalist) but Wikipedia is not a source of investigative journalism. If you can find some newspaper articles or the like which mention his testimony, then it would be relevant and acceptable to include (the address, not so much, but the gist of the fact that he testified, yes.) FCYTravis (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Roger that. He didn't testify, but they did try to suboena him. Funny thing is that he told the Grand Rapids Press he was innocent from blame during the first trial because they hadn't tried to subpoena him then. I'm trying to find better secondary sources. A lot has been said in Spencer and O'Malley's books on the case but it takes time to pinpoint the exact page. I had a decent photo up in 2005 under fair use, but the guidelines changed sometime afterwards and it was deleted too. All I could find for a releaseable photo was the one provided by a student who uploaded it himself. I've asked him to crop and reload it.71.251.191.8 (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. This article is a mess. I made one small change but it needs a lot more work.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Steve, the disambiguation was to clear up confusion between Mike Woroniecki and Mike Warneke, two newsworthy Christians who became confused during the Andrea Yates trial. People still tend to confuse them.72.64.40.169 (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sahaj Marg

Sahaj Marg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Cult free world was recently blocked for disruptive editing here. Upon returning, he immediately picked up something (a court document, not related to the article and ongoing discussions) from one of his blogs, twisted its meaning completely and then posted it here. This user has shown a persistent pattern of misusing Wikipedia to publish/disseminate unrelated, POV based, defamatory, libelous and antagonistic information, bolstering the on going sock case he has against previous very similar users those are now blocked permanently. Please, can someone help us against this user's behavior? Duty2love (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

While all the editors of the article Sahaj Marg are working together and maintaining an healthy discussion and editing policy, User:Cult free world again does large and disruptive editing.[37] Embhee (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nico Haupt

I'm really not at all familiar with this subject, but there appears to be an ongoing edit war between the subject of the article and someone who doesn't appear to like them. Article seems to be a little too heavily supported by questionable sources for a BLP of this nature, so I figured I'd bring it here to get some more experienced BLP editors to take a look. Threat on the talk page about speaking out on the Howard Stern show if the article gets deleted. --Onorem♠Dil 16:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the article as non-notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Could we maybe appease the guy (I mean, an arguement could probably be made for him having an article about himself...but not writen by him) and create some kind of short biography that is in keeping with Wikipedia standards. Maybe give it a template and take out the part where he seems to predict the future about what Wikipedia with do to him. Smart Ways (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe he could qualify as a "Creative Professional?" The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. He certainly does have some original theories... Smart Ways (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Gina Bold

There appears to be a situation developing there with disputes arising between people claiming to be her personal representatives and people associated with the Stuckism movement. The 'truth' of her biography seems to be underdetermined by the available sources. I had a brief review of sources, but any association with the movement has been excised from her personal biography and only remains on Stuckist sites. I am concerned that discussion has - at times - become heated, and that potentially libellous comments about LP have appeared - at least on the talk page. I would appreciate it if BLP specialists could take a look - and if necessary intervene. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


Maxine Waters

Maxine Waters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'd like some feedback, guidance, etc. on the "Controversy" section of the article on Congresswoman Maxine Waters. It seems to take up a disproportionate amount of the article. I've written more on the talk page if you are interested. Thanks! Smart Ways (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Susan Molinari

Susan Molinari—completely-un-cited article with some true gems, such as, "She may be a Republican candidate for the Mayor of New York in 2009," and, "she leaned more liberal than many of her Republican colleagues." Jouster  (whisper) 13:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine it will be impossible to find news sources for statements like these. DGG (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

George Lugrin III

Born: 7/20/1943 Former editor of Strength & Health magazine. Member of the World Champions: York Barbell Club. 1975 YMCA Nation Heavyweight Powerlift Champion (site: Erie, PA) 1976 Player/Coach Of the II Pan American Powerlift championships - Valencia, Venz. 1976 Silver Medalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turboii34 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear what the point of this post is? We don't have an article on this person, and as this is the place to report problems with a WP biography about a living person, this is probably posted in error. But, in any case, Are you suggesting we need an article on this chap? If so take a look at WP:BIO as I am not sure, based on an initial search that he meets the criteria. You could also try here reading the information hereWP:RA--Slp1 (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill Moyers

Over half of the article seems to be a coatrack for (1) presenting Moyers's views on a couple of political issues and (2) presenting criticism of his views. The article really should be about the person with the views getting a mention, of course. I don't feel like getting involved since I like Moyers but disagree with him on politics and it would be hard for me to be impartial. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, go ahead. Silberman testified to Congress that LBJ requested Hoover to dig up dirt on Goldwater's campaign staff. Later he wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the channel for the request was a memo from Moyers, who had an undisputed history of being a liason with the FBI for Johnson. Are we prohibited by BLP from mentioning this? Seriously? Andyvphil (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC) ...and it turns out that Silberman's assertion that he found the memo from Moyers to Hoover is backed by the Church Committee report, which says that Moyers was the one who made the request ("In the closing days of the 1964 campaign, Presidential aide Bill Moyers asked the Bureau to conduct "name checks" on all persons employed in Senator Goldwater's Senate office...") on the basis of Hoover's reply to Moyers.[38] Andyvphil (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC) ...which is ....drum roll.... fully described here![39] Game, set, match. Andyvphil (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
If that was an important event in his life the article should mention it. I have never heard of it before now. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
And Ratel would like to keep anyone reading Moyers' biography on Wikipedia from noticing it.[40] As part of what the Church Committee called "Abuse of Intelligence" Moyers is publicly identified as having sought, and received,[41] from the FBI, "derogatory information" in a form it calls "peculiarly damaging", on Goldwater staffers, something the committee characterized as "totally improper" and a "betrayal of the public trust".[42] How can this possibly be unworthy of mention in his biography? Andyvphil (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say mention it then, with good references cited of course. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandra Lee (cook)


Most likely other editors as well, but I think the problems are obvious. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
See the ANI report on Biff714s editing --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The article has been semi-protected for one week. --Ronz (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Help from an admin would be appreciated in dealing with these SPA vandals. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been going through this, but it seems to me that there was very little here that specifically called for an administrator.
In the future, when asking for administrative support, could you please be more concrete in asking for specific action (e.g. such-and-such user has done such-and-such violation and I believe this individual should be blocked)? The fact that many people are making inappropriate edits is a good reason to protect or semi-protect the article, which had already been done. I'm looking at this long list of people, and finding few where admin action is called for. - Jmabel | Talk 19:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Sorry I wasn't clear. I should have linked the latest ANI. --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Biff714‎ --Ronz (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thabo Mbeki

So ... they can be sourced, you're familiar with the subject and the sources ... why not add the relevant sources? Celarnor Talk to me 00:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not familiar enough with either the topic or the sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Lowyat.net

I agree its a problem, & I removed the entire dispute section until it gets some real sources. DGG (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
From memory of this, I don't think it's going to be easy, if possible to get RSes for this, I think it only received brief mention if anything in the papers at the time and I don't think he was ever named there so it should stay out Nil Einne (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin, Personal Information, and citing Who's Who

Apologies for the cross-posting, but editors of the G. Edward Griffin article and I would like to ask a BLP expert and other experienced editors for some help and advice. We are currently in the process of putting the final touches on the article in the hopes of submitting it for a GA-status review (or possibly higher). A peer reviewer suggested additions to his "early life," among other helpful points. Unfortunately, we have pretty much exhausted the pool of independent, reliable third-party sources per WP:RS published on the subject's biography. What we would like to ask is if it would be acceptable to cite the personal information published in the Who's Who entry of G. Edward Griffin or his official website with respect to family members, educational credentials, etc., in order to fill-out this "early life" section. Again, I understand that there might be an issue of WP:NPF here, hence the concern. Any and all advice would be greatly appreciated. J Readings (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My gut feeling is if you can't find it in any reliable sources, it's probably irrelevant to his noteable and so isn't needed in the article. I would take special care with family members if you're thinking of naming names Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP

In case anyone has missed it, there is currently an ongoing discussiona about the 3RR exemption, whether it should continue and how it should be worded Nil Einne (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

I would like to ask someone to consider the photo used near the top of Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Palestinian and the associated talk page discussion. My contention is that someone looking at this photo is going to assume that the boy is holding a real gun and is a combatant in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In reality, he is playing with a toy gun. Implying that he is involved in the conflict is libel and my contention is that it should be removed under BLP. Thank you. --B (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I say get rid of it. There are a million other photos that could be used to illustrate the point in the caption that terrorism has affected youth, and most of them won't be as misleading as this. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following statement was till I removed it in this non-bio article:

PZ Myers further stated that one signatory was "proud" of his ignorance of evolution, stating that like Michael Behe, he was able to ignore contradictory information that had been placed in front of him.

The statement was cited to Myers' widely-read and tremendously enjoyable blog, Pharyngula (blog).

I removed it as it appeared to be clearly a statement about a living person (the signatory, a doctor named Egnor) - not to mention Michael Behe - sourced to a blog. That decision has been fiercely contested here. The most pertinent objection appears to be that the person is not named in the article (though he is, of course, in the reference.) I am not sure whether that is a reasonable exception to BLP (What is the difference between this and "Michael Moore, on his blog, said a certain blonde Republican commentator was a transvestite"? Perhaps I'm too tired to see it). I bring it here for suggestions. Ideally, I would like someone to take it over from me, and make the point there either way, actually, as I am deathly tired of this. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be hundreds of WP articles dealing with Creationism, Intelligent Design, etc. The impression it gives is almost obsessive. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
What does that have to do with BLP? And how many articles are there on species of deer and orchids and on chemical compounds and on types of minerals and on medical treatments and on towns and buroughs and hamlets and mountains and streams? This is a nonsensical statement. What is it supposed to mean? Wikipedia just reflects the way the world is. There is a large political movement and publicity campaign in the United States funded by millions of dollars, that has gone on for decades and decades. You think that would leave no trace? That is pretty naive, frankly.--Filll (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you 100% that the facts about these things should be presented on WP. But when a petition not only has its own article but a category for its signers that seems a bit over the top. (p.s. I am on the side of the pro-science people, but when you use WP as a tool to try to discredit people who disagree with your views it can lead to BLP problems.) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You do not know what my views are. Why does everyone think that supporting intelligent design and signing that petition is a bad thing? What the heck? --Filll (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I should have said: When a person uses WP to try to discredit people who disagee that could lead to BLP problems. Not you. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW United States Declaration of Independence does not seem to have a category for its signers, yet the somewhat less important A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism does. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It certainly should have a category. You are of course welcome to go create it. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dan Norris

Resolved

Dan Norris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dan Norris MP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has frequently edited this article & today removed (unsourced) information by 82.32.128.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (with appropriate edit summary). The edit by Dan Norris was reverted & I have since removed some POV, tidied & added a ref etc - could someone more expert in BLP policies take a look?— Rod talk 12:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just had a look and it seems that the article is in stable condition at the moment. Also, I see that the user in question has received a COI warning. Thanks for addressing this. :) If concerns start up again or if there are concerns I've missed, please let us know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter Schumann

Resolved

I have outlined my criticisms of recent drafts of the Peter Schumann article on the Talk:Peter_Schumann along with a link to a blog entry that lists sources.

Due to public criticisms of Schumann's work (that were mentioned in an earlier draft of the article) I see it as inappropriate for me, personally, to make any corrections.IanThal (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I have attempted to address some of the points you raise with regards to balance in the article and hope that you find its current version is more neutral in presentation. I appreciate your persistence in following up on your concerns, since they have gone unaddressed on the article's talk page for some weeks. For future reference, there is a tag you can use in these cases, {{Request edit}}. If you place this on the article's talk page, your request will appear in Category:Requested edits and (hopefully) invite review by uninvolved editors. I don't typically see much of a backlog in that category, so at least I hope it will attract quicker response. If you'd like to discuss the changes I've made, please let me know here or at my talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Shane Ruttle Martinez

Can editors review this article - it looks like a vanity piece full of peacock terms and unreliable sources (blogs, unarchived radio broadcasts etc.) Marquil Peth (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Rachel Pollack

There have been repeated insertions of unsourced, inappropriate personal material WP:BLP about Ms. Pollack's medical history on this page (including a discussion of her vagina). The material's pretty raw, and has been repeatedly deleted. I've just done a revert, but this is definitely a BLP in need of protection at this point. --Anniepoo (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

David Littman (human rights activist)

Resolved
 – User warned

I have recently come across an editor who is systematically removing the title ‘historian’ from various scholars, because they do not meet what he thinks is the “right” criteria for that title, which is that they should have a Ph.D. in history (See this edit summary. On one of these articles – David Littman (human rights activist), he has edit warred, first with another user (User:Beit Or) , then with myself over the title. Once provided with reliable sources that describe Littman as an historian, the editor declared on the Talk page that he will now ‘eviscerate a lot of [Littmans’s] credibility’ because he is opposed to my actions. I’ve urged him not to disrupt WP to make a point, and to edit in accordance with WP:BLP, but he then proceeded to add a lengthy paragraph, based entirely on his own original research, which describes the subject’s work as “amateur”, the publications they appeared in as “non-academic” and “niche”, and which strongly insinuates that all his professional publications were published in vanity presses and not due to their merits. None of this is sourced to any secondary sources. After I reverted this BLP violation, he has repeatedly inserted it back to the article. I have warned the user that this is inappropriate editing for a BLP, but he persists. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Schildt

The attack on this author has resumed on his page, and the content which I have removed is in violation of "biographies of living persons" and "original research". The content makes reference to oral statements and a single written document by Clive Feather, a disorganized list of "errors" which contains its own errors, the content has caused emotional pain and distress to Mr. Schildt and to his family, and it represents the views of a small number of vindictive individuals.

I have removed the offending content. I ask that the page be locked as it was stubbed down last fall against any further change.

Edward G. Nilges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.35.122 (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to be o.k. now. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's because I've removed the Seebach hearsay and Clive Feather's original research. My concern that the article may be libel is documented and sourced on the Talk page. Please, if you can, keep the "criticism" out of the article, because it is the replication and amplification of Clive Feather's original research. It was rejected as errata by tech edit people at McGraw Hill and has no significant, independent verification.

Edward G. Nilges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.138.106 (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The criticism in the current version of the page is not given undue weight, and it is criticism of Schildt's books, and is not personal in nature. The criticism was written by experts on the topic (voting members of the standardization committee), and directly compares Schildt's statements with the actual content of the C standard. Mr. Nilges appears to have a close personal connection with Mr. Schildt, and makes frequent references to communications with him, and to Schildt's feelings. Mr. Nilges appears to be more concerned with shielding Mr. Schildt from any criticism whatsoever, than with the balance of the article. Mr. Nilges also believes he is not bound by WP:CIVIL, so he is unlikely to participate in consensus-seeking ([43],[44]). -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, bite my ass. If the criticism was not personal, why was it intended to cause pain, and why did it do so in fact? The "experts" had no standing in actual Microsoft technology with which they are inexperienced. As to "close personal connection", I notified Herb by email, using his web site email, about getting the article fixed last winter, and I received a thank-you email. Yeah, he's a fellow human being and, like me, an author who has been exposed to the attacks of nonproducing drones.
The criticism is given undue weight. It was rejected by McGraw Hill's tech editors as errata and it forms a major section. Code examples often have errors, especially in C, where any given code example can have a completely different meaning in a specific container program owing both to aliasing and to #define. Herb's attackers, who have a vested economic interest in the survival of the outdated language C, can for this reason attack any author of any book on C at any time, and they've used this fact to attack Herb, who angers them because he uses the unfashionable Microsoft platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.35.60 (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
As to "civility", don't you dare, don't you dare talk to me about "civility" when you are enabling a vendetta against a man by cowards, a vendetta that by breaking the rules of civil discourse, by transforming a technical discussion into an attack on one person by a gang of anonymous thugs.
Edward G. Nilges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.35.60 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The criticism in the article ([45],[46]) is technical criticism of his books. Why Mr. Nilges thinks it's "personal", or a "vendetta", or an "attack by a gang of anonymous thugs", or "intended to cause pain", I have no idea. Anyone who writes a book is subject to reasonable criticism of that book. Compared to the literary criticism you find in newspaper books reviews, for example, this criticism is quite objective, pointing out places where Mr. Schildt's statements disagree with the standard. The critics invite feedback, and Feather has obviously updated his criticism to reflect corrections from third parties. The authors of said criticism are not "anonymous thugs", they are voting members of the standardization committee, writing under their real names. -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You're lying. You are either a member of the original group who I believe created the article to assault schildt, or one of their useful idiots. No matter what you say, the verifiable existence of the pain and emotional stress you have caused Herb and his family, coupled with the highly probable existence of malice constituted in the intent to cause that pain, adds up to actionable libel in American law.
Many, if not most, renowned authors received highly negative reviews of their work. While Schildt doesn't have the stature of an Arthur Miller, whose work received negative reviews, I ask neutral editors to take note of the fact that the wikipedia article on Miller, and most other authors, contains no reference to any corpus of negative reviews. Why is Schildt being subject to this treatment? I can only conclude that he is an ordinary hard-working gentleman who represents to cowards, bullies and thugs the safe target.
Where's the Fair and Balanced NPOV, here, people? Can it be suspended at-will as long as a man seems to be without confederates, to be an ordinary hard-working programmer with the intelligence, kindness and grace to mentor in a way that even his enemies have to note, and as long as he doesn't strike back? Why do we have no Praise section???
The clear implication of the critical material authored almost exclusively by Clive Feather is not that a certain "style" or disregard of the standard is wrong. It is that Herbert Schildt was dishonest and a flawed character. If you actually read the main (and possibly only) text in the "get Schildt" movement, Clive Feather's "annotated annotated C standard", you discover that it's disorganized and a freely-associative list of things Clive found in a single pass through the book, consisting largely of stylistic whining, whining about an unusable standard, and its own errors. It wasn't peer reviewed or vetted or even written with any polish or review by Feather himself, and constitutes original research, in violation of "biographies of living persons".
These little weasels claim no malice. These little weasels pretend to be neutral and scientific judges of the truth of Herb's work, despite the fact that their "truth" is an unusable and unworkable standard. However, it appears to me that one of their number coined the neologism "Bullschildt" which in being a direct attack, not only on Mr. Schildt, but also on his extended patriarchal family, was completely unconscionable and had nothing to do with programming, just with sheer hatred and malice.
You say I am "blocked" as if this has any revelance at all, and as if you can block a person, and shut him the fuck up, and not just a userid or ip address. This doesn't change the fact that the article on Herb Schildt is NNPOV, contains original research, and is in serious violations of your policies concerning the biographies of living people.

hmm... these seem to be the main kinds of people whose bios lead to BLP problems: creationists, cultists, (political) candidates, and computer people. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't patronize him, please, Mr. Dufour. Yes, computer people are invisible, and yes, they can rarely use their skills, as Herb has, outside of a corporate system which steals their work.
It's Saturday in the USA, so my removal of the poorly sourced, NPOV, BLP-noncompliant and original research section hasn't been reverted, since the people who are inserting it are doing this at work, in all probability. Someone with authority needs to lock the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.135.123 (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for locking the page. I hope that the matter is settled so that either the "criticism" section stays out or is balanced by a section referencing the many good things that have been said about Herb's books. I recommend, however, that neither Criticism nor Praise be included, since they are out of scale to what Herb is, which is a hard-working author on technical matters. He should never have been made into a lightning rod.
Here's one of the most urbane, one of the most humane, and one of the most perceptive comments on Schildt, from http://www.amazon.com/review/RR4JVGR2M1D1X/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&ASIN=0072121246&nodeID=283155#wasThisHelpful:
After an MS in CS, multiple applications and system level programming projects, several years in industry, and having taught introductory C-programming for 7 semesters, if I could have ONE and only ONE reference book on the C-language, this would be it. The "class time" instruction is available on any online C-coding tutorial ... the unforgiving nature of code/logic makes "correctness" imperative. Correctness is in the details. The details are in Schildt's C Reference, and they're easy to find ... thus, you can finish your lab, take a shower and make it to the party with all your friends, instead of sitting in the lab, sweating whether to use strtok() or strstr(), while your youth and "fun years in college" are ever more fleeting. Believe me, you have better things to do than try to solve a second year lab assignment using Kernighan & Ritchie ... ( K&R = "the authors", so reverently mentioned in several prior reviews, JIC that isn't common knowledge). Their books, and afrementioned reviews of this book, though correct in probably every way, are sort of like Microsoft Help Topic answers (Seebach's page contains rants from other would-be authors who seem to wish that they'd not only had the idea to write this book before Schildt, but also employed their many computer-geek buddies to help them edit it better as well. Neither happened.)."
Why wasn't this added when the Criticism was added?
My shitty wikipedia standing has absolutely no bearing on this issue! I have explained the odious conduct of amerindianarts that led to it. Furthermore, only someone with the mentality of a nasty little paralegal reasons, "oh here comes that guy with a cause of action in his hand, that cause of action shall not stand, I shall put it in the trashcan because, I reason, where there is so much smoke there cannot be any fire."
Of course, no one with any brains would reason thus. But here this "reasoning" is a normed deviance, because wikipedia's slaves are corporate types not permitted to be the subjects of their lives, and as gatekeepers and as gofers in the real world, they believe that the logic they learned on the job to be irrefutable.
Of course, in real law and in human affairs, it's precisely the wretched of the earth, and the bad hats, who need to get their rights through formalistic application and who need to get rowdy ... using words only. We've come to a sorry pass when they are immediately labeled "trolls".
In the name of "freedom" you have produced a virtual terrorism, where nobody can get angry without some officious little snot removing his comments and "citing" some half-understood law. You've created a forum for destroying good, hard-working people in the name of machines.
Edward G. Nilges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.48.168.154 (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon allegations WP:RS?

Since this has been a contentious article with a lot of reverts, I thought I'd bring here and perhaps have 3rd parties delete libelous allegations Atmon is antisemitic from insufficiently reliable sources for these kinds of accusations. I personally wouldn't have a problem with these sources for non-libelous statements about political debates, so need guidance.

Specifically:

This source does not claim Atzmon is antisemitic; it does not even use the term. It is a reliable source for the views of Jews Against Zionism on Atzmon, and the reasons for their action
Carolmooredc herself added this reference. [47]. If she thinks it libellous, she should not have done so. Who is the "3rd party" she refers to here, who should remove the commenr?
This source too does dot allege that Atzmon is antisemitic. In addition, a comment by Michael Rosen, a long-standing friend of the Socialist Workers Party, in their own paper, criticising their position regarding Atzmon, is surely noteworthy and a reliable source?

Carol Moore 15:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I do not favour removing any of the sources cited in this article. However, if we are to remove the material from Jews Against Zionism as unreliable, we need to take the same position towards much of the other material quoted in the article, including Mary Rizzo's factually mistaken article in Counterpunch, and most of Atzmon's own allegations againbst his critics. We can't leave his response, and remove the actual criticism! RolandR (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't this need to be taken to the reliable sources noticeboard? BTW it seems to me the article as it stands is not a bad attempt at an NPOV biog. Lots of RS are cited there. My preference would be to cut it down a bit, not add more. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I brought it here for a quick opinion because a) the WP:BLP rule seems to be when it doubt on libel or sources, cut it out; b) having brought more reliable leftie sources to RS noticeboard and seen them trashed by some (not most) editors, not sure how they would fair on RS noticeboard; c) knowing Atzmon does aggressively go after those he feels smear him for corrections or replies; d) knowing Wikipedia currently being sued for defamation, I thought it prudent to bring it here for defintive answer as opposed to talk page where would have to bother with possible partisan bickering. Or maybe I should go straight to Wikipedia:Dispute#Turn_to_others_for_help help. Carol Moore 12:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Thinking about Judith's comments, it does seem the best approach is to note that under WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE there are just too many of these charges and the least reliable should be deleted. Carol Moore 14:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

List of Iranian Arabs

Found List of Iranian Arabs while working Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles, I only found one subject article from the list that seemed to indicate this label was correct for the individual (Yusef Azizi Bani-Torof). Seems like there is room for controversy here of a BLP nature. I believe it may be appropriate to remove all individuals from this list who can not be verified as members appropriate for the label. But I leave it for the community to decide. Jeepday (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean that they are of Arab descent? Wouldn't that be true of anyone born in Iran? Celarnor Talk to me 20:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Iranian Arabs? I would put that list in AfD. Actuallty there is an article about Iranian_Arabs, which define such people as "the arabic speaking people" of Iran. Seems to me to be WP:OR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It could be difficult to source that someone speaks Iranian, especially if they're from Iran. I imagine most reliable sources would just assume that. Celarnor Talk to me 22:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Chantal Biya

Resolved

An anonymous editor has over the past few days been repeatedly inserting unsourced and potentially libelous information into our article on Chantal Biya, first lady of Cameroon. diff diff diff It's been slow-motion enough that I've been able to revert it without encountering edit-war-like behavior, but the nature of the vandalism is such that perhaps the article should be semi-protected or the anonymous editor blocked. Thanks, — Dulcem (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. :) I see that the article is clean at the moment, and it would be unfortunate to semi-protect the article if unnecessary, as the last edit was a constructive one by an unconnected IP address. There are two IP addresses involved in making these unsourced negative assertions. I have issued {{uw-biog1}} to each. I'm watchlisting the article for a time, and if this behavior continues I will escalate the warnings as necessary and block if required. If it expands to include additional IP addresses, it may be better to protect. Thanks for letting us know about this, and if you encounter this kind of thing elsewhere or in the future please feel free to issue appropriate warnings yourself. There's a compendium of them linked at WP:Vandalism. Such warnings sometimes do stop the behavior and, if not, once a final warning has been issued the editor may be reported to WP:AIV. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your attention. I wasn't sure if these sorts of things had to be removed from the history of the article or not, so I thought it would be better to exercise caution first. Thanks again! — Dulcem (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it stands as "evidence" in the history in case the editors return and do need to be blocked. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Washington International University

See Talk:Washington International University#Deletion of item from article

Brief summary:

  • Person with higher degree (PhD) from contentious university wants to be not listed on that university's page as a 'prominent graduate'. (And possibly, article won't be much affected if the 'prominent graduands' section omits one person.)
  • Opposing view: For the university article, NPOV requires balancing the 'prominent graduates' section with at least one positive credible example. Unfortunately, reliable sources only list very few, of which this is one of the best documented (in this case, they have openly publicized their status on official documents.)

FT2 (Talk | email) 13:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Four of us have actually agreed not to include the information, but the comments of two of the editors are raising concerns in my mind: I see no violation of WP:BLP at all. I assumed the reason for removal was on a kind of "humanitarian" ground of someone now embarassed about the connection, but in going over the discussion, I find no reason other than the person's preference is given. The person involved has been putting "Dr." in front of his name in public forums and now wants us not to mention that he received his Ph.D. from this institution, which we mention, elsewhere in the article, has been called a "diploma mill". I don't want to hurt anyone, and I can see us helping to avoid embarassment for someone, but unless he's actually embarassed enough to stop using the title, why should we diminish the encyclopedia by even a few pixels? This is disturbing. Eyes and replies would be welcome at that talk page. Noroton (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If the person is notable, where the person got the degree is relevant NPOV content. Everyone with a WP article who got a degree from the university should be listed there, if we have a reliable source for it, for that and every university. The nature of the university is irrelevant.Apparently the nature of the degree is relevant to the professional career. His problem, not ours. DGG (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to agree with that logic but for the fact that the person in question isn't notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite possible. Nominate it for AfD, and if it gets deleted, that takes care of the link at the university also.DGG (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Deepak Kamani

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

This article seems problematic. It has references, but they are not "inline" with certain facts, and I'm not sure if this guy himself is actually notable himself because of the things that he did. Maybe somebody who knows this topic better could help. PotionsMasterSnape (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this one seems bad too: Rashmikant Chamanlal Kamani. PotionsMasterSnape (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger

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

I've noticed the following removal and revert: [48] and [49]. Does The Raw Story count as a reliable source or a group blog?--Peter cohen (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Young

I've undone at least part of what I think looks like a nasty hatchet job on this chap. Perhaps more balancing needs to be done. Looks to me as if somebody has jumped in with both feet and accused the fellow of being soft on Mugabe (so, by the same standards, was his President, and the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who is not noted as a friend of Marxist dictators). I've removed some of the nastier, that is to say sillier, stuff. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

Thank you for being bold. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Raegan Butcher

Raegan Butcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Query regarding application of American Criminal Category to living person not solely, or even primarily, notable for his crime. Please see this diff: [50] David in DC (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This would be a good time to get a declarative decision. Since its founding the category has been reserved for any notable American who has a well-sourced criminal conviction. Now a handfull of editors are trying to manufacture their own rules. A perusal of the names currently in the category shows roughly half of them are noted sports, enertainment, political, etc. figures. The category is "American Criminals" not "Americans whose occupations is as criminals" or "Americans whose notability derives solely from their crimes". A conclusive and unambigious resolution of this issue would be helpfull. I would like to see the category changed to "Incarcerated Americans" much like we now have "Incarcerated Rappers" which would eliminate persons who have marginal criminal convictions but provide an unambigous rule to eliminate these disputes in the future. If someone would direct me in trying to start such a category I would be gratefull. John celona (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I also have to note that it was user Rimbaud who put this article in the category [[51]] (and properly so) at its inception. John celona (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not how the category reads. It's not even very close to how the category reads. Please see [52]. David in DC (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jenna Bush

Jenna Bush given her recent marriage, article appears to be receiving a lot of attention, I haven't notice any significant problems, other then a potential edit war over whether to call her Hagel or Bush but that isn't (IMHO) a serious BLP issue but would be good if editors can keep an eye on it particularly as she's primarily a public figure because of being the daughter of someone extremely well known rather then anything she has done herself to court that publicity Nil Einne (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Taner Akçam (Turkish language version)

Tr:Taner Akçam (edit | [[Talk:Tr:Taner Akçam|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The Turkish language version accuses him of being a communist and socialist, and the article lacks a single inline citation. (He's hated by some Turks because he's a Turk who's written about the Armenian genocide, and was once detained due in part to a vandalized wikipedia entry) (cross-posted at the English talk page) Andjam (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Improper sourcing for Jack Graham (pastor)

I'm sorry if this is not the proper way to do this as i'm a newbie but can we please have a ruling on a source that is being used on the page for Jack Graham (pastor)? An editor insists on including information about the subjects neighborhood which several other editors have found irrelevant and not verifiable to the page. As the "source" for the claim about the subject's neighborhood there is a link to a public form (which is against wiki policy regarding Biographies of Living Persons) that makes it easy for one to look up personal information about the subject including address and home value. While certainly this information could be found by anyone using an internet search I do not find wikipedia an appropriate forum to include this info for the casual reader. I also find the editor's choice of wording to describe the neighborhood in question extremely subjective and is one that I would not agree with having visited the residence on one occasion. Any help you could give would be appreciated as there seems to be quite the edit war going on and some appropriate and inappropriate behavior from both sides of the argument. Thanks!Johnb316 (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The sourcing seems questionable. It also seems irrelevant unless some third party reliabel source has commented on where he lives in way that it is relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Wiener

Needs a few more eyes. Highly abusive IP ([53]) intent on inserting an OR bit insinuating something about alleged impropriety of the subject's involvement in an animal protection society [54]. The tone of the IP's talkpage posting indicates there's somebody with a big axe to grind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Article needs serious help as far as sources and grammer go. I tried to improve it, but still needs alot of help. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Michel Sleiman

I have just been contacted by Crimson9, a relative of Mr. Sleiman, who has said that there is a problem with misinformation slipping into the article. This is mostly minor stuff (the wrong date of birth, misspelling of the name) but it is of concern to them. They have explained that, as it stands now, the article is accurate, (with all information sourcable to the Lebanese army website) but that they would appreciate a few more pairs of eyes watching the article, and maybe protection. I personally do not want to protect it at this time, (though I have no objection to others doing so) but I am adding it to my watchlist, and I am requesting that a few others do the same, just to keep an eye on it. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The main concern is about the unsourced mention of Sleiman's 'brother-in-law' in the Syrian government. This brother-in-law does not exist. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Catherine Deneuve

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

I've been having disputes with IP 70.108.119.24 (who also appears to be engaging in sockpuppetry - I have already filed a report on the matter) on the Catherine Deneuve article. I have attempted to engage in discussions with this IP, but it keeps reverting material without fully discussing the matter. This started when one particular IP (which is a likely sockpuppet) made full-scale edits that had several formatting mistakes.[55] I reverted that edit. Afterwards, identical edits from other IPs (once again, likely sockpuppets) were made and then reverted by me and another user. Back and forth reversions have continued to take place, and I've been trying to explain to that IP about the problems with its edits.[56][57] However, as I said previously, the IP continues to revert material without fully discussing the matter - even after being warned by an admin.

As you'll see in the revision history of the article, the IP made yet another reversion, but I have not reverted it myself, due to the fact that I do not want to be blocked for 3RR. I am trying to be as civil and constructive about this process as possible, but to no avail. I tried to request page protection, but it was denied. There is historical context that I feel should be factored in to this situation, though, which is what I was trying to explain in the requests for page protection article. There was a situation that almost literally mirrored this whole ordeal a couple of months ago, between me and another user, in the same Catherine Deneuve article. The administrators that handled that situation seemed to factor in the exact same points I've been attempting to convey in this recent dispute; thus, semi-protection was offered and 3RR-based blocks were not issued following cases that were filed. I'm not saying that every single administrator should act the same way, but I think this is significant to note. Once semi-protection was granted in the previous situation, that other user finally engaged in full discussions, and a constructive resolution was soon reached. That's what I was hoping for in this situation as well. And now that the IP once again reverted material without fully engaging in discussions, this only further emphasizes what I've been trying to explain.

Thanks to anyone who looks into this case. -- Luke4545 (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked at this. I removed a recently inserted near-duplicate paragraph from the start of the article.
There is another problem. The three references at the end of paragraph one are very similar to each other and to the Wikipedia article. I don't know who has plagarized from whom. But giving references that use the same wording as our article does not support our article, I don't know what to do about this. Someone else please take a look. CBHA (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

  • Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is currently a dispute about whether a campaign started by Media Matters for America, which claims that O'Reilly and some of his guests promote homophobia, should be included in this article. Some editors feel that inclusion of this campaign as currently sourced, only through Media Matters for America, violates BLP. Further there is some dispute as to the presentation of a false story reported by O'Reilly about lesbian gangs as if it is related to the Media Matters campaign. Any advice and thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Murray Waas

Murray Waas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - renewed violations of WP:BLP in article with previous history of these problems; previously listed in this Noticeboard. Sorry, but I do not have time to deal any further with it. There are links provided to previous discussions of the same problems of improper editing of this article. May need administrative help. --NYScholar (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

List of The Apprentice candidates (UK)

List of The Apprentice candidates (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - per this diff here, address and telephone numbers for a BLP were added to an article. This has been reverted, but I wondered if someone with Oversight access should delete it from the history? Fritzpoll (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, strike that, I found the right page in the end Fritzpoll (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

James MacPherson (actor)

This is not a matter of great moment, but I was introduced to MacPherson the other day and the subject got round to Wikipedia. He was annoyed that his birthplace (as in other websites, such as IMDB) was given as Hamilton when he was actually born in Irvine but moved to Hamilton shortly after his birth. I suggested that he edit the entry, but he didn't want to disclose his IP address or get a username. Would it be OK if I made the alteration and put in a footnote saying something like "information received verbally from Mr MacPherson himself"? --GuillaumeTell 18:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source to back up the claim that he was born in Irvine other than his own statement? Celarnor Talk to me 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Not that I could find online. Maybe there's some sort of printed Stage Directory that has biographical details, but I don't have ready access to it. He didn't think that he was in Who's Who. He was obviously miffed about the error, along the lines that a lie gets halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on, so I don't think that he was making it up (and why should he? It's not as if the article says he was born in a gutter but he was really born in Windsor Castle.). --GuillaumeTell 00:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is verifiability. Verbal reports, even if purportedly from the subject him/herself, are not verifiable in the way written reports are. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
In support of Hamilton being his birthplace, we have zero written sources. In support of Irvine being his birthplace we have zero written sources plus Guillaume's report. That makes a stronger case for Irvine, though not, as Orange Mike indicates, totally satisfactory. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I suggest either taking Mr. MacPherson's word or avoiding the issue by saying he was born in the south of Scotland. CBHA (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the Hamilton claim but have not listed Irvine. This should have been done immediately. If we get a specific source then we could presumably stick that in (has MacPherson ever given any relevant interviews where it might be mentioned?). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, I should have had my tape-recorder with me! --GuillaumeTell 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Since we were able to report 'born in Hamilton' without any source, I don't see why we could not have reported 'born in Irvine', based on slightly more information. However that is a somewhat abstract point of discussion.
There is a complication in all this. If you google for "james Macpherson theatre Lanark", you will find sites that say James MacPherson was born in Lanark  !! One such site is:
http://www.rsamd.ac.uk/news/press_RSAMD_Fellowship_2004.htm
Lanark and Hamilton seem to be nearby towns. Both are in Lanarkshire. Irvine is considerably further west, on the coast, in Ayrshire. CBHA (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's possible that I had a brainstorm and somehow substituted Irvine for Lanark in my mind - I didn't write anything down at the time. I can't see why I should have done that, though, as I've never visited any of the towns in question. I'll see if I can get a clarification via the mutual friend through whom I met MacPherson. If we're talking reliable sources, the RSAMD citation definitely trumps IMDB; meanwhile, the current state of the article looks OK until better info is available. --GuillaumeTell 23:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Well the point is, we never should have said born in Hamilton without a source, an indeed this problem highlights why we never should have. The best way to deal with this (or any BLP issue where there is uncertainty and insufficient RS), is just to leave out any unsourced information which sadly didn't happen early on, but there's no reason we can start now Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Human rights workers in Peru

Baxtereo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on calling Francisco Soberón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the organization he works for, APRODEH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), "terrorists" and "traitors." While he obviously has the right to disagree with the work that human rights workers do, his edits could easily be considered libel (note: this is not a legal threat, I am not Francisco Soberón nor do I have any affiliation with APRODEH), which concerns me. As a fairly new editor, I'm not sure of what to do other than revert him every day. --Visitweak (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note that 69.118.22.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously the same person, as he inserts the word-for-word exact same comments into articles. --Visitweak (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for commenting so much, I want to leave one last note: calling someone a "terrorist" or a "traitor" in Peru is often tantamout to a death threat, so I think that this has to be taken very seriously. Peru is not a country that treats accused terrorists with kid gloves, if you know what I mean. --Visitweak (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It was a good idea to bring your concerns here, Visitweak. I have removed the information again, and will warn the editor and keep an eye on things too. There seems to be lots of reliable info about Soberon, and I have included a few references to the article. The Reuters article includes some information related to IP's additions, but presented in a very different way. It would be a great idea to provide citations for all the text in the article using these or other reliable sources, as well as expand the article of course. There seems plenty to say about the guy! --Slp1 (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Problem solved. The guy got himself banned. --Visitweak (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Problem not solved. He's back as IVANDER2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Visitweak (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocked the latest. Let us know if this continues; I'll keep the page on my watchlist for now. seicer | talk | contribs 06:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

2006 Duke University lacrosse case

An editor with whom I have had prior disputes made this edit to 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, which I noticed on my watchlist and reverted due to concerns about the reliability of the source used to support the edit. The editor then reverted back. The edit consists of adding the label "prostitute" to the description of a living person (the accuser in that case), and the source is a guest opinion piece in the Duke Chronicle. The opinion column refers to the person as "the drug-addled, mentally unstable prostitute" in the course of a broader attack against the academic standards of North Carolina Central University, the alma mater of the accuser. I do not want to edit war over this or engage the editor in yet another dispute so I ask for opinion and/or intervention by uninvolved parties here, since a living person is the subject of the edit. If consensus here is that the source and edit are appropriate, I will be happy not to contest the matter further. alanyst /talk/ 03:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The author of said opinion column is also identified as a former columnist. I make this distinction because the other editor, in adding, implied she was a reporter. Further, contrast that source with a Fox News story, which does not affirmatively label her as a prostitute. "She was adamant that she never worked as a prostitute, and told police that in only one instance did she have sex with a customer..." In the absence of hard evidence that Mangum was ever convicted of prostitution or admitted to it, I don't think it's within BLP to label her as a prostitute. —C.Fred (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a BLP violation. Only one source found via Google news ties prostitute with her name. I'd say err on the side of do no harm, especially with the Fox News RS stating she was not. --Faith (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Furthermore, I noticed that the word "escort" in the article was wikilinked to Call girl, which also had the effect of labeling her as a prostitute, so I deleted that element from the article lead. --Orlady (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Follow-up: After I posted the above comment, I found the article Escort agency, so I restored the word "escort" to the article lead and linked it there. --Orlady (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The investigation of Mike Nifong proved that Crystal Gail Mangum 'performed sex acts' for pay; she admitted to having a sex for money 'with a customer'. The only one cited that says Crystal Gail Mangum was NOT a prostitute was Crystal Gail Mangum. Surprise, surprise ... it is not exactly a career choice that any woman wants to brag about, or even admit. I say let's open up this discussion to all of WP. Duke53 | Talk 17:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The source you cited showing she had sex with a customer, [58], does not indicate what service the customer was paying for at the time the sex occurred. Without a clear link showing she was performing sex for pay, instead of just providing "good customer service", the claim she engaged in prostitution is original research. --Allen3 talk 17:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
A quick search of public domain records indicates that she has never been convicted or even charged with prostitution. However, in light of the sources that label her as such (there are several, not just one), I think the allegations of prostitution by the media should have a mention, although it should be made clear that she has never been charged or convicted. Celarnor Talk to me 17:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
With multiple RS, and worded in that manner, I'd agree. --Faith (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
IMO, describing her as an "escort" and linking that term to Escort agency effectively describes the ambiguity of the situation. (That is, that escorts are widely assumed to be engaged in prostitution, but they generally claim otherwise.) --Orlady (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The trouble with that is I don't think the RS describe her as an escort, but rather working in a strip club, where she claimed to have sex once with a customer of the club. Ambiguity indeed, I'd agree. I'd say just stick as close as possible to the RS wording in each case to protect WP from drawing conclusions not present in the RS. --Faith (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point. The article calls her "escort" (in multiple places). I have not looked at more than a few of the sources to see if they used that term. --Orlady (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul Potts

Resolved

This article contains a comprehensive list of tour dates (promotion/advertising). They have been removed several times and the inappropriateness has been mentioned on the discussion page, however they are still there. Could an admin look into this and take appropriate action? 82.44.221.140 (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

While the charts are too big, I can't see how they are a BLP violation from any viewpoint. --Faith (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
From BLP Policy I referred to the linked 'Wikipedia is Not'policy, which states:
Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.
Wikipedia is not a directory
Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable.
If these are not within scope of BLP violations, please advise and I will remove this request. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Linked from the policy is not the same as part of the policy. Those links are on every policy page. Therefore, it might be appropriate to argue the tables shouldn't be used under WP:NOT, but they are not violations of Biographies of Living Persons, and therefore, not within the scope of this noticeboard. I'd kindly suggest arguing against the tables on the relevant talk page, and let consensus build there. (If you agree, then don't remove this section, just mark it {{resolved}}.) --Faith (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved--82.44.221.140 (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz

Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Re statements about Thane Rosenbaum, an author and lecturer at Fordham University School of Law [59] at this article's talk page. The statements have been reverted and restored several times: add [60], remove [61], restore [62], remove [63], restore [64], remove, [65], etc. The statement comes with a link to Luke Ford's website. The BLP issue has been mentioned. Novickas (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk , an admin, has been adamantly defending these questionable BLP violations/rants; here he threatens to block me for removing the BLP violation (a rant with antisemitic undertones). Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The edit summary warns, "next time you change other's users talk I will simply block you for vandalism" after warned editor removed statement he feels is BLP violation here (comment on subject linked solely to a blog). I'd tend to agree with his assessment of BLP violation if that blog comment is not found in a RS (although I would have redacted the violation, not removed the entire post) and think some other pairs of eyes should review this further before it gets out of control. --Faith (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Threatening to block me for removing such despicable commentary is the height of incivility, harassment and a serious misuse of admin powers. Boodlesthecat Meow? 12:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • For balance, the positive reviews need to be referenced also. The inclusion of so many negative reviews from Polish sources might be seen either as an attack on the book, or a statement that there remains some Polish antisemitism. I suggest archiving the talk page, which has inappropriate comments in various directions. Much of the material remaining on the page about the book is appropriate, talking not about the book, but the general subject of Polish antisemitism. I have removed it as irrelevant, without distinction about whether or not it supports the general thesis of the book. I have commented further there. DGG (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • That's what I did, introduced to the article the most positive review by Thane Rosenbaum published previously by a newspaper and reprinted by Princeton University as a blurb, and as a counterbalance to this obvious POV suggesting national collective guilt (as an answer to a random assault by a loose group of eight Polish outlaws on a bus with Jewish nationals back in 1945) a scholarly excerpt from a review to a book written by Eva Hoffman published by Wellesley College. Both sources cited Jewish opinion, not Polish. But someone has rewritten it until it became incomprehensible. If I was about to invite Polish anti-semitism or neo-nazism which scarcely still remains in Poland I would cite the reviews or opinions supplied by the so called new historians (see Jarosław Tomasiewicz or Jerzy Robert Nowak). And what I got for it in exchange? After complaining that my edit was vandalised and instead of edit warring I started POV discussion on talk page and tried to resolve the issue in civil way and even supplied new evidence I was called anti-semite at least ten times, also other names. And no one reacted to this, nothing happened, but after the vandal complains over here, you smell rat and suspect that among Polish editors obviously remains some anti-semitism. Yes, it remains, but you're shopping in the wrong store. greg park avenue (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There appear to be a number of editors with very strong feelings about this article, so I recommend as many eyes on it as possible. Gamaliel (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Kat Von D

Kat Von D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is dispute about negative material [66], which is being sourced to TMZ. I think seriously negative material like this, needs more sources, and more reliable sources. --Rob (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find a RS on that matter. I agree with removal without further support. --Faith (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Kathleen McGowan

Resolved

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

This article is a mess consisting of statements built up over time, followed by responses from the partner (Peter McGowan) of the subject of the article. I would suggest that the article be removed complete or rewritten from scratch. 91.171.200.73 (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all uncited material from this article (and then the banners) to bring it back to non-OR. This will be my only involvement in this article, as I was only responding from this section of BLP/N. --Faith (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No reverts; marked resolved. --Faith (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin James (broadcaster)

It would be helpful if someone with a good eye for proportions could have a look at Kevin James (broadcaster). While I personally found his Hardball appearance an intriguing piece of television, I think it's probably treated in excessive detail at the moment. Haukur (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I second this request. The section is overly long and filled with unsourced POV details (James was "sputtering", he engaged in "random outbursts of single syllables"), but my attempts to shorten the section and remove the POV have been repeatedly reverted. Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The most strident editor in favor of the offending material has restored the large version of the section again. I doubt this is over yet. Gamaliel (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly

Resolved

There has been a great deal of interest on the internet and major media outlets recently regarding the recently surfaced video of O'Reilly flipping out during a segment of Inside Edition. I have edited his wiki to reflect the situation in the NICEST and most simple way I could consider. I have revised it numerous times and provided a link to a video of a report by MSNBC for it. The criticism for this outburst can be found by simply searching Google News for his name and "meltdown". Users have repeatedly deleted my entry to his wiki on the grounds that he "isn't drawing criticism" for it, when clearly he is (and anyone in the public eye who reacts to irrationally will undoubtedly draw criticism for it). His wiki article is being censored by certain individuals who feel the need to hide this information, as well as other information that may reflect poorly on O'Reilly (such as the fact that he has claimed to have won Peabody awards multiple times and has never won one). My changes are unbiased and accurate and I have provided a documented source for my information (I provided other sources in the history, but did not include them in the latest update because they are biased in nature). This should not be edited out again. There is no reason to censor information which is clearly controversial in nature from his wiki article unless this website is intending to practice censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvcdrk (talk • contribs) 06:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Responding directly from here, I looked over the sources and found some others. I've cleaned it up a bit more (major backlash was unsourced and while it was reported, I didn't see any major news media criticising him for it). I also noted the re-release is of a 20-year-old outtake, something not noted in the text before I cleaned it up (it implied it was a new video). --Faith (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparent consensus to remove the information on the talk page. Marked resolved. --Faith (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Tod Scott Brody

I just removed a speedy deletion request from this article as inappropriate. But someone more familiar with BLP should probably have a look at this page. Rmhermen (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Warnborough College

Resolved

Dispute regarding whether it's okay to list a half dozen individuals who have attended Warnborough College. The school offered study abroad programs 1973-1995 for American students. I would like to list prominent individuals (they've received regional and national media coverage) who participated in this program. Their participation is indicated in their bios that they have posted on the Internet. Other parties to the dispute feel that this is a violation of BLP because in 1995 Warnborough shifted to offering a four-year degree program and got in trouble for false advertising. (The U.S. Department of Education cancelled Warnborough's eligibility for financial aid, and there was considerable bad press.) Warnborough also received negative publicity this year for allegedly falsely suggesting an affiliation with All Hallows University. Warnborough is not accredited but has applied for accreditation in Ireland and the U.K. It currently offers short courses and unaccredited degrees via distance education, including an accredited bookkeeping certification program. During the study-abroad era, Warnborough was not accredited but cited various affiliations that made the institution's students eligible for financial aid. The other parties to the dispute say that even though this information is accurate, their association with Warnborough reflects badly on them -- hence violates BLP. In addition, they say that having this information in Wikipedia unfairly draws attention to it, whereas it would otherwise go unnoticed.

I would include this information in the section of the article on the era 1973-1995. These individuals went on to receive undergraduate and graduate degrees from prestigious institutions and have been successful professionally. Since the article is largely negative, I am arguing that it would help satisfy the requirement of NPOV to list these people because it's all we have to suggest that Warnborough offers an education that at least some people feel merits listing alongside their degrees from prestigious institutions.

Here's the text that I would add:

Former students or Warnborough College Oxford include eye surgeon Dr. Raymond Gailitis[1], consultant Dr. Audrey Nelson,[2] attorney Polly McNeil,[3] former surgeon and businessman Kneeland Youngblood,[4] and international trade policy analyst P. Welles Orr.[5]

I believe that since this information is accurate and sourced, since the individuals themselves have published it, and since they are prominent, it's within policy to include. Am eager to hear what others think. TimidGuy (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Where are they former students of? Looking at the article there appears to be two distinct entities, Warnborough College Oxford and Warnborough University. Is that correct? Hiding T 19:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In response to Hiding's question: The Warnborough operation has had several different corporate names (and multiple locations in England and Ireland) over the years. All of them appear to have been owned and operated by the same people, so it is reasonable to discuss them all in a single article. --Orlady (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • My opinion would be a big NO. The article states the college misrepresented themselves ("for misrepresentations to students that it was a part of Oxford University and had degree-granting authority"), and as such, I think adding graduates would be a big BLP issue of guilt by association, with WP implying these persons obtained diploma mill degrees knowingly. It also appears that the synthesis of matching the persons to the college is solely sourced to CVs and business websites, with no RS connection made in news, etc. This also leads me to the opinion of the connections being non-notable, a double-strike. --Faith (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Info: Discussion of this specific issue has occurred at Talk:Washington International University#Deletion of item from article, Talk:Warnborough College#Removal of names of nonnotable living persons, and Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Non-notable alumni listed in articles about degree mills or otherwise problematic universities. --Orlady (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Faith, note that their degrees are from prestigious institutions. They spent a semester or year abroad at Warnborough. I don't see how it could imply that they received a degree from a diploma mill. In fact, my argument is that their attendance does much to suggest that it's not a diploma mill. Hiding, their bios say they were students of Warnborough College Oxford. TimidGuy (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, since after 1996 there was no Warnborough Oxford (the school relocated), we know that they studied during the period 1973-1995). TimidGuy (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, this proposed text would be placed in the section of the article on Warnborough College Oxford. TimidGuy (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Ophthalmology Consultants (Margate, Florida) website
  2. ^ "Audrey Nelson biography". Nelson Communication website.
  3. ^ "Polly L. McNeill". Summit Law Group website.
  4. ^ Dr. Kneeland Youngblood Biography (interviewed on 2004-10-28, The HistoryMakers website
  5. ^ P. Welles Orr, Miller & Chevalier website
  • we tpically accept CVs for uncontroversial bio, but there is some doubt about whether it's uncontroversial in this instance--they may not even be aware of the subsequent reputation of the place or the changes since t hey were there. How about "Former students or Warnborough College Oxford's study abroad program during this period include eye surgeon Dr. Raymond Gailitis[1], consultant Dr. Audrey Nelson,[2] attorney Polly McNeil,[3] former surgeon and businessman Kneeland Youngblood,[4] and international trade policy analyst P. Welles Orr.[5]" Still not sure--the information could be misinterpreted anyway. DGG (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The trouble with that proposal is that these are non-notable people who have no notable connection with this institution. They merely happen to have mentioned Warnborough (along with a host of other past associations) in their CVs. As a result of their being mentioned in this article, their Warnborough association would be one of the main things a person would learn from Googling their names. And the only reason for mentioning them in the article is to make Warnborough look less bad (i.e., to counterbalance the negative information in the article). That is not a valid reason for intruding upon the privacy of people who are not public figures. (I don't want to argue about whether there is ever a valid reason for intruding upon the privacy of people who are not public figures, but I do know this isn't a valid reason.) --Orlady (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If they do not have WP articles, and do not seem to qualify for them in any obvious way, then you are quite right that there is no reason to mention them. DGG (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Still NO. All, but one (a stub), of these are redlinks, and there has been no establishment that they are notable for their connection to the school. In this case, WP is creating the controversy regarding these people. I don't see why this is even being considered, as do no harm is the first avenue we take. We can report already RS published SYN between these 'students' and the school; we cannot create WP:SYN, making the connection ourselves on WP when it does not exists on a RS. CV's are used to confirm information, or as DGG said for including uncontroversial information (so&so is a graduate of Harvard, class of X year). They should not be used for 'digging up dirt' on these people, even with the best intentions of smoothing over the college controversy (which is not a good idea, anyway). --Faith (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think DGG's suggestion is workable. Faith, I would ask that you observe WP:TALK regarding avoiding excessive markup. Is there a policy that requires a notable connection to the school? I haven't seen any other college or university WP article observing that. In fact, many give no source at all. I don't see how Wikipedia is creating a controversy regarding these people. They all are highly respected and have degrees from prestigious institutions. No one is going to care that a school they attended for a semester or a year was found to have later engaged in alleged false advertising. I Googled Kneeland Youngblood, and the Warnborough connection wasn't in the first 50 results. (I didn't go any farther than that.) Also, in what sense is this "dirt"? There is nothing dirty about their having attended Warnborough during this period. Also, I don't understand why their own bios aren't a reliable source for this information about them. And I don't understand why it's SYNTH, since it's not drawing a conclusion. It's simply stating what they themselves state on their CV. Again, I think the solution is to adjust the wording (along the lines of DGG), rather than deleting sourced information. TimidGuy (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If the only place these people are going to be mentioned on Wikipedia is this article, then no, they should not be mentioned here. Hiding T 11:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Why?
I need to clarify the Google/Youngblood example. These individuals had been in the article for months, until a few days ago when they were deleted, except for Youngblood. So Google's index would include the Youngblood/Warnboroughn connection, but it's not evident in the search results. TimidGuy (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm having a hard time following your train of thought, TimidGuy (and please don't criticise my method of writing). I thought I was as clear as I could possibly be for the reasons why it would violate BLP. For "Dr RG", the 5th Google hit is your sandbox, a copy of the article with the doctor's name included, which makes a connection and creates controversy for this person where no controversy is in the news or a RS. Inclusion in the article would do the same thing. This is my last comment on this, because I do not intend to keep arguing the point as this is a noticeboard looking for comment, not a venue for copying talk page arguments. WP:SYN is violated where factoid (1) people place name of college on their CV, and factoid (2) college is in trouble for misrepresentation, are being brought together solely on Wikipedia. The SYN is not found in a RS, where we are creating news for these people, rather than reporting news already in place. Placing them in the article, regardless of disclaimers, headers, or wording to the contrary, puts these people in connection with a controversial issue of the college's (edit: alleged, if they aren't proven) deceitful practises, and that is a BLP nightmare. Imagine it this way: If you were an assistant manager in a company which was later found to have committed criminal actions, regardless of your inclusion of this company on a CV, your name should not be placed on the wiki in connection with the criminal actions just because you happen to have been employed by them at some point in your life—NOT even from a standpoint of using you as an example of an upstanding citizen in an effort to make the company look better. We aren't here to make the college look better by using "good" people, or to insinuate the people might not be as good by including them on a page with controversy. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an allowable excuse, sorry. --Faith (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Please, I'm not making excuses. I came here because editors have claimed that this inclusion violates BLP, and I wanted to find out if that was the case. No one had been able to articulate why. I deleted that rewrite in my sandbox (and am somewhat mortified by that). I am in agreement with you on excluding Dr. Galitis, who is the only one in the list who hasn't received regional and national media coverage. And I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you about not putting people in this context. But look at it from Warnborough's perspective (and given that JzG recently appeared in the article out of the blue, it's likely that they complained to OTRS): they likely feel that the article is almost exclusively negative, yet they have a record of educating students. (I have an article from the Denver Post, for example, that profiles a student who spent a year at Warnborough and speaks very positively about it.) Any school likes to cite satisfied customers who have been successful. Are we saying to Warnborough that the article can never mention a graduate? If so, and if Warnborough succeeds at becoming accredited in the coming months, will that affect the picture? And finally, is there any way that Wikipedia can treat Warnborough equitably, given that media tend to primarily cover exceptional negative events? I'd like additional opinions and consensus on this, and I'd like to be sure that other uninvolved parties agree that this specifically violates BLP. TimidGuy (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Quick reply, even though I thought I wouldn't come back to this. Three editors have given their opinion as no, and another as undecided (with attached discussion that appears to be leaning toward no), because of the BLP nightmare that would ensue. The first rule is do no harm, not do harm if it helps another group. Warnborough's issues are their own, and if the RS state the problems are alleged, we write it as such. If they are sanctioned per the RS, then we write it as such. We do not add people willy-nilly to attempt to soften the blow, make them look good, or put a positive spin on the negative information. That's not our job; we aren't journalists. I responded to "I haven't seen any other college or university WP article observing that. In fact, many give no source at all." with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, because whether you intended to make an excuse or not, citing problems on other articles has no bearing on writing this one correctly. It only shows that those articles need cleanup. If the entire article is negative, then find some RS information to include that tells more about the school, its history, etc., lessening the undue weight of the criticism. That's appropriate. What's not appropriate is to do that at the expense of the alumni. Faith (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hiding didn't explain why. Orlady is a party to the dispute (and in the past has asked me not to add positive information to the article). DGG was ambivalent. BLP is a serious matter, but so is fair treatment of Warnborough and NPOV. I've used Lexis/Nexis and other sources; there's just not much out there other than reporting on negative things. TimidGuy (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that there isn't more positive information available, but again, we don't create positive things by WP:SYN to fill that hole. All you can do is paraphrase the material available in the RS. --Faith (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Doug Malewicki & SkyTran

Doug Malewicki is the inventor of the SkyTran concept. Malewicki does not have an article, but an editor is trying to add an unflattering 5-year old quote from Malewicki to the SkyTran article. The quote only appeared Malewicki's website, was never quoted anywhere, and he removed it a few years ago. But even though Malewicki removed it a while back, Avidor dug it up at the web archive and posted it on his blog, and now he's trying to add it here. Avidor has also maintained a personal attack page against Malewicki for several years, and has attacked Malewicki in forums and on his blogs.

The quote in question is Malewicki expressing frustration at government bureaucracy. It's a rant, clearly written in frustration, and it includes what might be considered a Polish racial slur - though, in fact, Malewicki himself is likely Polish in ethnicity. Also, it is outdated - after a hiatus, Malewicki is once again trying to get his concept built.

In short, I believe this quote is highly inappropriate per BLP. We say almost nothing about Malewicki anywhere on Wiki, he has no article of his own,Correction: he does have a small stub article, see below no reliable source ever reported the quote, and the SkyTran article itself is practically a stub so that this quote would make up half the article. Malewicki may be a bit of an eccentric, but he has a long list of inventions and is, on balance, a respected figure. To include this one inflammatory quote in isolation is inappropriate; to include more would also be inappropriate since Malewicki is frankly not very notable. I think it should be removed, and that's what I've done - replacing it with a short sourced statement about Malewicki's aversion to red tape. But Avidor is reverting to keep the quote.

My main concern is that this is an attempt by an editor to use Wikipedia to further his longstanding grudge. He added it 3 times today, and I reverted 3 times, so I won't revert anymore today if he adds it again. I'd appreciate if someone here could take a look.

Disclaimer: Avidor and I have a long, contentious history, both on and off wiki. That's why I'm seeking help here. ATren (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article - Douglas Malewicki with this quote: "My most important invention", SkyTran, a proposed "People Internet" Here's an article about Malewicki and Skytran- [67]-"One problem. SkyTran is the brain child of an inventor whose biggest accomplishments are a fire-breathing giant robot and a flying beverage can cooler."Avidor (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know he had an article. This is the first I've seen it. Regardless, I still think the quote is inappropriate. ATren (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be in RS. What's the problem? Celarnor Talk to me 02:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the quote Avidor provided above ("SkyTran is the brain child...") is from a RS, but that's not the one in dispute. See my original post above. But the dispute seems to have died down, so this may be moot. ATren (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That also looks referenced, coming from a New York Times article. Celarnor Talk to me 04:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Look again -- Avidor kept replacing the quote from the NY Times with an archived quote from Malewicki's now-defunct website. Skybum (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Here's the diff that shows it - It's the quote beginning with "Why it hasn't happened yet is mostly my fault". But as I said, it seems to have been resolved - the quote is now out (replaced with a less unflattering summary of his views) and no reverts in 2 days. ATren (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You'd think that the Malewicki's own words about his lack of interest in his concept would be an important part of the article - helping to explain why his concept has failed to develop over ten years since he proposed it... Avidor (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Also, I didn't put the quote in the Skytran article, that was User:JDoorjam[68] It's interesting that the defender's of Skytran and it's would-be inventor find it necessary to go after me in a manner that required a retraction - [69] What are they afraid of?...Avidor (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

JDoorjam only included that quote after you referred him to your attack page which prominently features it. The only thing that people like ATren are afraid of is wasting their lives dealing with a malicious POV-pushing troll like you. Skybum (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If I am a "malicious POV-pushing troll" or "evil" as another editor suggests [70], this noticeboard does not seem the appropriate place to deal with that. I respectfully suggest you post your complaints about me in a more appropriate place - see WP:BAN...Avidor (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr. al-Astal

One particular user is adding material to the Mercaz HaRav massacre‎, claiming that Dr. al-Astal, a Palestinian Parliamentarian representing Hamas, is calling for the genocide of Jews.

The sources are unreliable (and/or unverifiable), as I have stated on talk([71]), yet the user has still restored the material. I have reverted the material on several occasions, pointing out its relation to BLP ([72], [73], [74]) but the user simply reverts me back.

Bless sins (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

At the moment is it sourced only to a report in MESI, which I do not think reliable enough for this--if a better source can be found, the quote can possibly remain. DGG (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP When is a daily newspaper considered an UNreliable source?

A wikipedia administrator deleted a reference to certain information in a BLP of a well-known public official which was sourced from a daily newspaper, and then picked up by some other media outlets. His reason for deletion was that (1) he claimed WP:BLP, (2) the information might harm the political prospects of the individual, (3) it was only reported by one newspaper doing investigative research, (4) that particular newspaper made a minor fact-checking error in the article on a point not related to the individual, (5) that particular newspaper was not a national newspaper. There seems to be no other information on wikipedia which suggests that this particular newspaper is unreliable or consistently bad on fact checking. General question: When is a daily newspaper considered an unreliable source? For example, is size of circulation a determiner? Followup question 1: Does an error somewhere in a newspaper article invalidate the entire article as a reliable source? Followup question 2: If wikipedia had existed during the Nixon presidency, would it have been fair to report that the Washington Post claimed certain things about events surrounding the Nixon reelection campaign that would have hurt Nixon, even though that newspaper was the sole source of the claims due to their exclusive (Deep Throat) source? ((unsigned))

Deep Throat was not a RS. The WaPo abdicated editorial oversight over Woodward/Bernstein and is not a RS for the assertion that Deep Throat said anything W/B asserted DT said. But NYT, Boston Herald, etc. are RS that WaPo made the assertions. And Nixon was a public figure. So BLP in this case is spelled CYA, and Wikipedia's would have been covered. Andyvphil (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the specific article, the nature of the article (op-ed, feature, news, etc), the author, the subject, and the claims being made. The question is hard to answer in the abstract. Wikidemo (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Using "reliable" sources is just the beginning for a BLP. NPOV says - "A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias". In BLPs, it is always better to play it safe.Momento (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
To the original poster : be careful that you do not miss the forest for the trees here. Even if you can establish a particular newspaper as a reliable source, that does not necessarily give you free license to include derogatory information in the biography of a living person. You should include a link to the material in question if you sincerely want an objective evaluation of the particular situation. If an administrator removed the material, it probably is inappropriate. WP:BLP states, in part -
"Presumption in favor of privacy
Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.
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.
Basic human dignity
Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."
I hope this helps! Cleo123 (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive46&oldid=1079649067"