Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:49, 3 May 2007

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Ongoing WP:BLP-related matters

WP:BLPC

• In re Category:BLP Check

I created this page, as a simple category, to flag BLP concerns quickly: WP:BLPC. It seems like a good idea. - Denny 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Watch it fill up. :-) SlimVirgin 21:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully it clears even faster. :) - Denny 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Very good idea. Nice one. -- ChrisO 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP recentchanges

A link to Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people has been added to the RecentChanges page under the "Utilities" row, titled BLP. This can facilitate the finding of vandalism to biographies of living persons to avoid a "Sinbad (actor)-type" incident happening in the future. Cross-posted to WP:VPN, WP:AN, WT:BLP, #wikipedia, and #wikipedia-en. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

There are over 8300 articles on living people that have the {{unreferenced}} tag. This is a list of them. (warning: pretty big page) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh shit, that's worse than I thought.--Doc 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Just looking through a few of them, they have the unreferenced tag at the top but with no indication in the text what the problematic unreferenced material is. It would be good if people could be encouraged not to use the general unreferenced tag, but to add the fact/citation-needed tag to the contentious issues. SlimVirgin 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, {{fact}} should NEVER be used on contentious issues on BLPs. united contentious material should simply be removed.--Doc 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Aye, and originally the list was going to include {{fact}}-transcluders AND {{unreferenced}}-transcluders but the latter is a bigger priority, so let's do that first. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For now, I have completed my search. The result: 17 lists of articles (16 of which contain around 1000 articles) on living people that contain {{unreferenced}}, {{unreferencedsect}}, {{more sources}}, or {{fact}}. Over 16,000 articles on living people that are not completely referenced. Let's get working. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 16:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

David Miscavige

This person is the president of the Church of Scientology, and as such an object of controversy. An accusation against him was added to the article based on the statements of a former church member posted to three anti-Scientology websites. The charges may be true but it doesn't seem to me that they can be stated as fact on WP. I have removed them twice and they were put back. Steve Dufour 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• The information was from a sworn affidavit. The information should be reinserted back into the article, but with correct clear attribution given to the source of the statement. Smee 05:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

• Isn't it the case that anyone can basically allege anything in an affidavit? I'm not sure we can regard such a document as a reliable source given the lack of any editorial controls or verification. A court judgment might be a different case, but an affidavit doesn't seem to me to be a very satisfactory source. -- ChrisO 06:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• In a sworn affidavit, the person is under oath. Theoretically, they'd face the same penalties as lying to the court from the witness stand. AndroidCat 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That still does not give us the right to repeat the charges as if they were a fact. For all we know the person giving the testimony could be mentally unstable. Steve Dufour 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, why not remove otherwise citable references for everyone? They might be be mentally unstable too! AndroidCat 20:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of them are not making charges against living people. Steve Dufour 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue seems to be now resolved. Steve Dufour 01:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to take that last comment back. The statement has been returned to the article. Steve Dufour 10:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to these two edits? This information is properly attributed to the source, so your original report (unattributed statement of fact) does not apply.

I see no problem with these edits other than the fact-checking/editorial oversight/reliable source caveat by ChrisO above. This is in fact a WP:BLP concern that can only be resolved if a reliable secondary source for the statement is provided. From there we can turn to the primary source (the court document) to augment the information. Comments anyone? AvB ÷ talk 10:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ted Nugent Template:Blpwatch-links

• Ted Nugent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There's been a complaint about this being a biased article. A quick read over it and the 'controversies' section, gives me cause for concern. Some sources are very poor. I've no time to do this properly but some bold editing and removals look like being in order. Can folk deal with this?--Doc 11:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This bio is terrible. It needs a full re-write with some fact checking. The subject's (purported) just came through and deleted some extensive info, possibly justifiably. -Will Beback · † · 11:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI to anyone who cares, I have deleted that revision as the edit summary contained a phone number. --BigDT 15:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed some BLP offending material from this, but the 'controversies section' needs a good cleanup. Sources need checked and probably a re-write to ensure this isn't just a trawl for everything that makes the guy look bad.--Doc 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Pascal Duquenne Template:Blpwatch-links

• Pascal Duquenne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 87.244.168.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gaudio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Genetics411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 83.35.144.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The information that Pascal Duquenne actually suffers from Down syndrome is repeatedly added to his biography page and my corrections are reverted, my question on the discussion page remains unanswered.

I explored the sources and found no trustworthy information that would prove this statement: from two sources one does not mention him at all and the second one, where he listed as a person with Down Syndrome, is just a compilation of the "readers' opinions", rather than any official page. Since it is not clearly proved by sources, I would avoid putting this information into the bio article. Alaudo 21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll readd it with some good sources (though perhaps not in English, I'll have to look further for that), as it is well-known and correct. See e.g. this from the first page of Google resultsFram 14:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sheikh Adelabu Template:Blpwatch-links

• Sheikh Adelabu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Johnjofe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi all :) The above referenced article doesn't seem to claim anything controversial or alarming, but is always alarms me when living person bios are completely unsourced--there's not even an extenal link at the bottom of the page. I'm going to notify the page's creator once I find the right tag... I've tagged the page with {{Blpdispute}}--is there anything else I should do? THanks! Wysdom 02:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw wait a couple of days and then put a speedy deletion non-notable tag on it. --Gbleem 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a speedy delete tag to it. --Gbleem 10:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The {{db-bio}} tag (added by Mhking) was removed a half day later. — Æ. ✉ 23:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Jenna Elfman Template:Blpwatch-links

Jenna Elfman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Some new users,not familiar with policy, insist on adding poorly sourced materials. (See talk page for clear evidence that the best sources are rather dubious). I've reverted twice already (with comments on the talk page), so some help would seem necessary as it seems some people would not bother to read or understand the BLP policy. I'm not sure how the talk page material should be edited, as BLP also suggests some removal of talk page material would be appropriate here. Chan-Ho (Talk) 06:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Legitimate discussion about whether to include something can stay provided the offending material attributed to another entity. Discussing whether Bob said Jane is a slut and whether the National Inquirer is a reliable source when they print an article that says Bob called Jane a slut is not the same as wiki user calling Jane a slut. --Gbleem 09:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I just posted something on the talk page. Unfortunately you may just have to keep an extra eye on the page until he gives you a better source or gets bored. --Gbleem 10:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP says, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." In this case, the discussion has not, luckily, gone to the point of great detail of these allegations, but there are some mentions and links given. So perhaps editing of the talk page is not necessary. But note that even discussion of poorly sourced material, "legitimate" or otherwise, has often been removed or heavily edited at the behest of official Misplaced Pages personages. The difference would seem to be that it's ok to discuss whether a said source is reliable, without going into detail about what the accusation is. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 10:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing poorly sourced claims from the talk page is fully legitimate and the arbiration committee agrees with that Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart (while not involved in this controversy, I made a length comment in the talk) and also Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. I myself have removed poorly sourced and unsourced comments and claims from talk pages. In this case, from a brief read through, I would agree there's no reason it shouldn't be removed, altho I don't think it's that urgent either. The purpose of the talk page of course is to discuss additions and sometimes it can be helpful to include something which you've heard but don't have a good reference for. So it does come down to a bit of a balancing act. But it when it comes to a living person, especially a private figure (although it's not clear whether this applies to Jenna) we should usually err on the side of caution in removing poorly sourced claims even from the talk page, especially if there has been no success in finding a source (of course this may mean the same thing will be repeated in a year's time but this can't be helped) Nil Einne 17:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added (2) separate citations to this article from About.com, which is published by a little company called The New York Times Company. Also added a citation from MSNBC. Smee 07:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

We have to be careful. Although the New York Times newspaper has a certain reputation this does not mean that any property owned by the New York Times Company should be treated the same. --Gbleem 10:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Jenna Elfman#Gossip added to Biography of a living person. — Athænara ✉ 09:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Potvin Template:Blpwatch-links

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

Libelous material is posted and reposted to the entry about me, despite my repeated attempts to remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.131.134 (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

This is in reference to the article Kevin Potvin. I've attempted to fix any possible libelous material and asked Mr. Potvin to please stop editing the article and address any problems to the discussion page. sinblox 05:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to remove libelous material about me at this site over and over because it keeps getting reposted. For example, the sentence "it was revealed he wrote a column in 2002 in which he described his pleasure in watching the September 11, 2001 attacks" is inaccurate. n example of what critics of Misplaced Pages warned could happen: Someone self-serving could use Misplaced Pages to inflate his resume or otherwise mislead readers for personal gain", is inaccurate, I was not inflating a resume, i was not misleading anyone.

Potvin said that he had "substantial letters" in both magazines and he considered that work because it was work for him to write them.--you can obviously see where this person is coming from. I explained why "letters" are articles in peer review academic journals, and that these two magazine's letters sections are like those.

I have removed the libel material more than 12 times or so. I would like the page removed, I am the one who put it up in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.131.134 (talk • contribs). 04:58, April 18 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the article based on your complaint above as well as the sources given in the article. I just saw you've also added a large critique on the article's talk page; I'll read it now and see how far we can accommodate you within the limitations of our principles, policies and guidelines. You can find full information on our rules using the links posted on your talk page. AvB ÷ talk 11:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

After reading your talk page contribution I did not find additional material in the article that could be adapted to your comments. I hope you can accept the current version of the article. If there are any specific items left in the article which you feel do not conform to our rules, especially WP:BLP, or are factually incorrect in your opinion, please post them here so that other editors can check them out. The most important aspect I'm asking you to consider is that everything in the article is (or should be) supported by what Misplaced Pages calls reliable sources (see WP:RS). AvB ÷ talk 12:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

An anon (probably Mr. Potvin) made this edit. I think it's OK but would like someone else to double check. Anon, could you please confirm or deny you're Kevin Potvin? Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 00:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be irrelevant whether Potvin made that edit or not (it's properly cited and verifiable). He's revealed his identity voluntarily in various places, but in the ocean of anonymous editors that is Misplaced Pages, there's absolutely no requirement to do so. It seems to me that a) Potvin is easily a notable person and therefore the article should not be deleted and b) extra care should be taken by other editors to ensure slanted views stay out of the article. Precedents in Vancouver show that once the initial controversy dies down, articles on central figures become boringly stable (see Erik Bornmann and Rachel Marsden, both of which elicited fierce opposition from the subject). I've only just looked at this article, and have watchlisted it, and will put a notice on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Vancouver. The general principle at work seems to be that the more people watching an article, the less likely it is that POV edits will get through, and are generally reverted within minutes.

As an aside, before so quickly concluding that Misplaced Pages is as unreliable as the critics say Kevin, compare the utter fabrication in that rag you write for dissing Misplaced Pages. According to the edit history for the Vancouver Courier article, it has never said what the Courier reported it said. Unlike Misplaced Pages, there's no easy way to check the veracity of the claims made by anonymous editors in the Courier, now is there? bobanny 17:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Whether or not Mr. Potvin made that edit is by and large irrelevant in terms of our rules, but it is quite relevant in terms of the correspondence we've had with him regarding this article (see its talk page and above). I hope Mr Potvin recognizes that we're trying to resolve such problems amicably without compromising our rules. I trust it's already clear to him that we've done all we can here and that deletion is out of the question. AvB ÷ talk 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So what is the process here? It looks to me like any potentially libelous material has been purged, although some minor typos and formatting errors remain. I'd suggest unprotecting it, with the option of semi-protecting it if POV-warriors start at it again. Or are we waiting for clearance from lawyers or something? Expansion of the article would also be a step forward and make it less POV prone, since he's been a notable fixture in East Vancouver for years; the way it reads now makes it seem like the recent controversy is the sum of his notability. bobanny 22:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Doc_glasgow semiprotected the article after renewed edit-warring apparently between anti/pro-Potvin anons. Although this may not be linked with this report (regarding edits by Potvin) and technically the report could be closed, the situation is not stable so I think we'd better keep it here on the noticeboard for now. Hopefully more users will put the article on their watchlist. Expanding the article also sounds good - not really required per WP:BLP, but certainly an improvement and it may indeed make Mr. Potvin a (slightly) happier customer. You clearly know more about Potvin than most of us so please go ahead and improve away... Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 23:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

PS (1) lawyer: We're not waiting for legal green lights; as far as I know this is just between Mr. Potvin and Misplaced Pages editors. (2) sprotect: I think we'd better keep the semiprotection a bit longer in view of the many edit-warring IP addresses. AvB ÷ talk 23:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, except that it's fully protected, not semi-protected, so us plebians can't edit it. bobanny 00:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Also, just an FYI that I posted that there were WP:BLP issues with this article on WikiProject Vancouver, WikiProject Canada, and the Vancouver Courier talk page. That should get more of the grown-ups to watchlist it and minimize nastiness. bobanny 00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming Template:Blpwatch-links

• Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This is a bit of an unusual issue but my concern here is that one editor does not agree a BLP template is merited. The article in question is basically a list where we list scientists who supposedly oppose the mainstream..... In fact we not only list them but categorise them according to their supposed claims/beliefs. We base this on sourced quotes which we include. As you might expect, we get the occasional poorly sourced addition and also a fair number of times when what someone is saying is disputed (i.e. whether or whether not they actually oppose the mainstream assessement). Check out the talk page and archive for that.
• While some contributors ask on the talk page first, some just go ahead and add names. There are a number of editors watching who usually quickly revert controversial additions so the actual additions don't usually last long. But given the fact that this is obviously a list which many scientists will not want to be on, I feel it is important to remind editors of BLP in the talk page with the template. The template will hopefully remind or inform editors they should discuss additions first. And the template should also remind editors taking part in discussions that unless we can be highly sure we're right, we should not add people to the list. However one editor in particular doesn't agree with my addition of the BLP template.
• So basically, I'm wonder if others agree the BLP template is warranted? And if so, is anyone willing to try to explain this to Childhood's End? Nil Einne 17:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. However that will not count for much around here. :-) Steve Dufour 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I would only like to add a few comments here. First, I do not entirely disagree with the motives explained by Nil Einne herein. The point that I have tried to explain to him/her is that as of now, BLP applies to the article whether or not there's a tag on the talk page, and nothing in the article as of now is under dispute as to whether it is a misinterpretation of the author's views. There being no emergency or BLP issue, and BLP applying anyway to the article, I do not understand this sudden need for a tag, especially since it could be used to push a POV (see the whole discussion for further details if needed). Regards. --Childhood's End 18:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the discussion. After all that was said it seems that a BLP tag is a good idea. How could it do any harm to remind people of an important WP policy? Steve Dufour 23:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm puzzled how someone can argue against a reminder of policy on an article where such policy is especially relevant. No one is born with a knowledge of WP policy, so pointing it out for the benefit of new editors (or even experienced ones) is helpful. Raymond Arritt 10:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If you delete the list then you don't have to worry about a tag. Even with the criteria it looks like an opinion piece to me. --Gbleem 14:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but the global warming skeptics will howl bloody murder if their list is deleted. Propose it if you want but I'm not stepping into that minefield. I do think that sooner or later, someone will publicly object to being on the list and it will reflect badly on Misplaced Pages. Raymond Arritt 14:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think it would be the global warming proponents that would object they seem to have abducted this list. Irate velociraptor 04:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Second section opened later about same article.

• - The tone of the opening paragraph imply a lack of intelligence on the part of people who are on the list. I changed the first paragraph so it didn't have such a tone but it was changed back. Irate velociraptor 07:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)//

• It looks fine to me. Saying they oppose the mainstream opinion is accurate and neutral, there is no need to hide the fact that they are a minority. --Tango 11:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The language in it is not neutral

I agree with the last person the language is not neutral it should be a short explanation of what the list is for followed by why they are on the list. a couple of good examples of this are

List of fictional United States Republicans
List of fictional United States Democrats
Irate velociraptor 04:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• There should be a "current" before "mainstream"... 30 years ago consensus was that we were facing a global cooling. Randroide 12:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a common perception but it is incorrect. There was some hysteria in the popular press but definitely not a scientific consensus. See Global cooling. Raymond Arritt 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the link, it is very interesting. OTOH, I own some Spanish Scientific journals from the 1970s and early 1980s warning about the global cooling. Moreover, Carl Sagans Cosmos warns (chapter Heaven and hell) about both risks, global warming and global cooling. Randroide 15:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Does this disagreement involve WP:BLP? It seems to involve language about people's opinions as distinct from biographical language. --Shirahadasha 15:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho Seung-hui Template:Blpwatch-links

Cho Seung-hui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This is a bit of a mess at the moment with frequent attempts to include irrelevant details about his parents and sister. I don't see any reason why the names of any of these people or their addresses or even their place of work is relevant. Perhaps mention of their job and what city they live in but anything else seems gratiotious. Some contributors are defending these on the premise that the media have already revealed these but BLP requires additional considerations IMHO. Nil Einne 09:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the rush to have an article on him. The same with the next person down the list. Steve Dufour 03:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not looked at the details of the article, but I agree with Nil Einne on this - details about his family are really beside the point. A sketch of their background is ok, but otherwise I think it can well be a BLP problem. As for why there's an article about him, it's obvious, Steve - people want to find out basic facts about someone who leaps into the news, and Misplaced Pages is about the only place you can do that in this breaking-news way. But again, his family have privacy rights - they didn't choose to put themselves in the public eye, and I think we need to be careful. Tvoz |talk 05:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears information has been removed where there is no more BLP violation. The only thing given is the sister's name and the fact she works for the U.S. Department of State which is slightly relevant to the part about her "response". Cbrown1023 talk 19:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Cho Seung-hui is dead, is BLP relevant to an article about him? 129.97.79.144 21:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The concern here is what is said about his living family memebers. --Gbleem 10:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis Template:Blpwatch-links

• Robert Sungenis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Liam Patrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (SPA)
• Truth seeker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This may still be below the threshold of immediate action necessary, but perhaps some experience editors can watchlist this page. single purpose account User:Liam Patrick is busily expanding the "Jewish Controversy" section and I'm not clear whether the stuff should be copy-edited, shortened or deleted. --Pjacobi 19:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Article {{protected}} April 20 — scheduled to expire April 25. — Æ. ✉ 00:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am having difficulties with the biography of Robert_Sungenis. User:Liam Patrick especially, appears to be biased and is trying to use the bio to accuse Sungenis of anti-semitism. User:Otheus is trying to mediate, but it is a slow process.

The problem is there are no reliable third party sources to establish the fact. The main source is a biased blog created by some of Robert Sungenis ex-employees. They state their bias and agenda. The other sources are related to this one (except perhaps one, but ultimately it can alsoe be shown to be related).

I have propsed a means by which the editors can use Robert Sungenis own words to indicate that he has been accused of anti-semitism, and of course that he denies it (which gets stated in either case). To me this removes the issue of using inappropriate sources per BLP (biased, agenda driven, partisan, blogs, etc).

I would appreciate anyone coming over and taking a look for yourself.Start at the bottom of the talk page and work up, because it gets much too long. Truth_Seeker 16:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: After five days of page protection on Robert Sungenis ended, the article has been edited over fifty times by two users: Truth seeker (30+) and Liam Patrick (20+). — Athænara ✉ 03:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Jodie Foster Template:Blpwatch-links

• Jodie Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The question of Ms Foster's sexual orientation is a subject of great interest and, in the absence of reliable sourcing for any statement, has been kept from the article. No problem so far, the subject gets raised every now and again, most offered sources are pretty lame and any added information gets edited out. A US magazine recently "outed" Ms Foster but not in an clear unambiguous way that would meet the RS requirements. It has engendered a lot of discussion and I feel that a further eyes are required to offer guidence on the point. In particular the following citation would undoubtedly be acceptable for a non-BLP issue. Canada.com article This article has a named byline, the website is part of a reputable mass market publishing corportation and the site reeks of proper journalism. The statement that Foster is in a relationship with Cydney Bernard is unambiguous and I believe that it may meet the threshold for inclusion. Given the long standing consensus for excluding this information, I'd be obliged if some of the regulars here who are more knowledgeable on BLP than me could pass their eye over the discussion on the talk page and offer some opinion on this question. Thank you // Spartaz 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's worded carefully to emphasize that it's unconfirmed, I don't see a problem with including it, as long as it's not over-emphasized in proportion to the rest of the article. If it's not speculation originating from Misplaced Pages editors, and if there haven't been any unequivocal denials from Foster's people, I don't see a BLP problem. bobanny 18:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes rumors become so prevalent that they become noteworthy in their own right. At that point if we didn't mention them their absence would be conspicuous and well-intentioned editors would simply add something. What we usually end up with something like, "There is speculation about the subject's orientation, including ..., but the subject has said it is a private matter". For examples, see Anderson Cooper and Clay Aiken. -Will Beback · † · 10:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

On the talk page I point out that there are two facts which can be included that are definately not violations of BLP. 1. She has been living with the same woman for many years. 2. Out magazine called her a powerful lezbian, but she has not publicly stated that she is a lesbian. --Gbleem 23:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Crookes Template:Blpwatch-links

• Wayne Crookes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Canadian media are reporting today that Crookes is suing the Foundation for libel. // A. B. 16:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

More media coverage:

The Globe and Mail: "Libel lawsuits takes aim at Internet postings"

The Vancouver Sun: "Former Green campaign manager says he was libelled, sues Google"

WebProNews: "Canadian Sues The Messenger"

CKNW: "Local man sues Misplaced Pages"

--A. B. 02:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest someone take a look at Talk:Wayne Crookes. I don't have the time, but some of the stuff may be problematic. --A. B. 02:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Jim Lampley Template:Blpwatch-links

• Jim Lampley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 68.107.65.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.166.5.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.173.234.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See Jim Lampley#Recent developments. He seems to have been arrested on a number of charges - and pled guilty. But the article seems to imply (at least at times because there's an edit war here) that he was convicted. But he may only have been technically convicted of something much less than the charges. There seems to be some sort of POV pusher here. I'd received OTRS complaints, but now that someone has posted to my talk page I can put the info here and get more eyes in it:

"Did you know that, in addition to his sportscasting duties, Lampley is an outspoken liberal commentator? That the judge was the daughter of a GOP kingpin, Gerry Parsky? Of course, domestic violence charges are a serious matter and need to be investigated thoroughly; however, the investigation show there was no evidence of the allegations in this case. Even Mr Lampley's former wife, Bree Walker publicy stated that he was not capable of the charges that Ms Sanders brought. That the apartment the complaining party was living in was not hers, it was his....although all news accounts say it was hers. That the DA dismissed the case and investigation due to lack of evidence. That the only thing Lampley was guilty of was 'coming within 100 yards of his own apartment' by having a meeting with his property manager. If you'd like to contact his attorney for the facts, his name is Thomas Warwick in San Diego. Perhaps he can provide the court papers and what the facts showed re: the no contest plea. Mr Lampley could not factually dispute that he was technically within 100 yards of his own apartment the day he was meeting with his property manager. The investigators, on the property to interview the complaining party, noticed Mr Lampley leaving the mgr's office and arrested him at that time. The complaining party also was driving Mr Lampley's BMW until the proceedings concluded. We live in a litigious society and anyone can charge another party with a variety of claims. Your treatment of highlighting the charges and not of the ultimate disposition is not totally fair, despite whatever take you get from the media. The print media in San Diego is definitely skewed right. The north county of San Diego is generally a very conservative climate, where the charges were brought and where the court was located. There is much more to this story than the sensational headlines."

Can someone check the sources and make sure that the article a) reflects the facts b) doesn't give undue weight to dismissed allegations/investigation.--Doc 19:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Norman Lamb Template:Blpwatch-links

• Norman Lamb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I am having difficulty with 82.118.116.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who is insisting on his additions to this biography of a current British Member of Parliament. While the main issue is over NPOV (he is a political opponent), part of his claims include questionable and unsourced claims about Norman Lamb. I would appreciate other voices persuading him to discuss and amend his edits. Sam Blacketer 19:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon Template:Blpwatch-links

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

Has been classified under the category antisemitism for being accused of antisemitism, a charge which he denies. The accusations are sourced but the inclusion in the category is dematory, and I've just had a 24 hour ban for a 3R vio for removing the category. The counter-argument offered is that the category includes groups and individuals notable for opposing antisemitism, however the reason for including Atzmon is that he's accused of antisemitism, a charge which he denies . In my view it would be like putting an accused paedophile in a paedophilia category. It's contentious and defamatory and Atzmon's alive, so surely BLP is applicable? And (without wanting to sound whingey) is it OK that I get a 24 hour ban (on my block log) for a good faith BLP revert?FelixFelix 17:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is in the antisemitism category becuase it is relevant: The subject has written extensively about antisemitism, has unusual ideas about antisemitism, and has been accused of antisemitism by groups fighting antisemitism. Inclusion in the category does not imply he's an antisemite, and false invocation of WP:BLPis not a license to edit war. Isarig 03:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, he's only written about antisemitism as in reply to accusations of antisemitism about him, he writes about anti-zionism. His inclusion in the category implies precisely that he's antisemitic, as there's no other reason to include him. WP:BLP specifically states that 3Rs does not apply when removing defamatory material. I and others (FYCTravis, Nishkid for example) disagree with you about the BLP issue-perhaps that should give you pause for thought.FelixFelix 06:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that's false. He's written about AS w/o any reference to accusations against him, see for example this. You have been blocked for a 3RR violation by an administrator who reviewed Nishkid 's analysis , and found it faulty. Perhaps that should give you pause for thought. Isarig 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is Atzmon in the antisemitism category? Is it the accusations of antisemitism? Or an essay he wrote? If it's the latter then it fails notability. Come on.I'm not terribly impressed by Jayjg's record of impartiality, and Nishkid and FYCTravis are admins too. What's the point of the 3R exemption for BLP if it's ignored? What are we to learn from this/ To keep BLP vios unless we get blocked? I think not.FelixFelix 16:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

He's in the antisemitism category because he is relevant - he has written extensively about antisemitism, he's been accused of antisemitism by notable people and organizations, and one can argue that his personal notability is due, at least in part, to this. What we are to learn from your block is not to raise bogus BLP claims, as a way to win edit wars. Nishkid is an admin, but you will note that he agreed with Jayjg after the latter overruled him, so you can stop invoking his name. (and as a side note, accusing admins of editing in an impartial way , as you have done above, is a sure way to earn yourself an even longer block. You might want to rethink that one). Isarig 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't 'written extensively about antisemitism' unless you count writing about the accusations of it, He certainly has been accused of antisemitism by many people and organisations, however his inclusion in the antisemitism category for that is defamatory. And as he contests it, and is alive-that's a BLP vio.FelixFelix 16:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It gets tiresome when you ignore responses and just repeat your mantras. He has written extensively about AS, w/o any reference to accusations against him. I have given you one such example above - read it. That article predates accustations of AS against him, and is one (of many) reasons why he's been accused of AS. There is nothign defamatory in the inclusion in the category which clearly and explictly does not imply that those included are antisemites. This has been explained to you at length on the Talk page, repeated in the ratioanle for blocking you, and explaine dhere once again. Give it up. Isarig 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"It gets tiresome when you ignore responses and just repeat your mantras." Praise indeed, coming from the master of the form! I've read the essay, which was written in response to accusations of antisemitism; but even if it wasn't,it would fail notability-but of course, the reason that the article is included is because Atzmon has been accused of being an antisemite. Including the accusations, per se, is fine, as they are sourced accusations. The inclusion in the category is not, as it carries the value judgement that the accusations are correct.FelixFelix 12:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again: There is nothing defamatory in the inclusion in the category which clearly and explictly does not imply that those included are antisemites. This has been explained to you at length on the Talk page, repeated in the rationale for blocking you, and explained here again and again. If including the accusations, per se, is fine, as they are sourced accusations then the inclusion in the category is fine, by definition. Isarig 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How can that be? The to and fro quotations in the article are accusations and denials of Atzmon's suppossed antisemitism. They're not about anti-semitism generally. And Atzmon's supposed antisemitism is contested, and (as I've said before) defamatory. It's not settled, and he is alive. So it falls under the aegis of WP:BLP. And should go.FelixFelix 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your assertions are contradictory. The article discusses accusations of antisemitism; if it's not a violation of WP:BLP to have those discussions in the article, then it's certainly not a violation of WP:BLP to include it in the category of articles that discuss antisemitism. Very few articles discuss antisemitism generally; one or two at most. All others discuss some aspect of antisemitism, sometimes broad, sometimes narrow. This article is no different than others, it discusses some aspect of antisemitism, and therefore belongs in the category of articles that do so. Jayjg 16:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem, isn't it? The article details accusations of Atzmon being an antisemite. The category is for articles which discuss antisemitism. Atzmon's article doesn't-it doesn't even discuss Atzmon's antisemitism-because that is not established, in fact it is contested. So the article shouldn't be included on content grounds, but on top of that the fact that his article is in the category implies that the accusations have substance, as the inclusion in the category is one which requires a deliberate decision by an editor and is not the reporting of a source. Thus it's defamatory, unsourced and contested, Atzmon is alive and therefore it's a BLP vio, the removal of which I was rewarded with a block by you.FelixFelix 20:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But the article does discuss antisemitism, through Atzmon's somewhat unique take on it, including his claim that no one can be an antisemite, becuase according to him, that term does not signify anything, and his claim that the notorious antisemitic forgery of The Protocols is actauuly an accurate description of the exisitng reality. Isarig 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Category:Anti-Semitic_people was deleted over a month ago as a violation of WP:OCAT and WP:NPOV, so adding specific people to this category (Category:Antisemitism) is just doing an end-around of the aforementioned CfD. Despite Isarig's protests to the contrary, being put into this category certainly would reflect negatively upon the person. Tarc 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to this personal opinion of the category, but it is explictly denied by the category's definition that being added to this category means you are an antisemite. Isarig 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deny all you like, but it is undeniable that the term "antisemite" is a slur. As such, all people should be removed from this category. Tarc 22:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This category is not "antisemite", but rather "antisemitism" - and is for articles that discuss antisemitism. The inclusion of people like Abe Foxman should have tipped you off. Please have a read at the category's description before posting misleading arguments. Isarig 22:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't be an ass, please. I did read the category, and the fact that it has a "disclaimer" does not alter the fact that the term is a slur, and including people in it has the capacity for abuse as has been done with Gilad Atzmon, to label him an antisemite. Tarc 23:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You are strongly urged to review WP:CIVIL. Another comment like that and I will report you. The category does not label people as antisemites. It is for articles discussing antisemitism, which this article does. Isarig 00:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You accusing others of being intentionally misleading isn't exactly proper conduct either, so beware of glass houses. Anyways, used in the manner that it is on this particular article, it is a slur, it is defamatory, and it should be removed per BLP violations. Period. Tarc 14:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no special "mannner" in which it is used on this article. This article discusses antisemitism, so it belongs in the category. Period. Isarig 14:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you're quite mistaken. Let's see how the category renaming proposal goes; if it passes then all is well, as some form of "Discussions of Antisemitism" name would remove this point of contention. If not, then this will be taken further along the proper BLP channels. Tarc 14:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And I believe I am 100% correct. I think we're done here. Isarig 14:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It has become rather tiresome to see people continue to pretend that the category is "Antisemites", rather than Antisemitism. Anyone who actually looks at Category:Antisemitism would see that it's not. Jayjg 22:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum Template:Blpwatch-links

• Crystal Gail Mangum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Unlearned hand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.220.127.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 131.107.0.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ikilled007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Duke53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've tried to explain to Duke53 that just because Crystal Gail Mangum's accusations are no longer being pursued by the authorities, does not necessarily mean that they are false. In fact it definitely does not mean that legally and factually. He does not understand this and has reverted a minimum number of changes that I have made simply removing the word "false" from the statements. I have no dog in this fight and only care that we don't have potentially libelous statements on Misplaced Pages. You may wish to examine Duke53's other contributions, which I have not done in detail but, based on the labels seemed disturbing. Student7 22:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The NC Attorney General stated definitively that the "attack" Ms. Mangum claimed happened never occurred. That would make her accusations false. If you've actually been following this case, there is no longer any controversy over the fact that her accusations were false. That is what prompted the AG to take the extraordinary step of declaring that the people Mangum accused are factually and legally innocent. Unlearned hand 03:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal

• 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• RipCurl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -

While not a biography, they are defaming the same person in this article. RipCurl this time. Kind of a team effort you might say! :) Student7 01:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Charles Mudede Template:Blpwatch-links

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

Someone involved in BLP might want to keep an eye on this one. I ran into Mudede at a conference this weekend, and he told me that there have in the past been nasty and untrue things about him in his article, especially efforts to tie him to Robert Mugabe (whom he does not by any means support). He said that in the past, not really knowing any proper procedures to approach this, he has come in himself and removed some of this stuff; as a journalist, he fully understands that was not the best way to do things. It would be much better if someone neutral would work on getting the article properly sourced; I don't think anything in it right now is particularly bad (though it might be inaccurate). Also, when you are done, someone might want to approach him (charles AT thestranger DOT com) and ask him to review for inaccuracies (for that matter, he also might give someone a lead on aspects of his life that aren't yet adequately covered) and probably explain to him how he can get an RSS feed so that he can keep an eye on it himself. (Also, someone might want to suggest that he take an account so that it is clear which edits are his.) - Jmabel | Talk 20:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it proper to comment on someone's personal relationship in a wikipedia site without verification? Isn't this potentially slanderous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.218.211.164 (talk • contribs) 21:30, April 23 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing slanderous in the comment above if that is what you are referring to. --Gbleem 14:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't expect him to jump through a bunch of hoops to keep people from slandering him. I'll add the article to my watchlist. --Gbleem 14:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales Template:Blpwatch-links

• Jimmy Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Current dispute as to whether a section (now moved to the article's Talk page) criticising supposed "Misplaced Pages revisionism" by Jimmy Wales is neutral, appropriate to the article and meets requirements of WP:BLP. After some editors repeatedly reinserted the disputed section, an RFC was opened. One has created a misguided "sandbox" fork of the bio. An additional dispute over whether the description of Bomis under Jimmy_Wales#Career should include "soft-core pornography" may also be ongoing (a discussion of Bomis is already covered at Jimmy_Wales#Bomis). // Leflyman 06:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• The bio has now ratcheted up to introduce even more bias. This onslaught of anti-Wales propagandising is impressive. --Leflyman 21:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Justin Berry Template:Blpwatch-links

• Justin Berry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Editors contending over different parts of this article, several rv's of unsourced negative information have been required. Article subject is an active editor on the article. // Ssbohio 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I've communicated with the subject-editor a couple of times on-WP, but he hasn't responded. I'm now working with Ssbohio and others on this article. Some editors have professed POVs regarding the subject. The subject's actions are the center of a number of legal proceedings and a few journalism ethics issues. These matters make it more difficult to properly balance the article. Due to those factore I think it's best to err on the side of brevity. -Will Beback · † · 10:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Henry Heimlich Template:Blpwatch-links

• Henry Heimlich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Heimlich (Heimlich maneuver) has become an object of heated controversy, with son and partisans on the warpath. The article is a mess, riddled with unsourced assertions, POV and weasel words, mainly attacks on Heimlich. I've inserted a POV and deleted some flagrant weasel-worded POV, but what's left remains highly POV. Apparently, partisans are using the article as a platform. The New Republic has a major report about the flap in the current issue, which is bound to fan the flames, so the article here, what's left of it, may eventually have to be protected. — J M Rice 20:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing court cases (January 2007 Birmingham Raid)

• 31 January 2007 Birmingham raid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would be grateful for advice on how Misplaced Pages deals with claims of criminal activity which have not been proven or alleged in a court of law. The article 31 January 2007 Birmingham raid contains biographical information about a number of men, including Basiru Gassama, Amjad Mahmood, Pervaiz (Parviz) Khan, Zahoor Iqbal, Hamid Elasmar and Mohammed Irfan. It states that Gassama has been charged with “failing to disclose information” and that the others have been charged with “supplying terrorists”. As far as I can tell, those statements are correct and properly sourced.

The article also contains a number of other statements about the men, such as “they were suspected of planning to kidnap a Muslim British soldier, torture him . . . and behead him.” A section of the article focusing on “the plot” contains similar claims in more detail. These statements are properly sourced, with references to newspaper articles in which anonymous sources make these statements. However, the claims have not been made by any named police spokesman, security spokesman or prosecutor. They have NOT been made in a court of law. This is NOT a court case in which the men are accused of doing these things and deny it. The trial has not begun. Police have released no details of what the men are accused of (other than “failure to disclose information” and “supplying terrorists”). Prosecutors have not accused these men of anything at all, so far.

This is not a dispute with editors, as although I have made some comments on the article’s talk page I have also bought the issue straight here. If there is an issue with this, perhaps it should simply be cut out of the article immediately (I think it should). I hope it is also obvious why I have not simply done it myself – the claims are sourced, and maybe I am worrying about nothing. I am hoping people with more knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies (and possibly the English legal system and issues surrounding contempt of court) might take a look. Thanks. Hobson 18:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Zenon Panoussis Template:Blpwatch-links

Tagged for no citations, no WP:RS, only WP:OR. This article has been typed off Misplaced Pages and a copy/paste job done five years ago without anyone adding anything verifiable about it. COFS 01:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific regarding any WP:BLP problems here? AvB ÷ talk 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an issue of adding more citations, but not a WP:BLP issue at present... Smee 23:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Agree. Can we archive this report? 2-3 days without actual BLP concerns posted here indicates there aren't any. AvB ÷ talk 15:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it make sense to include this boilerplate sentence in every case? Personally, I thought that uncited statements in biographies *are* a BLP issue. Ken Arromdee 14:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Rathwell

I don't understand why this is even an entry on wikipedia. The original article reads as though it is a vanity entry and appears in exactly the same words on several other websites including the subject's own. The subject has published many books - but all through his own on demand print company, The much revised entry is less contentious but I am still not of the opinion that this person warrants an entry. There is no independent confirmation in the entry of any of the awards that he claims to have been awarded etc. My own opinion is that this entry should be considered for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.92.249 (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Scott Bloch

Scott Bloch is currently at the center of a minor political event with regard to charges the President acted illegally. Google his name and you will see what I mean. Now read our article on him. Now note that a contributor named "Queerudite" has filled our article on him with queer issues. WAS 4.250 23:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• The pseudonym chosen by the editor is no more relevant than your chosen pseudonym is. What is relevant is whether the editor is providing verifiable content supported by reliable sources. Checking a selection of the sources cited, it appears that xe is. Xe is providing content, sourced from articles in The Washington Post (where this person is the primary focus of the articles) amongst others, relating to the actions in public office taken by a public official, that includes such publicly recorded activities as testifying before the U.S. Senate and issuing statements of departmental policy. Indeed, he hasn't provided any content that deals with the subject's private life at all. Uncle G 14:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am concerned firstly with WP:COI issues in that Queerudite might be introducing bias or unbalanced coverage with regard to an issue he might have strong feeling about and secondly with possible future media coverage of Misplaced Pages's coverage of Scott Bloch given the increasing media profile of both wikipedia and the current Scott Bloch investigation into Bush's last presidential campaign. Balanced coverage is a BLP issue, but maybe this is more of a COI issue afterall. In any case, it is a concern. WAS 4.250 16:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ken Ogger

I blanked out this page since everything on it was uncited and potentially negative for this person. He is a former Scientologist who left that and became a critic of it and then got tired of that and seems to want to just get on with his life. I don't think he needs a WP article. Steve Dufour 04:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was put back. I put a speedy delete tag on it. Steve Dufour 14:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is now formally nominated for deletion. Steve Dufour 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Chad Barrett

A player for the Chicago Fire named Chad Barret was linked with Real Madrid. Found his Bio through Chicago Fire current roster only. I cannot find the Real Madrid story anywhere else on the web. His page is poorly sourced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danxp2 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Nina Bracewell-Smith Template:Blpwatch-links

• Nina Bracewell-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A slow-motion edit war has been in progress on this article over the subject's date of birth since September 2006, and not a single editor has cited a reliable source that gives this information in all of that time. I've removed the controversial information and placed a warning on the talk page (q.v.). Uncle G 13:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Tim_Ball Template:Blpwatch-links

• Timothy F. Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this is the BLP for climate change skeptic Tim Ball. He is currently suing an author and a newspaper for libel for their printing the same things posted in his Wiki Biography. eg: The question of his PhD. There is a link to an image of his PhD transcript which expressly says that the field of study for his PhD was Climatology, yet his summary insists (see Talk page) that his PhD is in Geology. This is one of the points of his libel suit. The edit wars are just too deadly serious on this page for me to become involved. I just want to point out that the potential for a libel suit against Wiki is high.

KipHansen 17:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the points being disputed are really petty as well. The main facts that he is a PhD and a global-warming sceptic are agreed on by all. Why do the minor things have to be mentioned at all? Steve Dufour 23:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Steve - they get mentioned because editors on one side of the "climate change controversy" feel the need to denigrate and/or minimize the qualifications, personalities, and personal ethics of "climate change skeptics" while editors on the other side of the issue wish to elevate to hero status the same persons. Thus, edit wars, and poor (and in this case), dangerous Wiki BLPs.

According to the libel suit (see 'Dispute over academic credentials' section) he is suing 'Johnson' (an individual) and the Calgary Herald for $325,000 over these types of issues. In short, the subject is litigatious, has a libel suit ongoing at this very moment over issues clearly repeated in his Wiki bio. Checking the edit history shows that these issues and details appear to have been subject to many edit wars.

How does one (do we...) step in and get this sorted out enough to protect the Wiki project?

KipHansen 16:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be glad to step in. The situation is more than a little complicated -- for example Ball himself says his Ph.D. was in geography, yet the posted transcript says "the Field of Study was Climatology." Raymond Arritt 16:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I took a look at the article. Given the above-noted ambiguity over the subject of Ball's degree I thought it safest to just say "he received a Ph.D...." instead of giving the field; anyone who's interested can check out the linked reference. Also the bio is barely more than a recitation of a few statements and quotes, all well sourced. I can't see where there's anything actionable (IANAL) but if there are specific items of concern let me know. Raymond Arritt 16:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

James Dobson Template:Blpwatch-links

• I question whether the citations support saying he is an advocate of dominionism. What critics have written about him should certainly be mentioned, subject to due weight and neutrality. I think more, and more neutral, sources are needed before we can say Dobson advocates dominionism. Tom Harrison 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources provided are acceptable, Salon, etc, as was noted by a number of admins when they where previously discussed at Template_talk:Dominionism. Odd nature 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think people expect WP to have a higher standard than Salon, etc. Steve Dufour 00:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the arbcom in a RfArb on Satya Sai Baba assumed salon.com was reliable. I certainly think it meets WP:RS, as there is significant editorial oversight. 160.39.52.232 06:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This particular Salon article is an interview with someone who is promoting his book. It would be a good source for things that Chris Hodges said or thinks. He indirectly calls Dobson a dominionist. After looking over the talk page I'm not sure what the issue is. --Gbleem 12:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom Monaghan Template:Blpwatch-links

• I have removed him from Template:Dominionism where he was listed as a "Financier of Dominionism." I have not found sources to support such a statement. Tom Harrison 02:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have again removed Monaghan from the list of 'Financier of Dominionism', and have blocked User:72.198.121.115 for re-adding it. Review and comment appreciated. Tom Harrison 14:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a discussion on this topic here and I must say, I tend to agree with Tom harrison here. The main source seems to be this article in the Rolling Stone. I cannot see how someone can take the information in Rolling Stone and conclude that it is providing a citation that Monaghan is a Dominionist. This seems to be a leap. However, I am not familiar with Dominionism or with Tom Monaghan and am only leaving my comment here because I reviewed a block. --Yamla 15:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• FeloniousMonk found my block to be inappropriate and unblocked the anon. I'm posting on ANI for review and discussion. Tom Harrison 16:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Hyman

I have been watching the talk page for this person (a contentious subject due to an alleged misdemeanour of his, which he is in court for at the moment), and today some eight or nine entries were briefly on the talk page before being wiped. Now there is no trace of them in the history section even, so I cannot check up on what was written. Why has this happened? Is it usual to delete material even from the history section? Who authorises it? Why? Surely Misplaced Pages is not censored? Podder8 14:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I should add that there have been large-scale removals of material, both in the article and on the talk page, before today, but their traces are still in the history section. The entries made today have gone completely, with no trace. What is going on? Podder8 14:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Stormfront (website) Template:Blpwatch-links

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

I've removed a small bit of unsourced BLP stuff twice and have been reverted. Article also has some slight POV problems, but my main concern is the list of members which is not sourced. --- RockMFR 03:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your approach. These forums have long-term members and stable identities. In the case of notable people who frequent a website their identities are widely agreed-upon and can be sourced from user pages, etc. But we do need to keep a close watch because even sourced material may not be reliable or suitable. I've left a BLP0 template on the editor's page and will watch the article more closely. -Will Beback · † · 09:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Huseyincan Celil Template:Blpwatch-links

KazakhPol (talk · contribs) has been adding been adding inappropriate and possibly libelous information to the lead. His source is a third-hand reference, a partisan paper which quotes a partisan group claiming he was on Interpol's "Red List." I was thinking of blocking as per this, but I think it would be better to bring this up here first. Khoikhoi 03:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, contrary to Khoikhoi's statement here, the information was already present on the page. Khoikhoi on the article talkpage initially states that the info doesnt need to be mentioned in the introduction because it is already mentioned below. He then changes tactics, claiming it violates BLP when mentioned in the introduction but not when it is mentioned in the body of the article. I have now posted multiple sources from Human Rights Watch and the Uzbek government. KazakhPol 04:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Gary Bauer Template:Blpwatch-links

GearedBull (talk · contribs) is repeatedly inserting misleading, inappropriate, unsourced and potentially libelous allegations of homosexuality to this article. (UTC)

I left a note on User talk:GearedBull. The material was unsourced and dodgy even if it had a source. I think GearedBull probably just reflexively reverted because the deletions were made by anons with no edit summaries. -Will Beback · † · 10:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Rich DeVos Template:Blpwatch-links

I have removed Rich DeVos from the list of 'Financiers of Dominionism' on Template:Dominionism. The only source I can find is one article in Rolling Stone. That is not adequate to support listing him on the template. Tom Harrison 19:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:Errorstock for restoring the name. Review invited. Tom Harrison 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Obvious sockpuppet. Musical Linguist 20:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I again removed DeVos (and Monaghan, see above) and blocked User:151.151.73.167 to keep him from adding them again. Guettarda regards my block as grossly inappropriate and urges me in strong terms not to do such a thing again. I am not persuaded by his reasoning, but I appreciate his review and welcome further input. Tom Harrison 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• • That template has been a source of trouble for a while. Like categories and article names, templates are hard to make NPOV. Guettarda is a level-headed guy, and I'm sure he's working towards consensus.
  • Regarding DeVos, this edit to Amway removed several sources presumably about his connections to Dominionism. The unregistered editor described the material as: "original research" sourced from blogs. However I think some non-blog sources were also deleted. I've had it on my list to check through the deleted material to see if anything is salvageable but haven't gotten to it yet. Will Beback · † · 10:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I would certainly welcome wider participation. Tom Harrison 13:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm missing something? Why isn't the Rolling Stone citation enough? JoshuaZ 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard Gere Template:Blpwatch-links

Regarding the removal of a few sentences about persistant rumors that Gere's marriage to Cindy Crawford was a sham to cover their alleged homosexuality. These rumors were so persistant that Gere and Crawford had to take out a newspaper ad to defend themselves. (Google search: )

The following Misplaced Pages text and source is proposed "Due to persistant rumors that their marriage was a sham, Gere and Crawford took a full-page ad out in the Times, announcing that, 'We are heterosexual and monogamous and take our commitment to each other very seriously.' Eight months later they separated.

The discussion has taken place on Richard Gere talk and at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales . There are basically two sides...

• User:FNMF claims that 1. BLP policy exists to protect people from unsubstantiated and false malicious allegations. 2. The fact that Gere took out a newspaper ad to deny one of the allegations does not establish that he is notable for reasons to do with the sexual behaviour. In fact, he took the ad out to make clear that he is not notable for his sexual behaviour. Taking out an ad does not mean he wishes to have the allegations published along with his denial. Rather, it means he wishes people to stop printing the unsubstantiated allegations, and certainly not in an encyclopaedia. 3. The rumours are unsubstantiated, that is, no evidence has been given that the rumours are true. In such circumstances, including these rumours clearly violates WP:BLP.

• User:Sparkzilla claims that 1. the existence of the ad in the Times is a matter of fact, it's existence is not a rumor. 2. It was placed in the Times, a notable publication and was reported on by world media. 3. The letter specifically addressed issues of Gere's sexuality, by Gere himself. 4. The letter appears on other biographies.

Sparkzilla offered to build consensus by opening an RFC to allow other editors to vote on this issue. However, FNMF has stated "Please feel free to open an RfC. Please note, however, that a vote cannot make it OK to blatantly violate WP:BLP. Only a change of policy could make it OK to include false and unsubstantiated malicious and non-notable allegations on the pages of Misplaced Pages". And that's why I have brought this here...I appreciate comments. Sparkzilla 07:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla is correct. Carol Burnett sued the National Inquirer for calling her a drunk. Richard Gere puts an ad in a major newspaper saying he's not gay. These statements are not libel and therefore not really an issue for BLP. --Gbleem 10:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: there are two issues at the Gere entry. The first issue concerns a false and malicious allegation about sexual behaviour, an allegation that Gere has never responded to. The second issue concerns an unsubstantiated and malicious allegation about a marriage, an allegation that Gere and the other involved party have explicitly denied. Some points:

• In the most general terms in relation to WP:BLP, I believe both these allegations should be excluded because to include them would be insensitive, contentious, controversial, non-conservative, and non-encyclopaedic, all of which makes them policy violations. WP:BLP specifically states the necessity of editing BLP entries sensitively and conservatively. For instance, at the beginning of the section "Presumption in favor of privacy" it states: "Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy." I do not believe that inclusion of false or unsubstantiated malicious allegations constitutes conservative editing.
• My second objection is on the grounds of non-notability. WP:BLP gives the following example: ""John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out." I note that this example makes clear that even true and verifiable information may need to be excluded from the entry. Unless the details of the messy divorce are notable AND verifiable AND important to the article, they should be excluded. What this means is that notability means notability in relation to the subject of the entry ("important to the article"). That is, it means notability in relation to the reasons the subject of the entry is notable. The second example given at WP:BLP is about a politician who denies an affair, but the allegations of which are published at the New York Times. The example states that this may be able to be included, if properly cited. This may at first glance resemble the allegations about Gere's marriage. This would be a false conclusion: the example given in WP:BLP is about allegations that a reputable newspaper has chosen to put forward; in the Gere case, we are talking about second-hand reporting of unsubstantiated rumours by anonymous others. No reputable source has asserted these rumours as allegations, merely occasionally reported them as existing or denied rumours. They have not reported them as allegations because they are unsubstantiated, or because they are false. I further note that it is significant that in the second example at WP:BLP the person is described as a politician. That is because an argument can be made that the honesty or morality of a politician is relevant to their notability as a politician. There is a big difference between the question of whether Bill Clinton lied about an affair with Monica Lewinsky, and the question of whether Richard Gere is guilty of either of the two allegations about him. One has some connection to the notability of the subject; the other does not. Gere's notability derives firstly and mainly from his being an actor; secondarily from factors such as his Buddhism or his samaritanism, etc. His notability has nothing to do with his sexual or marital behaviour. No attempt to establish this notability in relation to Gere has been made.
• What is WP:BLP for, if not to protect living persons from the harm done by printing false and unsubstantiated malicious and non-notable allegations? No living person should have to read false and unsubstantiated allegations about themselves in an encyclopaedia. Any glance at WP:BLP will show that the overriding consideration of this policy is to avoid exactly this type of situation. I point out that the first of these rumours was removed over two years ago, and perfectly good grounds for the removal were given at the time. Since that time, editors have periodically chosen to insist on the notability and importance of these rumours, but have failed to address the very clear violation of WP:BLP that such inclusion would involve. The first rumour is admitted by all to be false, and is obviously malicious, yet some editors persist in arguing that it should be included. The second rumour is completely unsubstantiated, and has been denied by the subject of the entry, who was clearly unhappy with it, yet editors persist in claiming that this denial itself establishes notability.
• Finally, I note that the version of text being proposed itself tries to sneakily imply that the allegation is true, by making sure to include the part of the quote that indicates the marriage broke up soon after, thus trying to indicate that Gere's statements about his marriage were generally false. No doubt editors will deny that they were or are implying this, but I think such denials, if they occur, are disingenuous. This ability to imply something negative about the subject of an entry by including other negative material is exactly what WP:BLP is designed to avoid. That is why the example of the messy divorce is so spot on. Including details of a messy divorce are a way of implicitly attacking the subject of the entry. Without clear grounds of notability, such things should be excluded. In the case we are dealing with, those messy divorce details are not even substantiated, and no reputable source has asserted the allegations.

Thus, in conclusion, it is indeed clear in my view that both these allegations should be excluded from the entry on WP:BLP grounds. I reiterate WP:BLP: "Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out." FNMF 11:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

FNMF, please read WP:BLP#Public_figures. This is not John Doe vs Jane Doe, but a public figure.

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Misplaced Pages biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. Sparkzilla 11:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The use of the names John and Jane Doe in the example given in WP:BLP is not meant to indicate that they are not public figures. The example is precisely about the messy divorce of a public figure. I am not against the inclusion of negative information about a public figure. I am against the inclusion of false and unsubstantiated malicious and non-notable allegations about a public figure. There is a big difference between "information" and false or unsubstantiated allegations. FNMF 12:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Gere put an ad in a newspaper where he says something about his marriage. Richard Gere later divorced his wife. Are these facts? Yes. Are they notable? Yes. The agenda of any wikipedia editors, any rude statements they may have made, or bad arguements they have made has nothing to do with the answers to these two questions. --Gbleem 12:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I fully understand why this is not a BLP issue. BLP policy, and this noticeboard, aims to prevent Misplaced Pages itself making potentially libelous claims. In other words, BLP policy exists simply to make sure that allegations, claims and facts are properly sourced. That's it. If it's got reliable sources sources then it's not a BLP issue. Sparkzilla 12:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's your summary of WP:BLP, is it? FNMF 12:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the policy is very clear. Please read this again:

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Misplaced Pages biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. Sparkzilla 12:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for cutting-and-pasting that paragraph a second time, however I continue to believe that there are significant aspects of WP:BLP which amount to more than simply "If it's got reliable sources sources then it's not a BLP issue." Let me give you an example. Suppose that an actor puts out a statement that they are not homosexual. Would it then be OK to include the following paragraph in a Misplaced Pages entry about that person?: "Actor X denied rumours that they are homosexual. Actor X lives in Suburb Y. Suburb Y is next door to Suburb Z, which is a known homosexual hangout." It may well be possible to give a verifiable and reliable source for each of these three pieces of information. According to your proposition that "If it's got reliable sources sources then it's not a BLP issue," this would be an acceptable paragraph. But it is not an acceptable paragraph, because the third sentence carries the implication (a) that Actor X is homosexual; (b) that he lives in Suburb Y because it is close to Suburb Z; and (c) that Actor X was lying when he issued his denial. All this is implied, even though each of the sentences is reliably sourced. So it might seem the problem was the inclusion of the third sentence. What could be the problem with this sentence? The answer is: it is not notable. It might be notable in an entry on Suburb Z, but it is not notable in relation to Actor X, even though he lives next door. But the real problem is that the entire paragraph was really only included by an editor who wished to include the denial by Actor X, and who wished to include the denial so that he could mention the original rumour. Something very similar to this is occurring at the Gere entry, as indicated by the very first sentence written in this section, beginning, "Regarding the removal of a few sentences..." FNMF 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's simple matter to rewrite the paragraph to avoid the implication you are so worried about.

In April 1994 the French weekly tabloid Voici said that the marriage was a sham, that Gere "preferred men", that Crawford "played at ambiguity with her female pals" and that their union of convenience was about to end. In May, 1994, Gere and Crawford took a full-page ad out in the London Times, announcing that, 'We are heterosexual and monogamous and take our commitment to each other very seriously. Reports of a divorce are totally false. We remain very married. We both look forward to having a family.' On Dec 1, the couple released a brief statement announcing their separation, calling it a "personal and painful decision". Sparkzilla 13:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This proposed version continues to violate policy, for all the reasons cited in my comments. It contains unsubstantiated malicious allegations made by a sensationalist tabloid, and the entire incident is exactly like the messy divorce example that policy dictates ought not be included. In short, there is nothing notable in any of this (the other cited sources are Entertainment Weekly and People Magazine!). To include this paragraph would be to edit insensitively, contentiously, and non-conservatively, all of which violates WP:BLP. It is also non-encyclopaedic. Furthermore, it still carries the implication you say it is so simple to remove. All this material should be excluded. FNMF 13:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that Entertainment Weekly and People Magazine are reliable sources with editorial oversight. In any case, I looked out another source from The Independent, and I can find many, many more..

As Gbleem points out, please check the Carol Burnett page for another example where a celebrity was accused by a tabloid. On that page, are we not to mention that she was accused of being a drunk, even though that was a false and unsubstantiated rumor?

This is simply not a BLP dispute as Misplaced Pages is not making the claims. It is a content dispute, which means 1) are the sources reliable - YES 2) is there original research (what I think you mean by the implication above) - NO and 3) is there undue weight - NO. The above paragraph is therefore fit for inclusion. Sparkzilla 13:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Carol Burnett example concerns a lawsuit she took out against the malicious allegation made about her. If she had not made that lawsuit, then there would be no grounds for including the allegation. This is a good example: just because the National Enquirer claimed Carol Burnett was a drunk does not make it OK to include that allegation on Misplaced Pages. It is only notable in the context of the lawsuit. So, you might say, what about the Richard Gere ad? Doesn't that establish the notability of the allegation concerning him, then? Not in my opinion. Whereas the Burnett issue is presented in the entry on her as a significant case of a public figure hitting back against defamatory allegations by tabloid newspapers, the Gere issue is being exploited by editors in order to present the allegations, allegations which are unsubstantiated, contentious, and malicious. Whereas Burnett would be unlikely to object to the presentation of her issue, because it is edited sensitively, and because it is really about a lawsuit, Gere would be very likely to object to the inclusion of the unsubstantiated, malicious allegations against him, because such inclusion is insensitive and contentious, and really about the allegations themselves. And he would have every right to object, because such material has no place in an encyclopaedia. The day Gere starts a lawsuit about these allegations, or the day they are confirmed as true, it may become appropriate to make mention of them. Until that day comes, there are no grounds for doing so. FNMF 14:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I compared Gere's ad to the Carol Burnett lawsuit is that both examples involve action by the subject. The ad in the paper was not a lawsuit but it is something Gere himself did do. There is no rumor that Gere purchased the newspaper ad. Gere actually placed the ad. --Gbleem 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you are pointing to the similarities between the Gere and Burnett cases. I am arguing that the differences between these examples are also significant, and, in fact, more significant than the similarities. FNMF 23:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your continued assertion that "biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone". Yes, it does say that here WP:BLP#STYLE, but let's just read the entire section, shall we?

Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.

I added the bold. I sincerely hope that you will stop misrepresenting BLP policy to stop properly sourced negative information to appear on biography pages. Sparkzilla 14:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Sparkzilla: You are not supposed to imply a conclusion by juxtaposing sourced facts in order to get the reader to draw a conclusion. Putting together the rumor that an actor is gay, his statement that he is committed to marriage, and the timing of the divorce is an obvious attempt to lead the reader to conclude that he is gay and lied about wanting to remain married. Just because the article doesn't actually include a statement saying "... and this divorce demonstrates that he lied about his heterosexuality" doesn't mean that it may make the statement by implication. Ken Arromdee 14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ken, I personally don't take such an implication from the paragraph. It's simply FACT 1. FACT 2. Original research would be where I actually said that FACT 1 = FACT 2. In the version written above there is no implication about what caused the breakup. They wrote a letter claiming they were happy and then they broke up. Well, maybe I can think they weren't so happy, but it would be wrong to write that assumption in the article.

Nonetheless, I have already offered to change the paragraph to avoid such an implication. If you or FNMF would like to reword the final sentence or have a suggestion that would mitigate the implication, then feel free to try. Sparkzilla 14:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, as I have already mentioned, I am not against including properly sourced negative information. I am against including false and unsubstantiated malicious allegations. The difference is pretty clear, I would have thought. And now: do you suppose you might attend to the issue of whether inclusion of these allegations is sensitive, conservative, factual, neutral, and encyclopaedic? Because from where I'm sitting, it ain't. Here's my version of the sum total of what should be included about the marriage: "Gere was married to supermodel Cindy Crawford from 1991 to 1995." FNMF 15:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL. That's possibly the stupidest thing I have seen on Misplaced Pages yet. It complete denies the notability of both the Times letter and the accusations that prompted it.

In April 1994 the French weekly tabloid Voici said that the marriage was a sham, that Gere "preferred men", that Crawford "played at ambiguity with her female pals" and that their union of convenience was about to end. In May, 1994, Gere and Crawford took a full-page ad out in the London Times, announcing that, 'We are heterosexual and monogamous and take our commitment to each other very seriously. Reports of a divorce are totally false. We remain very married. We both look forward to having a family.' In the following months it weas claimed that Gere was linked romantically to Uma Thurman and a british model. The couple contined to deny their marriage was in trouble. On Dec 1, the couple released a brief statement announcing their separation, calling it a "personal and painful decision".

This is simply not a BLP issue. Sparkzilla 15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I do deny the notability of these things. I have been doing so for some time now, and it surprises me that you appear to only just have realised this. It seems to me that by your logic Misplaced Pages can print any allegations whatsoever, so long as some tabloid newspaper somewhere in the world printed them first, and so long as they are about somebody famous. I really don't know why you think WP:BLP exists, since you seem to reduce it to nothing more than the policy on verifiability (while throwing out half that policy as well). But since you have again succumbed to the temptation to resort to personal attacks, I shall leave this discussion alone for a while. Clearly there is at present no consensus for inclusion of this material. FNMF 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is tiresome to deal with your narrow interpretation of policy. You simply do not understand why this is not a BLP issue. BLP exists to make sure that all allegations, claims and facts are not attributed to Misplaced Pages, but to external sources. The BLP policy clearly says that negative allegations may be included if they are properly sourced, and even if the subject does not like it.

If the allegations had been printed in a tabloid and forgotten about then they would have no place here. Tabloid allegations deserve no mention in Misplaced Pages as they violate WP:RS and WP:NOTE. But in this case Gere responded to the allegations by placing a full-page ad in The Times. How can that NOT be notable? Then the fact that he had placed such an ad was picked up in many other news outlets (reliable sources), as part of stories on the Gere/Crawford relationship. So we have clear notability and reliable sources.

BTW, the standard of notability on Misplaced Pages is: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This is definitely true of the Times letter.

So far we have two three editors (myself, GBleem, Algabal) who think this is not a BLP issue. I await the comments of other editors who I hope will allow this issue to be decided once and for all. Sparkzilla 15:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have become exhausted of these Gere discussions, but I must say that I feel the fact that Gere took out a full-page ad in response to the rumor automatically qualifies it as both both notable and not in violation of any BLP rules (and as such, not a BLP issue, as Sparkzilla noted). Mr. Gere publicly acknowledged the rumour, the world took notice. The Mt. Sinai rodent rumour is a bit more complex as Gere never directly responded to it, but the Crawford/Gere lavender marriage issue is as straight-forwardly notable as possible. Algabal 16:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Small point, but he didn't take the ad out in response to a "rumor" but in direct response to the article in the French tabloid. Sparkzilla 16:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important for editors to realise that, despite some appearances to the contrary, Sparkzilla is hoping that this debate will be a prelude to re-introducing the false gerbil allegations, as indicated by this very recent edit. FNMF 16:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It has already been determined in a previous RFC that the infamous gerbil story is also not a BLP issue, for the same reasons as this discussion -- Misplaced Pages is not libeling Gere. The issues are whether the urban legend has reliable sources and is notable. That said, this is not the time or place to deal with that issue, or your fearmongering. Let's get consensus on this particular issue first, shall we? Sparkzilla 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Support including the first two sentences about the Gere/Crawford ad, it is described in more than just People (magazine), it is also described in The Independent . Oppose the next two sentences about Uma Thurman/British model, there is nothing special about that, tabloids publish rumours about celebrities being seen dining with each other all the time, notice neither Entertainment Weekly nor The Independent mention those. Oppose including anything about the gerbil - all reliable sources, without exception, call the story false and many call it slander, libel, or worse. --AnonEMouse 17:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, do you accept the following? Could you also say whether you think this text is a BLP issue? Thank you

In April 1994 the French weekly tabloid Voici said that the marriage was a sham, that Gere "preferred men", that Crawford "played at ambiguity with her female pals" and that their union of convenience was about to end. In May, 1994, Gere and Crawford took a full-page ad out in the London Times, announcing that, 'We are heterosexual and monogamous and take our commitment to each other very seriously. Reports of a divorce are totally false. We remain very married. We both look forward to having a family.' On Dec 1, the couple released a brief statement announcing their separation, calling it a "personal and painful decision". Sparkzilla 17:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that The Independent chose not to mention the suggestion of homosexuality, and chose not to include any quotations about preferring men, etcetera. This was clearly a deliberate decision on the part of the newspaper: the article went out of its way not to make any such mention. I wonder why? Perhaps because it is an unsubstantiated and malicious allegation. Thus this newspaper article is definitely not a source supporting inclusion of any statements about Gere's purported homosexuality. FNMF 17:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend

1. "Voici wrote", rather than "said"
2. Avoiding the quote marks. That implies that we are using exact words, and Voici seems to be written in French, which makes it likely we're actually using someone's translation.
3. spelling out and wikilinking December 1 per WP:DATE, and
4. using the The Independent article as an additional source, not just People (magazine) and Entertainment Weekly, to strengthen the case.

Yes, it's certainly a Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons issue, Gere is a living person, and a tabloid calling his marriage a sham is clearly controversial. That doesn't mean we can't write about it, it just means that what we write needs to be rigorously sourced. Three separate magazines, not even counting either Voici or The Times themselves, is sufficiently rigorous.

FNMF's point about the phrasing is a bit of splitting hairs that we can argue a bit and eventually compromise on. Note that EW does mention homosexuality, and The Independent does stress the point about heterosexuality in the ad, that way could be sufficient. Maybe "... wrote that their union was a sham marriage of convenience and about to end" would address that and number 2 above as well. But again, all that is splitting hairs. --AnonEMouse 18:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly I have been wasting my time and energy. Editors of Misplaced Pages are obviously of the opinion that it is legitimate for an encyclopaedia to write that it has been asserted that Richard Gere is homosexual and had a sham marriage to conceal his homosexuality. Editors of Misplaced Pages are happy to write this, even though there is no evidence for the accusation, and no legitimate source has asserted this accusation as true. It is my opinion that there is no sensitive, conservative, non-contentious, non-controversial, neutral, factual way to write about this accusation, and that it should therefore obviously be excluded from the entry. Editors of Misplaced Pages clearly disagree with this analysis. Go for the gold. FNMF 18:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We've got entire articles about far more controversial things with no evidence or legitimate source asserting as true, for example the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the 9/11 conspiracy theories, the Roswell UFO incident, Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, a whole Category:Holocaust denial... This is two sentences about something that Gere himself thought important enough to publish a full page ad about in one of the most influential newspapers in the world. --AnonEMouse 19:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FNMF. - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

None of AnonEMouse's examples are mainly about living people, and when they do touch upon living people (i.e. George Bush in 9/11 conspiracy theories) the accusations form a much smaller proportion of Misplaced Pages's content about that person. Moreover, all those rumors are labelled as rumors and presented in a way that doesn't try to imply that they are true. Ken Arromdee 21:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but not only are the 9/11 conspiracy theories absolutely about living people (whom else are they about?),and the Protocols are used to attack living people in much more serious ways than this. I agree this shouldn't get undue weight, but we're talking about 2 sentences here, while, just to use your example, the length the 9/11 conspiracy theories and George W. Bush articles are far more comparable. Finally, I don't see that we're saying these rumors are true, if we are, we certainly should rephrase so we don't state any opinion. --AnonEMouse 21:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, where is the problem? There are or have been rumours regarding Richard Gere, some of which may have related to his sexuality and therefore the legitimacy of his marriage. WP need not and should not spell these out or perhaps even mention them except Richard Gere himself considered them important enough to take out an ad in a national (and highly respected) newspaper to comment on the state of his marriage. Even if it might be argued that he simply chose a highly unusual (unique, perhaps?) manner in which to state his commitment to his wife - and vice versa - (but then why the statement that they are heterosexual rather than simply faithful?) it is notable enough to be mentioned of itself. It is then, considering the content of the advert, legitimate to provide reasons why Gere/Crawford felt it appropriate to make this announcement by citing legitimate third party references.

In short, Gere has been the subject of rumours. Some of these rumours appear to have questioned the validity of his marriage to Cindy Crawford. Gere/Crawford took the highly unusual step of taking out an advert to comment upon the state of their marriage, in a context that rebutts certain rumours (this is the highly notable event, from which all preceeds and proceeds). Some time after the advert the couple confirmed their intention to end the marriage. Provide references as required by BLP for every part of the above and it is a legitimate part of the article.

WP is does not comment upon the truth of what is written, only that it can be verified by good sources. BLP policy requires absolutely stringent application of this policy. If that is satisfied then it can included. Again, where is the problem? LessHeard vanU 20:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, there is not consensus here. Five editors - yourself, Algabal, Gbleem, AnonEmouse, and LessHeard vanU - believe this should be there. Four editors - FNMF, KenArromdee, Kittybrewster, and myself do not think that this should be in the article. Sinply because one side of the debate posts more does not mean that more people agree with them. Risker 05:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If in doubt, leave it out, and there's clearly doubt in this case. SlimVirgin 06:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Doubt about what exactly? Gere is a public figure so the following text is applicable:

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Misplaced Pages biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

The incident is notable, relevant and well-documented by reliable published sources, therefore according to BLP policy it should go in. Sparkzilla 10:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It really shouldn't matter. It's clearly against the spirit of the BLP policy to use someone's attempt to stop an accusation to justify giving the accusation more press. It should therefore be left out under WP:IAR unless you can find other reasons for notability than the ad. Ken Arromdee 14:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for its notability are that multiple independent secondary sources (The Independent, Entertainment Weekly, People) wrote about it. There are more, in fact: L'Humanite L'Humanite, a couple of published books, , The New York Times , The Biography Channel , BBC News , and of course, The Times itself . That clearly meets our definition of Misplaced Pages:Notability. If following our policies and guidelines like that means we're going to be classed as a tabloid with no higher editorial standards than those cheap rags -- the New York Times, the London Times, the BBC, and the Biography Channel -- I think we will just need to live with it.--AnonEMouse 16:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You can ignore what I said above, where I argued that it shouldn't count as notable--because that doesn't matter. Even if it *is* notable, that doesn't mean we have to include it. Something may be notable and we might still want to leave it out for some reason; there's no rule saying that all facts that are notable must be in the encyclopedia. Ken Arromdee 05:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ken, please give a reason for exclusion of this material then. Thank you. Sparkzilla 06:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How about the fact that it's false, scurrilous, trivial, meaningless, demeaning, insipid and completely valueless. The mere fact that baseless, vile rumours have been circulated about someone means absolutely nothing. It's anonymously-spread gossip that tells us absolutely nothing about the man and his life. It has no place in a brief Misplaced Pages biography. FCYTravis 06:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Having sources is just one part of the equation. Our policies work hand in hand, and above all there is the good judgment of editors in applying these, in particular in BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, EVERY Gere biography mentions the his letter to the Times which was written in reaction to "rumors of homosexuality". What is so special about Misplaced Pages that it should not be mentioned here? Sparkzilla 09:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst engaging in the discussion here, user Sparkzilla attempted to initiate a change of WP:BLP at the WP:BLP talk page. He argued for removal of the requirement to edit BLP entries sensitively, responsibly, and conservatively. One response to this attempt was made by the very experienced Wikipedian WAS_4.250, who headed his response by noting that "Sensitivity is the essence of WP:BLP." I then initiated a discussion with WAS_4.250 at his talk page, in which he made clear that until unbiased and established Wikipedians make clear that no violations of WP:BLP are involved, contentious material should be left out of BLP entries. The discussion can be viewed here. I also note that another very experienced Wikipedian, SlimVirgin, has restored certain parts of WP:BLP that had been altered in the past few days. The restored version is even more clear about the requirements of editing BLP entries. FNMF 05:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What WAS also said was "Whether this is such a case or not should be decided by unbiased well-informed established-wikipedians. I am not well-informed on the issue in question". So far you the consensus here is to keep the material as proposed. Sparkzilla 05:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Multiple users argue this material violates policy and should not be included. There is clearly no consensus to include this material. FNMF 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, it is an argument on evidence. It is still being argued that the interpretation of sensitivity in relation to BLP by some editors overrides general principles of verifiability, notability, and NPOV well established in en-Misplaced Pages. That is why discussions on interpretation of policy are decided by an authority (usually an admin) who records the arguments used and not who or how many people took what view. To say something has or has not reached consensus, if you are a opponent or proponent, is disingenuous. It has not been decided upon. LessHeard vanU 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point there is no consensus to include this material. FNMF 23:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"It is still being argued that the interpretation of sensitivity in relation to BLP by some editors overrides general principles of verifiability, notability, and NPOV well established in en-Misplaced Pages."

I'm sorry, this is utter nonsense. The principles of verifiability, notability, NPOV, etc. say that all material which is included must meet those standards. They do not say that all material which meets those standards must be included; that is backwards. Failing to include something which meets them is not an override of a policy, because the polices do not demand inclusion. Ken Arromdee 04:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To cite the policy in question, Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source." This is clearly an article about a public figure, and information has been published by a number of sources, including ... yes, the New York Times. So it clearly doesn't violate policy. --AnonEMouse 22:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what seems clear to you is not clear to others. Others disagree with you. That is why there is no consensus to include this material. The example you cite from WP:BLP was discussed previously in this discussion. I disagree that the example you cite justifies inclusion of this material. FNMF 22:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed between you and Sparkzilla when the material was sourced much less tightly, before I posted the Times, BBC, Biography channel, and other citations (including the New York Times, itself, of course). It was also discussed when the proposed material was much different then the two sentences currently proposed. It seems hard to argue that the two sentences proposed do not fit almost exactly with the WP:BLP example. If you still honestly believe they do not fit, please make that argument. --AnonEMouse 23:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I continue to hold to the arguments made previously. I do not believe there is any way to include this material in a sensitive, conservative, neutral, factual, responsible, non-contentious and non-controversial way. I believe the other example given in WP:BLP, about a messy divorce, remains relevant, and I re-iterate its message: "Is it notable, verifiable, and important to the article? If not, leave it out." I don't believe this material is notable, nor do I believe it is important to the article. This material is not encyclopaedic. And I continue to reiterate: no credible source asserts the allegation about Gere's marriage as true. There may be verifiable sources that the allegation exists. But there are no verifiable sources prepared to assert the allegation as true. Finally, I do not believe I need to keep repeating these arguments. I have made my case at length, and in detail. Some editors continue to disagree with me, while others agree. When disagreeing editors have been confronted with the reality of WP:BLP, they have attempted to change WP:BLP. But that policy remains in force as is, with a strong consensus of support. I agree with the very experienced user WAS_4.250 that sensitivity is the essence of BLP, and I believe, along with a number of other editors, that it is important for users to uphold WP:BLP in order to protect the integrity of Misplaced Pages as an encyclopaedia. This leaves us, as far as I can see, at the following point: when a number of unbiased and established Wikipedians make clear that no policy violations are entailed by including this material, then the material may be included. That has not occurred. FNMF 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, let's see what kind of compromise we can reach, then. I hope you agree that sufficient credible sources devote column space to Gere's placing the ad, yes? --AnonEMouse 14:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The ad is neither notable nor important to the article. The details of the Gere-Crawford marriage are neither notable nor important to the article. Including mention of this ad seems to me to be nothing more than an attempt to refer, directly or indirectly, to the unsubstantiated and malicious allegations that prompted the ad. There are no grounds to refer to these unsubstantiated and malicious allegations which no credible source has asserted as true. Inclusion of this material is utterly unencyclopaedic. I refer again to the very relevant example from WP:BLP concerning the messy divorce: "Is it notable, verifiable, and important to the article? If not, leave it out." Leave it out. FNMF 14:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Then it sounds like you're not interested in reaching any genuine agreement. The people at Biography.com, who may be considered to know a few things about biographies, considered it important enough to their article. The people at the New York Times, the Times of London, and the BBC, who are generally considered to know a few things about what is good journalism, considered it more than unsubstantiated and malicious allegations. The people at The Independent, Entertainment Weekly, and People Magazine ... but I don't need to go on. It seems your standards for "notable, verifiable, and important to the article" differ from all of those. I humbly submit that also means your standards are different from those of the Misplaced Pages.

What's more, it seems your goals and methods in this discussion are different from those the Misplaced Pages tries to use. We're supposed to be here to discuss, compromise, listen to each others' arguments, and reach a genuine consensus that reflects our policies, and your response does not show that you are interested in any of that, merely to keep repeating your point no matter what anyone else says, and believe that if you never compromise, you will "win". That's not what we do here. --AnonEMouse 15:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

He has already stated that he is not interested in consensus, and has said "Please feel free to open an RfC. Please note, however, that a vote cannot make it OK to blatantly violate WP:BLP. Only a change of policy could make it OK to include false and unsubstantiated malicious and non-notable allegations on the pages of Misplaced Pages".

Even if we took this to WP:Note I am sure FNMF would claim that BLP policy requires that we not include the material, as we would have to edit sensitively and conservatively hence the discussion of policy on the ]. Sparkzilla 15:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To AnonEMouse and Sparkzilla: Please stop uncivilly characterising my attitude as a refusal to find consensus, or as a refusal to find agreement. Just because you continue to disagree with my position does not mean I am refusing to find agreement. There is no requirement for me to agree with you, no more than there is a requirement for you to agree with me. That said, I must make it very clear: my standards are not at all different from Misplaced Pages's. Misplaced Pages's standards for notability are not borrowed from People Magazine nor from Entertainment Weekly, nor even from any newspaper. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper, and operates according to the standards of an encyclopaedia. That material included in newspapers is a source of information is undeniable, but that does not mean Misplaced Pages uses the same standard to determine what to include. Do you know of any encyclopaedias that include this contentious material? That might be a good place to start if you wish to argue this material is encyclopaedic. Your frustration at my failure to agree with you may be understandable, but that does not mean I have not listened to others' arguments or refused to discuss. I have discussed this issue at extreme length, responded to arguments at length, and made a great effort at explanation, for no other reason than to defend Misplaced Pages from policy violations I saw taking place. I note further that Sparkzilla has taken this issue from the talk page, to the Jimbo Wales talk page, to this BLP noticeboard, to the WP:BLP talk page, and back to here, moving on from one forum to the next whenever the obstacles to his position appear too great. All of these changes of forum were initiated by him. Rather than myself being unprepared to accept a decision, it is clear that Sparkzilla will not accept what is the clear conclusion of all this effort: that there is no consensus to include this material. I and others do not accept the arguments for inclusion that have been put. I may have been more prepared than most to articulate at length why I am not persuaded to include this material, but do not forget the positions of Risker, Kittybrewster, Ken Arromdee, SlimVirgin, FCYTravis, and Jossi, all of whom have agreed that there is no consensus for inclusion of this material. That is a total of seven editors. Good faith editors ought to be able to admit that at present there is no consensus to include this material. FNMF 17:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A Misplaced Pages:Request for comments has been opened on this issue at Talk:Richard_Gere#Request_for_comments. --AnonEMouse 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Again with the arbitrary definitions! Now you're onto "unencyclopedic". Misplaced Pages would be a fraction of the size if it had the standards of a print encyclopedia - are we to remove everything from Misplaced Pages that is not also mentioned in Encyclopedia Brittanica?

This proves without a doubt that you do not understand how Misplaced Pages works. Look at the botom of the text input box: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" not "Verifiable content must be encyclopedic". The standard of what is encyclopedic in Misplaced Pages is notability and verifiability. We dont make an arbitrary standard of what is encyclopedic first, and then remove items that are notable and verifiable because they don't match our definition. We don't make an arbitrary standard of sensitivity and then delete items that don't match. We look at the sources, and if they are verifiable and reliable, and match other policies then the item goes in.

The material is mentioned in multiple Gere biographies. It was a major notable event in his life. It is notable, relevant and cited in multiple sources. It is encyclopedic by definition. Sparkzilla 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

FMNF: There is one thing that I have seen in open source software that I have seen very little of in relation to Misplaced Pages. That is forking. There are some forks out there but not enough. You obviously have the drive. Get some space on a server and get out there and fork Misplaced Pages. --Gbleem 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In re gossip. rumours and urban legends and whatever encyclopedic import they may be alleged to have:

"…in 1972 it was calculated by the Paris publication France Dimanche, after an analysis of its cuttings file on the British royal family, that there had been published in France in the previous fourteen years 63 reports of Elizabeth II's abdication, 73 reports of her divorce from Prince Philip, 115 reports of royal quarrels with Lord Snowdon, 17 reports of rudeness to gossip column monarchs like Princess Grace of Monaco, and 92 reports of Elizabeth II being pregnant." — From Majesty, a 1977 biography by Robert Lacey; pp. 286-287, footnote.

It would be more appropriate if enthusiasts of gossip, rumours and urban legends confined their editing to articles specifically about those phenomena rather than cluttering biographies with them. — Athaenara ✉ 00:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul Shanklin Template:Blpwatch-links

• Paul Shanklin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Conservative satirist, long time Rush Limbaugh show performer. Brand new blurb added that appears to be trying to stir up a Don Imus style controversy. Only sourcing appears to be a blog-site, so this appears to be a violation, at the least for sourcing. Looking for an independant eye or two on this. I'm a little close to this, being a long time Shanklin fan so I may be biased against negative information. OTOH, this does sound like the kind of thing Shanklin would do, as his satire has always been fairly biting. // TexasAndroid 15:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Hell Template:Blpwatch-links

Can someone BLP check this please and sort any issues out. Thanks in advance. – Steel 15:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Derek Smart Template:Blpwatch-links

See Talk:Derek Smart - Mr Smart is upset enough at this page to be waving around legal threats. But, whatever his legal position may or may not be, he seems to warrant an article, and it's the right and encyclopedic thing to do to make very sure this page is written to the best of Misplaced Pages standards. Please go all BLP-feral on it - David Gerard 16:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Zao xing yang Template:Blpwatch-links

• Zao xing yang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unsourced accusations of criminal conduct committed by only what could be argued is a notable person. Corvus cornix 22:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Blatant lack of neutrality - Michael Smith, Jr.

The stub offered on Father Michael Smith, Jr.] appears to me to be horribly biased. Perhaps someone could take a look and make the proper emendations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cestsura (talk • contribs) 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

I recommend speedy afd because of lack of sources. - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've stubbified it. No opinion on its AfD. Tom Harrison 13:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It was unstubbed and lots of claims re-added without sources. I've reverted. Corvus cornix 20:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

List of alleged al-Qaeda members Template:Blpwatch-links

List of alleged al-Qaeda members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - invalid information is being added by IP 85.92.186.68 (talk · contribs) . After I removed the name after it appeared on the article for 20 days, it was readded within 30 minutes by a similiar IP to who added it the first time. Then, after remaining on the article for about 20 hours, it was removed by someone else but was readded 4 minutes later. I have removed it again, but the IP has been warned (final BLP2 warn after the second installment) and has continued. I'm concerned that the IP can/knows how to change their IP so semi-protection may be appropriate. This is related to OTRS . I think the IP should be blocked, but the page should remain monitored.

Initial adding:

Second adding:

Third adding:

The name being added is a living person who isn't notable and doesn't have an article. Justification for semi-protection is this article is ripe for abuse for cases like this. Installment of any name on this list that isn't factual (let alone there is only 1 source on the list that I haven't checked out for fear of the FBI) could cause major problems, especially for a notable person (could you imagine a B-list celebrity on the list that goes under the radar for months? anyone really famous that's added would likely be quickly removed). Further, this may be deleted. Is being an "al-Queda member" notable? Perhaps, but do we need a list of them? Not really IMHO, but that's a matter for another time. MECU≈talk 13:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Dirk Nowitzki

The entire page keeps being deleted. Can someone please watch over it? 75.32.83.41 04:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore III Template:Blpwatch-links

• Getaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Getaway is a blatant POV pusher who has been inserting irrelevant tabloid-type information into the Al Gore III article for months on end in a long term edit war. Since there is extremely little information available about Al Gore III (as he is not a public figure) this gives the article a very negative bias in violation of the BLP and NPOV policies. I have been extremely lenient with this editor, allowing him to include Gore III's entire adult criminal record in the article. I have drawn the line, however, at including information about Gore III being suspending from high school when he was 13 for smoking marajuana. Although this fact can be sourced, it violates a reasonable expectation of privacy for a non-public figure and it is certainly not encyclopedic. Every time I remove this information, Getaway attempts to initiate a voluminous debate with me extemporizing his unique interpretations of our policies and whining about how other editors do the same thing in other articles. Getaway also commonly trolls Al Gore III's talk page where he is not shy about expressing his POV concerning "Gorebot Junior" (as he refers to the article's subject). As you can see from Getaway's talk page, he has been blocked a few times already for 3RR and POV pushing. I would really appreciate it if another admin would back me up on my warnings about the Al Gore III article, as I'm sick of trying to debate the nuances of BLP policy with someone who is basically acting as a troll. // Kaldari 15:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess calling someone a "troll" is ok? I do not believe that language conforms with the rules of WP:CIVIL. Please do not call me a "troll" and I have been making reasonable arguments for the inclusion. Also, several other editors have agreed that the Gore III is a public figure. There have been five or six votes on that issue and the votes every time come out positive for Gore III being included as a topic of Misplaced Pages. Have a good day.--Getaway 19:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

the Wikipedian rules on personal attacks states: The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Misplaced Pages encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. My comment is: Clearly these rules apply to admins as well as regular Misplaced Pages users.--Getaway 20:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone farther than that. We don't have article sections called "Infractions of the law." That's unbiographical, nonsensical and completely lacking in context. How in God's name is a citation for reckless driving encyclopedic? Misplaced Pages is not a scandal sheet. FCYTravis 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice Getaway's hoary, flimsy device of using a red herring argument to avoid addressing the argument. Kaldari is right. Getaway (formerly banned user "Keetoowah") is a blatant POV pusher, who has never made a "reasonable argument" for the unduly-weighted POV he wishes spread on the Al Gore III page. Getaway/Keetoowah seems to enjoy libelling the children of Democratic politicians, while removing any remotely negative information from the children of Republican politicians. (Contrast his edits on the Bush twins' pages with those he made on the Al Gore III page.) What a hypocrite. And, yes, Getaway/Keetoowah's actions are those of a troll. Eleemosynary 01:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tucker Max Template:Blpwatch-links

Recently, edits have been made to the Tucker Max entry which violate the Misplaced Pages standards against slander and libel and are entirely unsourced, unverifiable information. These have mainly been made by the user Antiscian and anonymous editors.

Generally speaking, the whole article has devolved into a slander-fest with little or no NPOV content. Most NPOV immediately information is removed and the focus remains on making unsourced, or marginally verifiable negative comments about the subject. At one time, the article had a fairly decent mix of neutral, balanced information, but over the past few months, that has been shaved away. It's best summed up on the talk page.

In the interest of full disclosure: I am the IT Director for Rudius Media, Tucker Max's company. However, I think that it can be objectively said that the article as it is written (especially with the recent edits) is decidedly NPOV and definitely violates the BLP policies. It's certainly not encyclopedic. If this article is ever to resemble a quality entry, it's going to require some monitoring and perhaps even some protection. --ljheidel 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administration
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution