Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:39, 15 March 2009

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

• 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
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• 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 concerns

Archived Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing BLP concerns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons:

Lily Allen

Lily Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Subject spotted that Misplaced Pages article contains inaccurate (and libelous) information during interview with New York Times - This Wild Girl’s a Homebody Now - New York Times 4 February, 2008 and instead of removing them, Misplaced Pages editor/s make a feature of them.

Material added by editor User:Edkollin . I removed them - . Editor Edkollin replaces them .

I wonder if this requires oversight, although its out there in the New York Times - depends upon Wikipedias definition of morality I suppose. In the face of denials from Allen, this looks like a repeated libel to me. The rest of the article may need examining by BLP experts in the light of this. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

James B. Lockhart III

James B. Lockhart III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One or more editors from the IP range 141.156.72.xxx have made numerous changes to the page (see diff).

The edits are disruptive not only to the substance (removing relevant, well-sourced, NPOV information, replacing it with redundant recitations of the subject's official bio--political spin and all), but also in form (removing internal links and citations).

This IP range appears to be registered to HUD, raising obvious NPOV and COI issues (not to mention inappropriate use of taxpayer money).

DGG (talk) semiprotected the page against anonymous edits.

Cooperage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user twice (this time and this time) reverted addition of relevant, properly sourced material. (Since, as of this notice, that user hasn't made any additional changes since the last week of December 2008, I am not requesting a checkuser at this time.)

Aristide Von Bienefeldt

This biography is complete bollocks. No such writer, no novels. Aristide Von Bienefeldt

Deceased Wikipedians

Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians

I know, they're dead (allegedly) and it isn't an article, but the issues involved overlap with BLP so I'm coming here.

In a recent MfD of this page where the danger of fabrication was a concern (vs the unencyclopedic nature of the page) the consensus seemed to be "keep, but insist on sourcing". Unfortunately, those maintaining the page don't seem to care much about WP:V or the spirit of WP:BLP insisting that internal stuff and unverified e-mails will do as it is not an article.

I have repeatedly removed an entry on Emil Petkov which has a discussion (in Bulgarian) on a wikipage as its sole verification, but I'm being reverted by people insisting that that's sufficient verification. This page is wide open to the possibility of a damaging and hurtful fraud, as it names real-life individuals who happen to be (allegedly) wikipedians, assistance on maintaining this page would be helpful. I'd particularly invite people to check the verification of all other entries, and help me insit that any without hard verifiable corroboration are removed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue has no relevance to BLP, since the "Emil Petkov" is a wikipedia account which asserts no actual person. Also, Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians is not a wikipedia article, the policy WP:V is not applicable in all its rigor, it is is a wikipedia community page, and verification withiun wikipedian's community is reasonable enough. I don't believe that a group of respected Bulgarian wikipedians would conspire to propagate a hoax. While I respect the concerns of Scott MacDonald, we are not talking about random vandals here. We are talking about a sizable community of bulgarian wikipedians who remember and respect and commemorate their notable contributor. The probability of hoax is extremely low in this case: WP:AGF trumps. - 7-bubёn >t 19:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that a group of respected Bulgarian wikipedians would conspire to propagate a hoax I didn't believe somebody would post that in response to another editors concern. Oh well. --Tom 19:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on the issue, not on me. My points are: (1)WP:V is not 100% applicable to wikipedia community pages and (2) WP:BLP is not applicable to internet accounts: I can register as user:Madonna, who will sue me? - 7-bubёn >t 19:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Internet accounts are beside the point. This page does not say "the owner of User:Madonna is said to be dead" it says "Joe Smith, who edited as User:Madonna, is dead". We are using a page to make statements about real world people, and we need some level of reliable real world sources for that. I'm afraid AGF will not do here. Our prevention against fraud or misstatement is not AGF but that other users can check was is said on the page. No, this is not an article, indeed it is not encyclopedic at all, but that would be an argument for deleting it if we can't ensure basic quality control, not for keeping all unverified claims.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I respect Scott concern, but please keep in mind that most of wikipedians are not celebrities so that their deaths are reported in NY Times. The verifiability rules for discussing of wikipedians in wikipedia pages must be relaxed. If not, we may delete 75% entries from this page, and in completely miss the purpose of this page. Al alternative would be to remove references to real names and use more cautionary phrasing about the external world. - 7-bubёn >t 20:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the entries are verified. And "relax" cannot equal unsourced. If we can't verify stuff, we should remove it. The same "this is not an encyclopedia entry" rational can lead to the conclusion "thus the information is unnecessary".--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that there are different levels of necessary verification. If we are speaking exclusivety within "wikipedia universe", verification coming from a reasonable consensus of wikipedians, whoi claim that they received info from relatives, should be OK. - 7-bubёn >t 22:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You're saying you trust Wikipedians? Do you trust used car salesmen too? --NE2 22:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I trust wikipedians. You have problems with that? Precisely because we trust wikipedians' consensus in nearly all wikipedia-internal issues wikipedia works. - 7-bubёn >t 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment that this is an internal matter, we don't expect a notice in the NYTimes that picture abc has been released by xyz under CC - a simple email to ORTS will do. Similarly an internal process to verify the identities and status of the claimed deceased can be processed internally. If I get run over by a bus tomorrow my wife could email a checkuser with the account of my demise. He simply can check the IP data with my account and verify the source. It would be extremly unlikely that an the local paper would refer to my wikipedia account but with the above email the link to the news story can be made. OK not WP:RS rather WP:OR but this is not an article. Agathoclea (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few people who think quite strongly that death of wikipedians is an internal matter of high notability and irrelevant to all other wikipedia policies: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam. Laudak (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop flogging the dead horse Laudak. That debate just got WP:SNOWball kept because you clearly can't understand that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL refers to the article space as do our WP:V and WP:N policies. If we start requiring verifiable information from reliable sources for userspace then I guess 99.999% of user pages are gone. That'll really keep the volunteers of this project happy I'm sure... Pedro :  Chat  22:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an outrageous personal attack, but I will ignore it. I find it ridiculous how a dead person can edit his user page for years. :-) (a morose and tasteless joke, I agree). Misplaced Pages user pages are for working on wikipedia. Once you start putting real-word information into user pages, where is the boundary between wikipedia and free hosting service for wikipedian's cliques, hobby circles, friend networks, etc.? Laudak (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP:NPA seems on a par with your understanding of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Pedro :  Chat  23:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop escalating personal insults. Laudak (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read policies and guidelines before citing them. Pedro :  Chat  23:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, tasteless indeed, so why write it? The boundary is quite easy, use common sense! Garion96 (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Common sense" is to be involved only in borderline, shadow cases, and only when no one objects. My common sense is in an obvious disagreement with the one of User:Pedro, and I refuse to accept that he has sense more common than mine. In other words, common sense cannot supersede community consensus, and this section is an attempt to resolve the issue, so that we would not rely on some iindividual common sense, which otherwise is called "iLikeIt". Laudak (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You will no doubt now provide the link in which I have refernced "common sense" - for example in the closing of the above MFD - otherwise I can't see why you single me out. Stump up the verifiable evidence you seem so keen on Laudak.Pedro :  Chat  23:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Common sense" item refers to the remark of Garion96, please pay attention to talk threading. I am singling you out only for your quite derisive tone. Please tone down both on insults and irony. If you want me to provide a link, please say it plainly, without snickering. Yes I am keen on "verifiable evidence" and proud of that. If you look into my user page you will see quite a few seemingly nonsense articles I created, such as or "cigarette case" or "cigar box", nevertheless based on "verifiable evidence" Laudak (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I want you to provide a link where I have referenced common sense. Is that clear enough? If you cannot supply the link will you redact your comments? Pedro :  Chat  00:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Scott has a point that we can't label "Mr XYZ" who edited as "User:ABC" as dead without some support. But equally I can't see our WP:OR and WP:RS mainspace policies apply so strictly. Surely best endeavour is sufficent here? Has anyone actually contacted Mike Godwin or the WMF about this? In the example above of Jeffpw we had confirmation via Checkuser and personal email from several long standing editors. It wouldn't stand up to mainspace I agree but so what? If I state on my user page what I do for a living, what my religion is and how may kids I have must I add a good reference? Pedro :  Chat  23:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In your user page you may state all what you want about you, within reasonable bounds outlined in WP:USER. Laudak (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Laudak, I know I'm starting to sound like a stuck record, but I really would appreciate it if you read some stuff before commenting. Your inexperience is not helping you. No-one "owns" their userpage or any subspace. Anyone can contribute to it. Good manners says we don't edit another editors user pages but that's it. Jeffpw died - and this was verified by evidence frankly more reliable than a great many "reliable sources" we use for mainspace BLP stuff. But it was Original Research within a Misplaced Pages context. So, some simple facts;

• (1) The user who edited as Jeffpw died
• (2) This death was confirmed to a verifiable standard arguably far higher than many other "sources" we regularly use
• (3) No-one "owns" their user space
• (4) Any editor not specifically banned or under editing restrictions may edit anywhere except for protected areas (such as the WM interface)
• (5) There is no policy prohibiting memorial pages that are not in the article namespace
• (6) You can't libel the dead

So you point is what, exactly? Pedro :  Chat  00:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, I am tired to pointing out our blatant disrespect. I will no longer tolerate it. This is my last answer.

• (1) Assume you are right.
• (2) then please provide the requested reference without revert warring
• (3) Where did I say otherwise?
• (4) Yes they may, as long as it contributes the overall task of creating wikipedia, which is specifically explained in policies about talk pages. In your user page you are allowed to put reasonable personal information, to the extent it profits the goals of wikipedia. For example, you cannot advertise your products or post galleries of your girlfriends there, you cannot post essays about your family descending from Capetings, etc.
• (5) Did I say otherwise? Misplaced Pages does not have policies for every mouseclick. That's why we all are talking in all these policy-related talk pages.
• (6) Oh yes you can, and you can be sued your pants off.

Good bye, I see no further sense in bickering with a person who likes to speak from the position of superiority and disrespect. Let some other people speak to the core topic. Laudak (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, well my post above part agreeing with Scott was trying to get this back on track. And in answer to 6. No, you're wrong. Pedro :  Chat  00:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(6) He-he, actually you have to remember that (a) USA is not the whole world and (b) google is your best friend (after wikipedia of course :-). Correct answer: it depends. - 7-bubёn >t 01:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Please stop with the "you can't libel the dead" crap. Maybe you can't, but that's beside the point. There are two problems here: 1) if the entry is unverified then the fact that the real-life person has died is unverified, so you may be talking about the living. Secondly, libel is not the only concern - embarrassing a real person, causing stress, etc to them or their families are also part of "do no harm".--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I wasn't aware of this page and I'm not sure its entirely appropriate for Misplaced Pages, precisely because of the verifiability issues. The whole way WP works is that online identities cannot normally be (reliably) connected with offline identities. Obviously there will be exceptions, eg WP:RS claims that X edited as User Y; and parts of the community may for various reasons be certain that User Y is person X. That still leaves an uncomfortable verifiability gap for a key B(x)LP issue, for a WP project page which serves no purpose in furthering the aims of the project (unless anyone wants to claim it is a sort of Hall of Fame which people want to get on when they die...). (In fact isn't it possible that people will be added to it who actively didn't want their offline/online identity publicised?) I'd say ditch the page, or failing that, err on the side of caution, qualifying all claims that aren't pretty rock-solid WP:RS-sourced. Rd232 13:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  Plus, how many readers coming across the page will fully understand the meaning of the fact that it's not an article? Most will de facto treat it as if it is. Rd232 13:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the people who previously brought Deceased Wikipedians up for a MfD--where the community decided to keep Deceased Wikipedians--now bring this issue up here without informing people about this discussion. This is not an issue for BLP. As it states on the page, people have to provide information referenced info about the deceased individuals. This page is an important part of the Misplaced Pages community.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Speak of the devil --- and he appears. I did nominate JeffPW and Deceased Wikipedians for deletion. Again, Per WP:NOT which explicity states Misplaced Pages is not a memorial. I got a rapid (5 minute) closure on both nominations and a 3rr notice on my page for contesting. I haven't re-nominated either page because it's clear to me that the community wishes to keep both pages, despite both being against policy. Hey, I respect the consensus and will abide. However, I will suggest that the community then change the line or lines in WP:NOT#MEMORIAL to reflect this consensus. That way, this never happens again. It will be a matter of policy and therefore, beyond refute for anyone. As it stands now, it is now. — Kosh _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} 18:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Emil Petkov definitely was a real and very respected editor in the Bulgarian Misplaced Pages who died some time ago. I hereby testify that this is not a hoax. -- Григор Гачев (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela Information Office

Venezuela Information Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Should a section listing an organisation's former employees be included, apparently motivated by their failure to disclose their connection with organisation? No notable activity on behalf of the organisation is included, merely the association. Rd232 23:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

From looking at the article, I would argue towards a middle ground. It seems like it would be useful to name directors and otherwise-notable figures, but I don't see a good reason to name otherwise un-notable figures unless grounds for their inclusion are established. I would also suggest that the employees section be moved after the platform, as the article is about the platform and not the people, I presume. Awickert (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

More specifically: I would suggest that Michael Shellenberger be retained, as he is a relatively high-profile figure in his own right. The director should also be retained as it seems to be of relevance to the organization. I'm not sure if the inclusion of the others is necessary, unless (as per above) they can be shown as notable (either to the organization or in their own right). Awickert (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

But Shellenberger isn't and never was an employee of VIO (his company was contracted to do a poll and some unspecified lobbying) and is notable for completely unrelated reasons. See Talk:Michael Shellenberger. Rd232 13:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There have been similar BLP problems in other articles: Michael Shellenberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Mark Weisbrot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Center for Economic and Policy Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JRSP (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So my thought about retaining Shellenberger was that, assuming his employment (or contracting, or whatever) was important to the VIO, he has enough of a general background for it to be important. This is on the lines that if Michael Jordan advocated for something, it would be notable because he is notable. Rd232 takes the other side: that his association to the organization is unimportant (which Mr. Shellenberger himself seems to think). From reading the article and the Shellenberger source, clearly the recall election was important to Venezuela, and so if perhaps more information about the VIO and the recall election were added, Shellenberger's name should be there as a government-sponsored public relations and polling consultant. That might be the better way to do all of the names, in fact, to include them in more info about the VIO instead of just creating a laundry list that some editors find questionable. Awickert (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to add more actual info, and scrubbed the names of past employees and lobbyists as non-notable/unencyclopedic (among other issues). Rd232 19:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also it is worth noting, to those not aware, that User:Alekboyd has very strong opinions on this specific subject (eg here and / (looking almost like a vendetta against VIO lobbyists) and (latter two domains both registered to alekboyd) - frankly if this were a court I'd ask him to recuse himself as I have doubts about his ability to fully respect WP:NPOV on this topic, but as it is, perhaps he could try and ease off a bit; Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and nor is it an extension of any editors' blogs. Rd232 19:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia had been involved resolving a similar (and perhaps the identical) dispute in this article when there was edit-warring going on between pro- and anti-Chavez editors, and perhaps someone should get that user involved. My sense is that User:Alekboyd is a bit aggressive in his characterization of sourced materials, something I've warned him about repeatedly, and that the pro-Chavez editors are also a bit over-aggressive in removing material that is sourced. THF (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Awickert (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the Michael Jordan example, not everything that a notable person does is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article, WP:WELLKNOWN is clear about that; there have been precedents like the Jenna Bush article where a verified information was left out because it was considered to be not relevant to the subject's notability. In the cases in discussion, I have noticed also inclusion of information not explicitly mentioned in sources and interpretation of primary sources. Another problem is undue weight, we cannot just pick an individual mentioned in a small paragraph in an article dealing about other thing and claim that this is a notable information about this individual. JRSP (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - I didn't realize the precedent against notable-person-everything-notable. I do still think that even if a laundry list of names is objectionable, it may work if it is incorporated into the article in a way that talks about what they do and makes it notable. I've also asked Alekboyd on his talk page to comment here about his justification for their inclusion, hopefully that will help. Awickert (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Those names are important for more often than not those people would write letter to editors, opeds or articles, under the guise of independent, uninterested readers, when in fact all falls within the remit of VIO's campaigns. Take Naiman and Wingerter: Naiman writes for the Huff Post, together with another Chavez apologist, in one article he mentions (casually?) that an excellent source of news on Venezuela has just come to being, that is Wingerter's BOREV.NET. Neither would say that they were employees of the Venezuelan regime and people who have not followed their activism would think "oh my gosh, what a wonderful tip!" As per Shellenberger: what made him notorious? How can it possibly be alleged that information about an environmentalist, whose services were contracted by a petrostate, and who sort of made it with the publication of a certain paper, published while he was under contract with the government of Venezuela, is not relevant, while all the while ignoring perfectly reliable sources that prove the point? --Alekboyd (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the allegedly misleading quote about Shellenberger was made by User:THF not by me. --Alekboyd (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We can't add information about living persons with the specific purpose of undermining their credibility. Whether true or not, whether verifiable or not; this kind of information must be notable and carefully sourced to comply with the BLP policy. Also, these people are presented as "employees of the Venezuelan government" but working (or having worked) for an organization does not necessarily imply you're an employee; for instance, we are not "wikipedia employees". We can't add information to insinuate that everything these persons do has been commissioned by the Venezuelan government. Regarding your question of "How can it possibly be alleged that information about an environmentalist, ... ", I will repeat it again: unless the notability of this information is assessed by multiple reliable secondary sources, it does not belong in wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia: we try to condense notable verifiable information that has already been presented somewhere else, this is not a place to expose original ideas or to "prove a point". JRSP (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose the issue is settled with the help of third parties. Until then, and given User:JRSP odd understanding of what is an employee, I am reverting changes made.--Alekboyd (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That is what is being done. However your insistence that *your* version is public whilst this happens (when you're in a minority of one, as far as I can see) strains my ability to WP:AGF. Ouch, managing it but it hurts. Rd232 22:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, you continue to fail to argue how a list of past employees is encyclopedic. It isn't (and NB the one employee listed as current in the disputed isn't), as others here have basically agreed, unless (as I said before) their activities are notable. We do not list on Misplaced Pages all past employees for every business and institution, and you're only argument for VIO being an exception (they tried to hide it) though your ability to source the employment to WP:RS standards puts that in some doubt, but anyway) is invalid. Rd232 22:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So I've established that I don't know as much about precedents and soforth for politics/biography, but how about this as an idea. Alekboyd could create a third party website that lists folks associated with VIO, well-sourced, and place that website under the "external links".

Also, looking at the article for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental NGO (so somewhat similar in terms of being an organization with an agenda), the president and directors are listed; therefore, I think the VIO article should keep the director (and perhaps past directors?). Interestingly (and completely unknown to me), Venezuela and Citgo and Chavez are mentioned there as well with respect to the Kennedys, and not cited, so I'm going to hunt for a citation and delete if I don't find it. Awickert (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, couldn't find any source, removed. Although, Robert Kennedy is still mentioned there, and though he is a larger public figure than Shellenberger, it seems to be a parallel to Shellenberger's inclusion, provided Shellenberger did things for the VIO equal in magnitude to what Kennedy did for the NRDC. Awickert (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK so we have two users User:Rd232 and User:JRSP reverting all my edits without further ado, and threatening with WP:3RR. Opinion from third parties, neither me nor users mentioned qualify, is required to reach consensus. Until the issue is resolved the version that should be published is the one previously existent, to which users User:SandyGeorgia, User:THF and User:Awickert contributed. Notability of information has been established by various mentions in WP:RS compliant sources.--Alekboyd (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Reverting all my edits" - nonsense. You revert to your preferred version, without sufficient discussion, even though you're in a minority of one (so far). Again (been said several times before) in BLP cases caution applies and that also tilts the decision as to which version should be public at the moment, temporarily. (Of course, since no-one has agreed with you yet, you might consider whether a consensus hasn't already been reached, with you on the wrong side.) As to "threatening with WP:3RR", LMAO, you can't threaten with WP:3RR, it's just a hazard to watch out for. Rd232 15:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the idea of creating a third party website and placing it under "external links": That won't work, see WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided and WP:EL#In biographies of living people; also if that site were created by an editor we could have a case of WP:COI. Now, to sort things out, we could try to separate different cases; for instance, we could start with the two persons listed as "past employees". Who supports removing this from the article? JRSP (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither the directors nor the employees seem to be notable qua employees of VIO (I see no WP:RS of them doing anything notable) but it is not unusual for current directors to be listed in WP. However we don't know who the current one is (according to this the one supposed to be current isn't any more). And AFAIK listing past employees and directors is rather less usual on WP; they are mentioned only if there is something substantial to say about notable activities for the organisation. In other words, there needs to be prose about (notable) things they did qua employees, not merely a list. Rd232 16:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As I stated the same above, I agree with you that employees would be better-mentioned in context of their notable deeds with VIO. It seems that Alekboyd's main point is to show that these people who write "under the guise of independent, uninterested readers" have a bias by connecting them to their past employment. That seems to be fair enough to me, but in looking at other lobbying agencies, their inclusion in VIO does seem to go against the status quo. So my question is: is there room or precedent, anywhere on Misplaced Pages, for the inclusion of the bias of otherwise not-well-known writers of (I assume) apparently impartial reports and dubiously impartial articles and letters? Awickert (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It may seem "fair enough" to you, but it would breach multiple WP policies. To answer your question - there may be precedents somewhere, Misplaced Pages being as large and messy as it is, which is why precedents are used to inform policy, and in practice we rely on policy. The minimum for inclusion of these specific allegations would be a reliable source talking about this as a specific issue for VIO. Other evidence for these would be original research (possibly through WP:SYNTHESIS). And to include the names without being able to verify the allegations would clearly be inappropriate if the allegations are the justification given. However that justification is suspect: Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or a tool to right alleged wrongs. It is an encyclopedia. Rd232 18:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - so with that, I rest my case, and say that the best approach would be to retain the name of the director, retain the names of the agencies (as in the current version) with which said individuals were involved, and to return the names of the individuals if/when there is enough information in the article about their activities with the VIO, corroborated with sources, to warrant their inclusion. Does that sound OK to everyone? Sorry about how long it took me to get here, and thanks for your patience in explaining the Misplaced Pages policies around BLP. Awickert (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Several articles

213.46.9.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This user has been warned twice about adding unverified material to articles. They have edited several articles substantially changing facts, or adding potentially libellous material. The IPs edits span over 30 articles, and I'm requesting a joint effort to undo thier work, and a temporary block. -ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 07:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hayley Williams

This article has received a fair amount of IP attention trying to add that Ms. Williams is dating Chad Gilbert, a drummer from some band. The additions seem to be coming from IPs of various geolocations, and are absolutely never sourced properly. Only two editors and myself are present to remove and fix this assertion, which has been brought up on the talk page but is never discussed by the said editors. I would request semi-protection of the article for a set period of time, or at least some eyes on this article, as I'm tired of coming back after a 3 day break and having to fix vandalism over the entire period. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 1 week. In the future please keep in mind that protection requests are in WP:RFP. - 7-bubёn >t 19:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also asking for eyes; this page is regularly not only vandalized but has BLP violating material added to it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nadya Suleman aka "Octo-mom"

This article is an obvious trouble magnet, and many of the sources don't seem to actually back up the statements in the article. Also, her personal life has been reported on so widely, there may be details slipping into the article that aren't really appropriate. I think if a previously uninvolved party could swoop in and play referee and try to sort the wheat from the chaff in the references it would go a long way towards helping this article not devolve into an attack piece. More detail, way way more than you will want to read, is at the ongoing AfD. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As the AfD has closed as Keep, I would support some uninvolved eyes on this article. That would be better for WP calmness than me doing a sweep on it, obviously. Physchim62 (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Shellenberger

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

It's escaped my notice for a while in editing and discussing the article, but it suddenly strikes me that it may well be a case of WP:ONEEVENT. The solution would be an article on the book in question (The Death of Environmentalism), the co-authorship of which is the only reason he is notable. (His PR work etc, which has been the source of some heat, isn't notable.) Most of the article is about the book, which isn't even sole-authored by him. Comments? Move book stuff to book article and delete the bio? Rd232 22:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know very much about MS or his book (so I guess I don't oppose). I'd suggest you to contact user GreenExpert as he started the article and has been a main contributor to it. JRSP (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, but he hasn't edited since 15 Feb. Incidentally it doesn't matter whether you know about MS or his book (unless you want to develop more material on MS which isn't about his book) - the issue is the policy (WP:ONEEVENT). Interpretation of its application here by uninvolved editors is what I'm after. Rd232 00:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a borderline ONEEVENT to me. Shellenberger seems to have done some other stuff before which wouldn't be notable in itself but which could be discussed in a bio: the question is, does that really add anything to the discussion of Break Through? I'm not sure that it does, or rather, I think it could be a sentence or two in an article about Break Through.

More worrying is the tendency for WP:SOAPBOX and possibly WP:COI in the current article: should Shellenberger's various non-notable companies really be mentioned? On the whole, I would move this to Break Through and then prune the article of any material which wouldn't fit there. Physchim62 (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional: in 2005 (prior to the book publication, but after the controversial essay which preceded it), the NY Times described the authors as "two little-known, earnest environmentalists in their 30's..." Rd232 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Done copy of relevant material to Break Through. Next step (once protection expires in a day or two) will be to AFD this article. Rd232 15:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill Britt

The Bill Britt article has some serious unsourced allegations in Bill_Britt#Skaggs_Lawsuit. They were eventually sourced by providing links to court documents hosted on a non-RS site (http://www.amwaywiki.com - disclaimer, I admin the site). User:Shot Info has stated that such documents are not allowed as sources so has removed them, meaning the allegations are now unsourced. As such I believe they should be removed from a BLP immediately, however he's threatening me with an edit warring report (despite the fact one of my reverts was including the material, the other was removing it!) Additional input requested. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the source of the documents was one of the editor above's self-declared hobby sites. I personally welcome sourcing of the material from appropriate sites. I suspect they are out there hence the reason the article was tagged and the inappropriate RS' removed. Shot info (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Shot info, I stated I admin the site in the OP. If you can find another source, find it, however BLP is clear that unsourced allegations should be removed. If other sources can be found then it can go back in. How about being constructive and looking for some alternative sources you find acceptable? Having said that, as court submissions, not judgements, consensus appears to be they wouldn't be acceptable in either case? --Insider201283 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There were two other similar sources in the article (which apparently Shot Info had no problem with) that I've now removed. One was trivial but the other also refers to court allegations. Also unsourced allegations of cult-like activities. I suggest as per BLP these should be removed as well. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD'd for notability issues Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bill Britt (2nd nomination). Rd232 01:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources, like court documents, are usually used only when they've been mentioned by reliable secondary sources. So if a newspaper covered the trial then quoting from the decision might be appropriate. But we shouldn't use legal documents in cases that haven't been reported on. Otherwise it would open the door to anything we find in databases, etc. See WP:PSTS   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately it looks like Bill Britt will soon go away and the problem with it. Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Chuck de Caro's page.

1- He wrote it himself 2- he exagerates what he has done. 3- His company exists only on paper, the plane and the staff do not exist,impossible to corroborate. 4- The links on his page are 20+ years old,outdated information. 5- Seems to be a narcisisstic monument to own self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thearclight (talk • contribs) 08:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Leahy

I removed a single sentence that implied Senator Leahy may have caused someone to die. While a source was cited, there was no context given to the allegation. I left a note on the talk page requesting more information to put this statement into context. The inflammatory line has been re-inserted into the article, and the only comment left on the talk page was:

All the context is provided in the source. CENSEI (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

An accusation of manslaughter, without any explanation of the circumstances, doesn't seem like an appropriate entry in a BLP. Am I correct in my evaluation? Advice welcome, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you on this one. The whole article needs a lot of work, though... Poorly sourced, not well formatted or organized, looks like a good chunk of it is written by people on his staff (which, even if not true, means the point of view is not neutral) etc. Avruch 15:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong agree. The style of the article is not "conservative", as BLP requires for living people and as WP:LTRD strongly suggests for dead people. Insinuations have no place in an article of this type (or any article for that matter, but they are particularly bad on BLPs). Physchim62 (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no accusation of manslaughter here. The text is all well sourced and written in an NPOV way. CENSEI (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In my country, causing the death of a person through negligence is often called manslaughter. Regardless of what you prefer to call it, it is still a serious charge to make against another person and should not be done lightly. Your reluctance to provide context to the charge has me concerned. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE:

I have removed the following vague insinuation 3 times now:

There is a possibility that a leak of his led to the death of a covert agent in Egypt.

CENSEI has now changed the insinuation to an actual manslaughter charge, and cited a 1987 Los Angeles Times article as a source:

During a 1985 interview with ABC News, Leahy revealed a top-secret intercept between the individuals responsible for the Achille Lauro hijacking. This information was used to capture the hijackers and according to intelligence officials the leak led to the death of a covert agent in Egypt who was responsible for the intercept.

I checked the sources, and they do not support the content CENSEI is attempting to repeatedly inject into this BLP article. Quite the contrary, the LA Times source clearly states Lt. Col. Oliver L. North "was subsequently named by Newsweek as the leaker of information on the Achille Lauro hijacking." Someone is playing fast and loose with the facts here. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is Newsweek's claim, specificaly that North released the information, and there is much more to the times story than you are quoting here if you even looked at it at all considering its not on the web. If you want to reproduce snippets of the source, please do so with the full context and dont be deceptive about it. CENSEI (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The 3 page LA Times article cited by you says nothing to indicate Leahy had anything to do with the Achille Lauro incident, leaked information about that incident or the death of anyone. If you disagree, please quote the text here from that article that you feel supports your edit. Until then, please refrain from inserting that information. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont know how else to say this other than you are deliberately lying, so I will allw someone else to independently verify this. CENSEI (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You cited the LA Times article as your source connecting Leahy to Achille Lauro leaks and people dying because of it. I asked you to provide context, and you evaded. I asked you to quote your source, and you told me to look it up for myself, evading again. I called your bluff and looked it up, and found your source blames Oliver North, and not Patrick Leahy as you claimed. This would have been a good time to just admit your mistake and let this issue close. Instead, you say I am "deliberately lying," while continuing to avoid simply quoting your source here in support of your edits? Wait just a minute, I'm being punked, right? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This needs some work. Leahy's leak to a tv network was a notorious scandal at the time, and has been mentioned in several books. There is surely an NPOV/BLP-compliant way to mention it. CENSEI, can you please provide a better cite for your claim that the leak is connected to a death of an agent? I hadn't heard that before. THF (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The leak to which you refer, and which is already covered in the Leahy article, is a seperate and unrelated matter. There is already a paragraph on it in the article, with this as a source. Please don't confuse that well-publicized leak with the actual problem here. CENSEI is trying to insert information about completely different leaks involving the Achille Lauro and dead agents; events even his sources attribute to Oliver North and not Patrick Leahy. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Edison Chen's prior lives?

In Edison Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), editor Benjwong (talk · contribs) has added, and continues to restore, a section about a "feng shui master's" " reincarnation analysis" of Chen. Discussion at Talk:Edison Chen#Past life, reincarnation analysis. Call me crazy, but I'm thinking that speculation by a "feng shui master" about someone's reincarnation is not a WP:RS as required for a WP:BLP. Thoughts? TJRC (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is also printed in South China Morning Post in English. That is a reliable source. Nobody is asking the user to believe or disbelieve. It is just cultural contents for the article. Benjwong (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Per WP:BLP, we write conservatively about living subjects.
2. Per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources, we don't include fringe theories/pseudoscience details about an individual, unless said individual made the claim himself. Chen makes no claims about his feng shui or reincarnation beliefs in either source - thus we can't include this section in his article. On the other hand, Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King documented his personal experiences with using mediums to contact deceased relatives and politicians in a series of diaries. Thus, those details are perfectly acceptable in his article, in spite of Wiki's policy on fringe theories. --Madchester (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I think you are twisting this rule to mean "spiritually conservative". Talking about reincarnation is alot more conservative in eastern culture than talking about the scandal.

2. To call fung shui an extremist and fringe theories - exposes your possible misunderstanding of the culture. A person in the Chinese entertainment circle of this level of fame has plenty of these types of public analysis. It is no different than using a source that points out an individual is christian. Literally it does not carry any more weight than that. The individual does not have to say he/she is a christian for that secondary source to count. In fact wikipedia prefers secondary source. Benjwong (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Benjwong, I think you're missing the point. U.S. newspapers print horoscopes, and that doesn't make the horoscope a reliable source as to the individual that they purport to describe. The South China Morning Post, if reporting that the FSM speculated about Chen, is a reliable source that such speculation occurred. but the speculation itself remains unreliable, even if the existence of the speculation is verifiable. TJRC (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Horoscopes are not reliable. They are anonymous and do not point to any single individual. I don't see why you are bringing this up. Benjwong (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it your position that this FSM or the South China Morning Post is a reliable source for the assertion that Edison Chen has had prior lives as described in the passage that you added to the article? TJRC (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Has or has not is not the point. Lot's of things in this world can't be proven. Heaven, hell, whatever. In simple terms, this entry about past life is, "Someone credible said something not proven through a credible channel". It depends whether or not you think the whole thing is relevant at all. I'm not a wizz at wiki policies, so I won't comment on that. But definitely don't bring this to the same level as any old computer-generated horoscope. Dengero (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether reincarnation, etc. exist, but whether Chen himself has any opinions about them. Benjwong is making the assumption that b/c Chen is Chinese and in the HK enertainment industry, Chen automatically believes in feng shui and reincarnation. To include the current details in the article, you need to provide the burden of proof that he actually has such beliefs per WP:RS (incl. its provision of fringe theories/pseudoscience). Unless Chen makes these claims personally (or agrees/disagrees with said feng shui master's analysis) the details are irrevelant to the article, if not potentially libelious per WP:BLP ---Madchester (talk)

Please answer. Is it your position that this FSM or the South China Morning Post is a reliable source for the assertion that Edison Chen has had prior lives as described in the passage that was added to the article? TJRC (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"A fengshui expert somewhere said Chen's past life is XYZ".

"A car        expert somewhere said Chen's last car was XYZ".

Both would fit into the wikipedia biography guidelines just fine. It makes no difference whether Chen has ever publicly come out to say his last car was actually a XYZ automobile. A car expert somewhere knew his last car was an XYZ model. If the source is reliable, it goes into wiki. Chen may actually be a motorcycle driver. It doesn't matter. Misplaced Pages does not have a rule that requires public acknowledgement from the LIVING BIOGRAPHY subject. SCMP is reliable with credibility. SCMP also say Dala Lama was reincarnated. It has the right to, even if it cannot prove such is true. Benjwong (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Again: please answer. Is it your position that this FSM or the South China Morning Post is a reliable source for the assertion that Edison Chen has had prior lives as described in the passage that was added to the article? TJRC (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Again. SCMP is reliable with credibility. Do you have to believe it, absolutely not. Benjwong (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This information is poorly sourced possibly defmatory (a christian priest) information about a living person. It cannot be included. Hipocrite (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously telling me is it more defamatory to be a priest than to be involved in a sex scandal. Benjwong (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, How can you say it is poorly sourced when it was commented by a known person and posted in a known newspaper. And the fact you repeatedly deleted the concerned section while a discussion was going on is purely destructive in trying to form a consensus. Dengero (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is poorly sourced because it is one non-notable person's personal and possibly defmatory opinions about a living person. The fact that you repeatedly added the possibly defamatory section to the biography of a living person after being repeatedly warned (and soundly rejected here) is purely destructive in both trying to form a consensus and in trying to do no harm. Hipocrite (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked very anonymous non-notable journalists are able to claim Tibetans reincarnate on newspapers. These sources are allowed into wiki. Your bending of wikipedia policies to your favor is really weak. TJRC, Hipocrite and Madchester so far cannot tell the difference between Three Life Book and a typical horoscope. This indicates the topic maybe alittle out of your area. Is like saying the Bible is just a bunch of tabloids and brush it off. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Benjwong (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about a pop-singer. Where are there other similar examples? Hipocrite (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A pop singer, a religious figure and William Lyon Mackenzie King technically all fit under wikiproject biography. If you wanted, you can fit similar contents into Faye Wong, Nicholas Tse and possibly some less-notable ethnic singers in rural China if you look hard enough. Benjwong (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

King actually documented his personal use of mediums and they're readily accessible in Canada's national archives. There's no evidence of Chen holding any beliefs of feng shui and/or reincarnation. You can't insert third-party analysis of one's personal beliefs, when such beliefs have not been made public. This goes back to the presumption of privacy per WP:BLP; you can't discuss a detail about an individual that's not public knowledge. Again the policy states: It is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives Such exceptional claims require exceptional sources for inclusion. --Madchester (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You are mistakened on the belief part. Fungshui is not listed as a faith. It is more like a calculation. Also this is not private, it has never been. The material sat on the internet since 2002. The source looks pretty good to me. If you made a complete list of fengshui analysis about these celebrities being aired on tv weekly with magazine, newspaper coverage, this would be nothing. Your call for sensationalism is more like a call for censorship. There is no censorship on wiki. Benjwong (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate, if such feng shui and reincarnation beliefs are so commonplace in the HK entertainment industry, then it would be very easy to locate a reliable source where Mr. Chen discusses his personal beliefs on these topics. Per WP:RS, the burden of proof is on the contributing editor to find a source indicating Chen's actual beliefs on these topics.

Also, please don't attack other editors for not sharing your viewpoint or background on these topics. Please assume good faith Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) --Madchester (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am looking around wikipedia. Editors are writing about athletes using steroids, and they haven't even confessed yet. There is no burden of proof. Court trials haven't even started. How come you are specifically holding Chen to confess about his reincarnation. I didn't know reincarnation was so sinful. I am really learning something new today. Benjwong (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Admitting and someone saying something is two different things. Many artists don't comment about drugs, yet there are reports of them using it. Does that mean we can't put those reports in because they are defamatory and the artist never commented about them? Dengero (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Joe Ruttman

My bio says, "he earned $54,196 and the scorn of many in the NASCAR community". This is untrue. Please remove.

Thank you,

Joe Ruttman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.240.235 (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The name is wrong too. I go by Joe Ruttman. My middle name is not Joesph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.240.235 (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Both fixed. THF (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Libel concerning Satanic Warmaster artist from finland

Potentially libellous and extremely poorly sourced material concerning this finnish metal music artist's ideology. Clear indication of support towards illegal organizations etc. through very vague connections etc. The artist has made it clear in several occasions that his personal beliefs are towards Satanism, yet somehow a lot of bigots try to blame him for nazism for some utterly peculiar reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Satanic_Warmaster

The "Ideology" chapter is 100% against the biographies of living persons policy.

The only source used is an anarchist extremist propaganda book "unholy allianz" which is a full on attack towards heavy metal culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opferblut (talk • contribs) 12:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not the only source. But material allegedly from it is hard to verify (a German book) and reviews of the book have criticised its research so it probably shouldn't be considered a reliable source anyway. I've edited the article slightly, this may be helpful. Rd232 14:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Does need work from a neutral editor who reads Finnish though. Rd232 14:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Joel C. Rosenberg

Joel C. Rosenberg is undergoing some significant edits. IMO the old version was bad, and an editor has made some significant improvements. But both the old version and the new version feel very puffed-up. I tagged the new version as such (after the old version had the tags removed in the latest set of improvements) and the editor and I have had a discussion about some of the issues. That said, I'm going to bow out of the discussion (I really don't know anything about the subject nor am I good with BLPs) and would appreciate it if another editor would be so kind as to look over the article and figure out if A) my tag should be removed or B) how to improve the article. ThanksHobit (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Botelho-Handford Consulting Tower#Mental Controversy

Section looks like a BLP violation to me, esp. in the absence of sources. If I can get a supportive comment from one other editor here, I will go ahead and delete the whole section. Other parts of the article are poor but not libelous as far as I can see. Looie496 (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of the subjects even exist (Google finds no trace of the tower, the architect firm, or the architect). Speedy deleted as vandalism (hoax). Rd232 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bah, it's been a while since I've fallen for one like that. Thanks. Looie496 (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hannes Vanaküla

Hannes Vanaküla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The problem is that there are violations of WP:BLP, Burden of Evidence (Burden of Proof) which is followed by Misplaced Pages under WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:LIBEL, WP:NOR and WP:RS in Hannes Vanaküla.

I have had a debate with other editors for a long time now, but the article, which unrighteously harms the personal life, the reputation, the business, the friends of Hannes Vanaküla and other people in relation with Hannes Vanaküla, is still unchanged. They haven't agreed with my edits and as one of them, user Verbal (talk) answered me in edit discussion: "If you think there is a BLP issue, take it to WP:BLPN...", I had to come here.

I can not comment violations in a way they could be easily traceable through diffs here, because only few diffs, which reflect single violations exist and the rules of this noticeboard do not allow me to copy and paste any defamatory or libellous information to this noticeboard to comment violations. Just in case I bring out that a diff, which reflects all the violations exists.

So I give You the link to the more detailed description about the violations of policies in the article.

My more detailed description about the violations of policies in the article is situated here on the talk page of the article Hannes Vanaküla under the section Violations of Policies. // WorldReporter (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

All the sources are in Estonian, so it's pretty much impossible for non-Estonian-speakers to help out. If you think more eyes are needed, possibly your best bet would be to go to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Estonia.

Why do You say it is pretty much impossible for non-Estonian-speakers to help out here?

At least in case of violations of WP:NOR and WP:RS, WP:NPOV and Burden of Evidence (Burden of Proof) which is followed by Misplaced Pages under WP:BLP, which I have poined out, it is very easy for administrators who are non-Estonian-speakers to supervise if there exist these violations. For example, to see that there are no references with sources at all in many places of violations. I suspect that You have some connections with the author of the liebel in this article and You want only Estonian-speakers to deal with my complaint.

I believed You in the first place and asked for help in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Estonia, but after analysis I am afraid that i do not get professional help from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Estonia as I know that the main author of the liebel in the article is Digwuren (talk) who has an Estonian star and has got warm relations with WikiProject Estonia. He is one of the participants there and there are only 42 participants .

Sorry if I mistake but I suspect some corruption in case of You. WorldReporter (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never even heard of Hannes Vanaküla. I made my suggestion after looking at the article and realizing that I could not possibly understand how well-supported the statements are. I have worked on enough Misplaced Pages articles to know that it is very difficult to tell what material a reference applies to if you can't read the reference. Even if I believe things, I can never have confidence in them. My honest opinion is that articles without English references don't even belong in wikipedia.en, because they are so difficult to verify -- but that is a minority view. Looie496 (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I request the administrators of this noticeboard to delete the article

The reasons for this are:

1. The article violates WP:BLP, Burden of Evidence (Burden of Proof) which is followed by Misplaced Pages under WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:LIBEL, WP:NOR and WP:RS, but other editors have reverted and rejected my edits.

2. As there are no sources in English it is impossible for administrators who are non-Estonian-speakers to verify all the violations.

3. It has been called in question can I get professional help from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Estonia as the main author of the liebel in the article is Digwuren (talk) who has an Estonian star and has got warm relations with WikiProject Estonia. He is one of the participants there and there are only 42 participants .

4. There are enough violations, which can be verified by administrators who are non-Estonian-speakers to be convinced that the article unrighteously harms the personal life, the reputation, the business, the friends of Hannes Vanaküla and other people in relation with Hannes Vanaküla. WorldReporter (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Crashcarburn

• Crashcarburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - No citations (although neither did the old version, shockingly!), major edits made by a with the same name as the band in the article who removed all reference to the band's predecessor (or so the former article claimed), Tweak. User appears to have a conflict of interest if it does indeed represent the band, and the article's wording seems a bit biased. I'm looking for some help, here, as I left amessage on the user's talk page but wasn't sure what to do with the article in the meantime. I would change it back to the old version, but it might be just as bad in that it's completely unreferenced. // DreamHaze (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Marcellas Reynolds

I'm trying to make revisions and additions to Marcellas reynolds. I added a filmography, current career and early life section. I corrected age, took out erroneous and unnecessary information and added tons of current info. All my changes were deleted. I don't know why.

I'm adding a copy of the changes I added and made below.

Copy of changes removed for sake of brevity and ease of following discussion; they are available in the edit history of Marcellas Reynolds. —C.Fred (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Any help on this matter will be greatly appreciated.

NickNightNickknightley (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The date of birth was removed per an OTRS request. That must be stricken from the article unless a source (other than IMDB) is found for it. I'm not sure why the bot removed the rest of the changes, though they are in need of some clean-up. —C.Fred (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Football (soccer) referees

I notice that, among our numerous articles on football referees, a large proportion devote most of their room to material criticizing or selectively reporting criticism of various decisions they've made over the years. This is often in a "Controversy" section or introduced by sentences with such a word. Do we think it is worth enforcing Misplaced Pages:BLP#Criticism_and_praise on such articles, or are BLP concerns here mitigated by the fact that such criticisms are taken for granted as the normal course of such careers. I.e. wikipedia's articles on such subjects are 1) unlikely to effect their careers (though I wouldn't take this for granted) in football or 2) their careers elsewhere. Thoughts please. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim Footman

The article Tim Footman is unreferenced. According to Citing sources#Dealing with citation problems unreferenced biographies of living persons (which this seems to be) should be referred to administrators for assistance. Thanks218.14.50.80 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

Amity Shlaes

• Amity Shlaes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Need more eyes on this, as there is an editor or two (or perhaps the same one) fighting to include blog criticism and original research through quote-mining. Current version merely violates NPOV. THF (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Lou Pearlman

After I recently removed some defamatory, poorly-sourced and irrelevant information about someone else from Lou Pearlman, WeatherFug (talk · contribs) sent me this somewhat unfriendly note declaring he had reverted and challenging my removal (which I have since reverted myself).

The talk page indicates that this user has a history of this sort of behavior and other editors cannot assume good faith. WeatherFug's edit history shows a heavy focus on Pearlman and related subjects (Backstreet Boys, etc.) Seems like this situation has been going on for a long time; it's time there were some more administrative eyes on the page and this user. Daniel Case (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that material is indeed irrelevant, even if they were closer associates than the material currently says, and Weatherfug may need reminding of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Rd232 15:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is troubling. I've just removed a screed of troubling stuff (poor sources, POV conclusions) from Les Henderson. Indeed, I suspect the article itself is a coatrack, and may not meet our notability criteria. Any opinions?--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Henderson does have notability issues. Suggest AFD. Rd232 15:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

He's digging in here. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

In reviewing this further, I looked at WeatherFug's earlier edit history. He doesn't edit like a newbie when he starts out, and I wondered if he might be a sock.

I found the possible puppetmaster in the article's history: SooperJoo (talk · contribs), who edited many of the same articles (and has been accused himself of being Henderson) until he stopped editing last May (a few months after WeatherFug began, and has made similar edits. As soon as I can get the evidence together, I'm going to SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't puppetry if SooperJoo has stopped editing and the account has no blocks. Looie496 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, not actionable. But judging by SooperJoo's talk page I sort of wonder if this was an effort to make a not-so-clean start under a new name and thus eliminate the record of BLP warnings the former account had received while continuing to make the same edits. It's an effort to stay within the letter of WP:SOCK while violating its spirit, IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aaron Klein

There are some ] violations going on at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aaron Klein, including calling the subject an "idiot" ( and ). I removed the offending comments but they were reinserted. I removed it again. Am I doing the right thing? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"idiot" is opinion, rather than a literal claim of mental retardation. Not worth edit-warring over. THF (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

My comment is a reference to a couple comments above mine referring to his "idiocy." All I said was "doesn't matter if he's an idiot. He is notable." You, brewcrewer, have no business refactoring my comments. Landon1980 (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Blanked for a couple "idiots"...that's rather pathetic. Grsz 18:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Mind WP:CIVIL, please. THF (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oversight needed, BLP/privacy/inappropriate treatment of child by vandal

In the article Nina Mercedez, in the last line of the awards section, some malicious creature using an IP address has harassed an actual, living junior high school student by identifying him as the child of a porn actress. The child is real or at least his name appears in the junior high school newspaper. This garbage has been sitting untouched in the article long enough to be scraped by Google. I will remove the statement now but it should expunged from the history as soon as someone can. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard Lindzen

I have had edits reverted by Kim D. Petersen whilst I was trying to remove biasing & irrelevant material against the atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen who believes that 'global warming' is not being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. In the talk page he has just conceded that he has 'perhaps' given 'undue weight' to this material that I say is irrelevant (as have plenty of other editors) but he insists on including the material anyway. This editor has a well-known history of bias on climate change and spends a great deal of time ensuring that climate change articles in general conform with his POV. I need help in getting him to desist. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Richard Lindzen article does have elements of WP:COATRACK, and some of the claims are unsourced. There is far too much quotation. And the article structure is awful. I'm going to try and edit the article a bit. Rd232 01:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My comments referred to this version, I've now edited it to this. Let's see reactions. Rd232 01:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A great improvement. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:People with OCD

User:Tiramisoo seems to filling up Category:People with OCD quite quickly and in a manner I cannot figure out. Right now, he's added Roseanne Barr and Justin Timberlake among others so does anyone know whether there is some standard about when to include living people into categories like that? Shouldn't it be self-described with a reliable source? Note that there is another discussion about User:Tiramisoo's conduct in general at WP:ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Category is red? Hopefully it got nuked. Can this be marked resolved or are the embers still hot? TIA --Tom 14:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)ps I marked it resolved for now :) --Tom 15:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Carmen "Nuch" Trutanich

This article is being used as a political football, with each side trying to kick it over to the way they want it. I've tried to create a neutral version, but the more eyes are on it the better. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I listed this at WP:BLPN several days ago, and nothing got done. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Attack page: Angel Taormina

• Angel Taormina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Created by SPA Angelo Giardini-Naxos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a subtle attack page on a non-notable 19 year old singer/film maker who at one point had a video on YouTube, since withdrawn by her management. Article made exaggerated and spurious claims about the subject in an attempt to ridicule her. Note that creator has chosen a user name is very similar to hers (Angelo = Angel in Italian; Giardini Naxos = village near Taormina). It's now at AFD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Angel Taormina). Editors including her management, Officemailrt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), have removed the claims, but Angelo Giardini-Naxos continues to re-add them, e.g. . AFD has 4 days left to run. Management supports deletion. Can we please have an adminstrator take a look at this ASAP? Voceditenore (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have closed the AfD early given the troubling circumstances. Consensus is for deletion and it is clear that Ms Taormina does not meet our notability guidelines. The article is deleted and salted, I will courtesy blank the discussion page as requested after 24 hours. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Wilson (actor)

• Patrick Wilson (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:MFronsdorf has repeatedly added a claim (with a {{fact}} tag) that Patrick Wilson is the nephew of Chevy Chase. I'll go 3RR if I revert again. I don't know whether it's true - though Google and GNews yield no evidence that it might, and I'd expect to see something if it were - but per WP:BURDEN I assume the contributing editor must prove the assertion before the addition can stand. Honestly, I think Wilson's Dan Dreiberg glasses in Watchmen have an awful lot to answer for... // Gonzonoir (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, MFronsdorf says he's checking out the reference in an offline source, but I've been assuming the claim should be removed until verification is forthcoming. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Geoffreys

• Stephen Geoffreys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'd like some input on the reliability of the claims and the sources used in this sequence of edits to Stephen Geoffreys. There's been plenty of internet scuttlebutt about this actor's alleged secondary career in adult movies, so it keeps turning up in the article, but this appears to be an attempt to put things on a firmer footing – I'm just not sure whether it's successful or not. // 62.169.157.184 (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources should be better. I actually perfer 5 x 8 color glossies but always get shot down on that point. If there are reliable sources and not blogs or the inmd or whatever the hell that site is then maybe take to talk page. I have removed the "material" for now. Thabks for the heads up. --Tom 20:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Myerson

Needs checking for bias, although good sources are used. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My first reaction was to remove the family section as intrusive and tabloid fit. But given his wife wrote a book about it, and there was some media discussion, I think it is probably OK. See Julie Myerson.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

See this article from Tuesday's Guardian, by Myerson himself. A bunch of nonsense about cannabis in my opinion, but in any case he has unquestionably made his family fair game for coverage. Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's covered in all of the top tier papers,so sourcing is not going to be a problem and the story is likely to rumble on in the media pages for a few weeks yet. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

marcus evans

Marcus Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can we bring to the attention of the wiki editors that malicious and unsubtantiated personel and company details are regularly being posted on this article which contravene the biogs of living person policies. we would ask the editors to strike the history of these edits and strike the user from this article. This is also affecting the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpmewi (talk • contribs) 16:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Now semi-protected against determined POV pusher. Pls watchlist, I think we've not heard the last of this.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor children; personal names in articles related to multiple births

• Suleman octuplets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chukwu octuplets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• McCaughey septuplets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi. A question was raised specifically on the Suleman octuplets and the use of their names in the Suleman octuplets article at the administrator's noticeboard. The question relates to whether usage of the names of minor children in such circumstances violates their privacy per Misplaced Pages:BLP#Privacy of names. I don't have a stance on this issue at this point beyond the opinion that any decision rendered here would relate to several articles rather than simply the one. I'm opening this discussion in courtesy to the contributor who voiced his concerns at AN and will publicize it at the relevant article talk pages. --Moonriddengirl 16:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the Suleman children WP:BLP states under Privacy of names that "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases or occupations), it is often preferable to omit it." For the Suleman children it's been published in thousands of news articles, tv shows, magazines, etc... It's been clearly widely disseminated, and there was no attempt to intentionally conceal them the family themselves gave the information out. — raeky  19:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also theres more then just those pages that would be included by this conversation: Dionne quintuplets, Kienast quintuplets, Rosenkowitz sextuplets, Walton sextuplets, Dilley sextuplets, Hanselman sextuplets, Brino quadruplets. Also List of multiple births and virtually everything linked off of it. — raeky  19:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of those are no longer minors, though some of them certainly should be (included, not minors :)). Arguably, whatever criteria may determine this, the Brino quadruplets may be somewhat different, since they have IMDB profiles. I don't know if the role they played is notable, since I've never seen 7th Heaven. --Moonriddengirl

Should the policy mater after they get older? They became notable as infants, shouldn't as they get older the policy protect them under the same umbrella unless they become notable again for something in their adult life? — raeky  20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Globally speaking, policies regarding minors and adults can be different on Misplaced Pages. We discourage minors from posting information about themselves here, but once they're no longer minors they can post whatever they want. But beyond noting that, I don't know what the editor at AN had in mind, so I'll leave that question for him to answer. --Moonriddengirl 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There was this discussion about the issue on the BLP talk page, and the octuplet's talk page that you put the notice about this on. I feel unless the current wording of WP:BLP is changed to add a exception to the rule for minors that listing the children's names doesn't violate BLP, it's clearly public information that the family themselves released and is widely disseminated. Is this a discussion about changing/amendingWP:BLP? If not I don't see what the point of the discussion is? — raeky  21:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to go with the widely disseminated statement. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the key policy is right there are the top of WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." So any information we include about any living person should only be there if it has to be there: otherwise, we are not writing "conservatively". Most of these articles about multiple births are no worse at all without the names of the children in there, so the names of the children should be removed. Physchim62 (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You lean more to the outright deletion of content, as opposed to working within the guidelines of policy though. The policy is pretty clear, I'm just asking are we going to put a minor clause that exempts them from what wouldn't be an issue with an adult. There is none right now that I'm aware of. — raeky  23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of the discussion regarding the octuplets names, should not the names of the older minor siblings be removed? They are notable by association only.  florrie  00:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but they're also widely disseminated. Their names is less relevant to the article, but maybe relevant to the mother's article. — raeky  00:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Widely disseminated" is not a sufficient criterion for BLP information, and never has been ever since we've had the policy. The information has to be encyclopedic as well. Physchim62 (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How is not the names of the people the article about not encyclopedic, and I quote from WP:BLP "When the name of a private individual has not been 'widely disseminated..." as justification for use of those names. Like I said, unless modification of the policy is to be made in regards to minors, then what is the point of this discussion? Noone can argue that their names are not widely published with hundreds (likely thousands) of reliable secondary sources (Just talking about the Suleman children, the other pages I have no clue about the media coverage on them) ... — raeky  00:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

For extensively publicized material the only justification for hiding the names is if the names are subsequently or at the time actually concealed or possibly at least attempted to be concealed, as can sometimes happen in situations of this sort. If there is not only no effort being made to hide the names, but rather what seems to be an immense effort to publicize it, and if other responsible sources use the names, and the material is fundamentally of encyclopedic interest, there is no purpose in concealing it. I have myself removed from WP material of this sort for children when there does not seem to be other than tabloid interest, or the material is not widely known or where some real harm could be done to the child by the information: I do not think any of these is the case here. DGG (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I see a couple issues here. One is that listing the names really seems to offer nothing in the way of content, similar to listing all the vice presidents of a company, who cares if child #3 is named Sally Loo-hoo? What is encyclopedic is the number of children and that some are fraternal twins, etc. As the children become individually notable they certainly could be re-added. The other sticking point to me is Misplaced Pages:BLP#Privacy of names which instructs, right after stating the names need to be widely disseminated to be considered at all,

When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

I don't think there is any non-news sources here in the spirit that this calls for but each case can be looked at individually.

Take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger.

To me this suggests we remove the names until more compelling reason is given to insert them. -- Banjeboi 11:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a scientific experiment so I doubt there will be journal papers written. Books from experts maybe could be written in the future, which would undoubtably include the names of the octuplets. The thing is, I don't see how listing the names of the children (a) violates a policy we currently have and (b) does any harm to them. It's just a name after all. — raeky  17:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there something going to come of this, or can we continue editing the pages with the assumption that the children's names are ok as per the current wording of WP:BLP? — raeky  10:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly, you have no consensus for including the names. Physchim62 (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff:

"In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." In practice, this means that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached."

As many editors have suggested that these names be removed as adding nothing to the article and violating current BLP policy, they should be removed forthwith. We err on the side of caution with BLP matters, which is exactly the point of the cited ArbCom case. Let's not have to waste ArbCom's time with this one, when it's guidance is already crystal clear. Physchim62 (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Many editors" is how many, you and Banjoi? That's all that's here expressing concern. How is not the names of the people the article about not adding something to it, that doesn't make sense. Exactly where exactly does it say in WP:BLP that the names of minor children shouldn't be published on Misplaced Pages articles, even if they meet all the criteria that would qualify an adult person's name to be published? — raeky  12:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The policy clearly states that if they're "widely disseminated" that's valid reason for inclusion, plus it's common practice to include the names of the children in these high-order birth articles. There is no "minor clause" in WP:BLP and the assumption of "do no harm" I don't feel is valid since this information is already available in hundreds to thousands of other highly visible sources. What protection do we afford them by not listing it here when it's clearly a matter of public record now? So the question is really does this (a) violate the current policy, if so exactly where, or (b) are we going to amend policy so to disallow this, if so then start that discussion. If we're not going to do B and A isn't met, then what's the point in continuing the discussion? — raeky  12:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You again are missing the rest of that policy which I posted above. These children are not notable individually, are BLP minors and their names add nothing to the article and removing the names would not compromise our readers' understanding of the subject. Similarly we regularly remove the names of celebrities children in the spirit of do no harm. -- Banjeboi 03:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your assessment that "do no harm" should apply to names of minors when they pass the criteria needed to list an adult's name, definitely when the article is about them. You would have a valid point of the family expressed the desire to not disclose their names, but they are the ones that made them public. I await an admin to weigh in with a more official statement on this. — raeky  04:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The names add nothing to the article? Gee, I wonder why they put them in the two-sentence news articles. Admiral Norton 14:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Because news media is a business and any content they can use to reach their customers they generally will. Misplaced Pages is not under those same goals. -- Banjeboi 03:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it makes no difference to the article if the kids are named John, Jane and Jim; or Raeky, Physchim62 and Benjiboi. Nor does it make any difference to the encyclopedic article whether the names are widely disseminated or not. The idea that we should include evertything we can is contrary to the most basic principles of Misplaced Pages, and special rules have been made for biographies of living people because they need to be stronger, not weaker. Physchim62 (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Charles W. Freeman, Jr.

We need to keep an eye on the biography of Charles W. Freeman, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), who has been the victim of a recent online smear campaign in the blogosphere, which cost him a job. He's mentioned in WaPo today complaining about libel as well. Our article contains a great deal of WP:Original Research cherry picking quotes from his speeches, etc. -- Kendrick7 18:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This should be fun, NOT. Good luck. I did minor copy edit to the lead, but the controversay section is huge, imho. Anyways, --Tom 19:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got rid of the controversy section, putting a 1-para summary in the career section and moving some bits to Views. However Views still seems a bit WP:COATRACK. Somebody else's eyes, and maybe edits, would help. Rd232 23:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments please at Charles W. Freeman, Jr. as my edits have been undone. Rd232 00:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

West Memphis 3

• Detroitwheel (talk · contribs)
• West Memphis 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm concerned by Detroidwheel's edits to the article which he have introduced many times now (diff). I'm not really sure what to say about them or what his goals are, but at the very least is seems he's removing sourced material and adding unsourced and unencyclopedic material... I was hoping to get some though on what should be done about it? --aktsu  20:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Bobbi Miller-Moro

I came across this auto-biography (self-confessed) some days ago and did a large pruning of POV and self-sourced (i.e., "facts" that are cited from the subject's own writings about herself) material. Now, of course, she feels I've been unreasonable and wants it all back, and then some (see my talk page, where she seems to be comparing herself to Maya Angelou). I am starting to wonder whether this article has any justification to remain in Misplaced Pages at all -- her books are self-published, her career achievements are largely self-proclaimed, she arrogates credit to herself that is elsewhere cited as entirely her husband's work, she's been scrapping elsewhere about a film project that is completely WP:NFF, etc. I think my emotions have been involved and I wonder if I could trouble an impartial third party to assess the article, examine the references, and do what they think is appropriate. Thanks in advance. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out her husbands bio, its a whooper to :) Tom 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

michael steele

User is deleting well-cite notable material on Michael Steele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without specific explanation. 97.117.120.83 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

On March 12, 2009, GQ published an interview in which Steele said abortion is "absolutely... an individual choice" to be decided at the state level. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, the Christian Coalition, and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council have all issued statements attacking Steele's remarks. Social conservatives also accuse Steele of having "broke a different pledge... a proposed Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage despite a promise that he'd support it if elected RNC chair".

In another interview with conservative Cal Thomas Steele compared some Republican leaders of Congress to "mice" who are "scurrying" because they no longer have access to "cheese", when he lowered the amount of direct RNC campaign contributions to their re-election committees and they reacted with anger.

Hot of the presses? Maybe wait a few days to see what the deal is here and how big a deal this is? Tom 23:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm in favor of pushing the news of the moment, but it's worth noting that this is currently looking like a top headline story tomorrow. Looie496 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How big a deal will this "material" be in 6 days, yet alone 6 months? Anyways, --Tom 14:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of criminals

Is there a notability guideline or something regarding criminals? I have a very difficult time with these articles. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It would have to be how many secondary reliable sources can you find on the criminal? Just being a criminal isn't notable, theres plenty of them. If there was wide media coverage (national/global) then likely they're notable. If it was only covered locally, then likely they're not. — raeky  23:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There is the rejected Misplaced Pages:Notability (criminal acts), which would've encouraged a more responsible approach to this problem. MBisanz 05:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Names of children that lent their name to something

The owner of the AT&L Railroad named it after his three grandsons, Austin, Todd and Ladd. There shouldn't be a problem with noting their first names in the article on the railroad, with a reliable source (Kalmbach's American Shortline Railway Guide), right? I only ask because it's not necessarily widely known; a 2007 Daily Oklahoman article doesn't mention it, for instance. --NE2 07:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If the owner isn't trying to conceal the names, and there is a reliable secondary source then I don't think there would be a problem even if it's not published in many sources. — raeky  10:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with it, so long as just include the information above. Physchim62 (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama conspiracy theories, again

A small move-war has erupted out over the title of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I've moved it to what I think is a more descriptive, and less BLP-volatile title, which has a rough-but-not-perfect consensus, but it's disputed. I'd like some input on whether the old title had a BLP problem or not, because no-one's explained to me why it doesn't yet. Sceptre 14:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, I find this board to be well watched and a good place to get more eyes involved, but is this truely the right board for this "issue"? Usually it seems that we deal with bios and not these "sub" article "issues" ect. Anyways, good luck on a not easy "topic", cheers, --Tom 14:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I kind of see this board as to deal with all BLP issues, not just about biographies. Sceptre 14:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it is also being discussed at ANI. Anyways, --Tom 14:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the ANI discussion has been concluded with the move-protection I performed, that's all there was in terms of immediate admin attention. The content issue can well be discussed here. I'll just say that if any admin comes to the conclusion, on weighing the arguments, that there is substantial support by not just a single person for the view that the present title is a BLP problem, I will of course have no objections against them overturning my protection. Although I'm not seeing the discussion going that way right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre is right, this board is for dealing with all BLP issues whatever articles they occur in. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ralph E. Reed, Jr.

The article has so much negative stuff, but it seems to be true stuff. Could an admin glance over the article? ThanksRich (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that it's rather long for someone of his importance, with the length coming from excessive detail. IMO some of the details should be cut down and summarised. Rd232 13:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

So do you think all the information that seems so negative is sourced ok and presented fairly? If so, should we take down the pov tag i put on it last night? Thanks, Rich (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and Weatherman (organization) BLP issues?

• Comment From the above articles, there is a short and well sourced paragraph of a current event that editor Wikidemon keeps deleting;

On February 24, 2009, leaders of the San Francisco Police Officers Association stated that there is “irrefutable and compelling reasons” that establish how Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, are responsible for the bombing of a San Francisco police station in 1970 that killed Sgt. Brian McDonnell, a 20-year veteran of the department. The San Francisco Police Department’s Park Station was bombed Feb. 16, 1970, killing Sgt. Brian McDonnell. Eight other officers were injured. McDonnell died two days after the bombing. The case has yet to be solved.

This above text is not an accusation; the closing states that "The case has yet to be solved." This is a neutrally worded text of an event verified by mainstream media. For more info, please see;

Fox News' article Report: Police Union Accuses Ayers in Deadly 1970 San Francisco Bombing, PR Newswire's article Attorney General Urged to Investigate Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn by Campaign for Justice for Victims of Weather Underground Terrorism, Accuracy in Media's article Bernadette Dohrn, Bill Ayers and the bomb that killed a cop, and Chicagoland's Television's article San Francisco cops target Bill Ayers are a few good examples of this current event. This event, involving San Francisco Police Officers Association and Bill Ayers has been well noted by multiple reliable sources that have verified its notability. As such the section should be not be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit problematic given the seriousness of the allegation and the weakness of the evidence. A good start would be to avoid pasting this all over the place wherever it seems relevant. There's an article specifically on this bombing (San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing). Rd232 19:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have noted this information on the page noted above. Also, I acknowledge that this is serious information for a BLP, though due to the degree of coverage by mainstream media concerning this accusation - it is more than appropriate to state that this accusation was made and that the subject is one that is ongoing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this race, but I have to point out that PR Newswire is, as the name implied, a press release service and therefore not a reliable source. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

PR Newswire is a reliable source for conveying its clients' news releases. News organizations consider it reliable for that. If the information that comes via PR Newswire is meant to convey what the client organization's opinion is about something, then it's acceptable for Misplaced Pages to use that source to report on the fact that an opinion is held/stated by a certain group. Obviously it wouldn't be reliable as a source of any other facts. -- Noroton (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The PR Newswire article is not used in the text above. Please do not let it be used as a red herring. I only posted a link above as an example of one of many articles demonstrating media attention. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No dog here either. Bill Ayers is now protected for 24 hrs to sort this out. Toddst1 (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Although there appears to be no new evidence, the San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing now says, with no source, leaders of the San Francisco Police Officers Association stated that there is “irrefutable and compelling reasons” - is that acceptable? dougweller (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's acceptable to the extent that the old evidence is acceptable. With the allegations again in the news, they do become more notable. -- Noroton (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• The source for the statement above is Police union targets ’60s radical, from the March 12, 2009 edition of The San Francisco Examiner. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty busy today but I'll just note here, as I did at AN/I, that there seem to be 14 current google news sources on this latest thing (mostly unreliable ones, your mileage may vary). This is a very old accusation, made by an FBI informant without any solid evidence. The police investigated twice, there were multiple suspects, and the crime was never resolved. This one source at least suggests that the latest announcement is not a legitimate accusation, but is instead a publicity move by the Police Officers' association, part of their ineffective lobbying to have Ayers arrested. It is based on no new development or evidence (other than conservative opposition to Ayers and possibly Obama), and the article also says that the last investigation found nothing to tie Ayers to the murder. At the very least we should frame it correctly. However, when political partisans accuse people of murder there is a very high threshold regarding whether the information should be repeated at all. We've dealt with this very issue a few times before, in this specific article. As noted above, the right place to describe the newest move by the Police Officers' Association is probably the article on the murder itself. There is also an article giving a chronology of known weathermen actions, and it might make sense there to go over their suspected actions.Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether there was a crime or not is a moot point. The issue is that there have been multiple reliable sources that have commented on this current event concerning Bill Ayers being accused by the San Francisco Police Officers Association of acts against the San Francisco Police Department. Although one may disagree with them, these reportings by reliable sources exist. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V is a threshold for inclusion - it is not the only policy that applies. This is a WP:BLP issue, not a question of verifying that this particular organization made this particular statement (although to be fair, one would have to follow the sources to explain it as a rehash of an old accusation rather than a new claim). Wikidemon (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you point to the specific part of WP:BLP that disallows us from stating what reliable sources state: That there is a very longstanding allegation of murder against someone who has a proven violent history of leading an organization that has been widely acknowledged to have been a terrorist organization. Under these circumstances, an allegation of murder is not a BLP violation under any reasonable interpretation of BLP. Wikidemon, your previous statements and actions in this matter look, to me, more like politicking for a cause rather than helping Misplaced Pages present the closest version to the truth that we can. There is NO WP:BLP passage that I'm aware of that prevents us from reporting this. Anyone who wants to see how Wikidemon operates, regardless of consensus, regardless of the reliable sources and regardless of Misplaced Pages policy can see him at work at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. A 2:1 consensus to include in various articles the fact that reliable sources call the Weatherman organization "terrorist" over the course of decades was blocked by Wikidemon's continued obstinancy. In my experience, Wikidemon has not been able to show that this blocking has been for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Specific citations of Misplaced Pages policy and a carefully argued case would do that, but I've never seen Wikidemon or his allies provide one.

Misplaced Pages does not, in fact, refrain from reporting on allegations of murder in all cases. It depends on the circumstances. This paragraph, from Benazir Bhutto is full of allegations of murder, widely publicized:

Al-Qaeda commander Mustafa Abu al-Yazid claimed responsibility for the attack, describing Bhutto as "the most precious American asset." The Pakistani government also stated that it had proof that al-Qaeda was behind the assassination. A report for CNN stated: "the Interior Ministry also earlier told Pakistan's Geo TV that the suicide bomber belonged to Lashkar i Jhangvi—an al-Qaeda-linked militant group that the government has blamed for hundreds of killings". The government of Pakistan claimed Baitullah Mehsud was the mastermind behind the assassination. Lashkar i Jhangvi, a Wahabi Muslim extremist organization affiliated with al-Qaeda that also attempted in 1999 to assassinate former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, is alleged to have been responsible for the killing of the 54-year-old Bhutto along with approximately 20 bystanders, however this is vigorously disputed by the Bhutto family, by the PPP that Bhutto had headed and by Baitullah Mehsud. On 3 January 2008, President Musharraf officially denied participating in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto as well as failing to provide her proper security.

• For more information, please see;

San Francisco Chronicle - S.F. police union accuses Ayers in 1970 bombing

The Politico - Group puts Ayers back in spotlight

Fox News - Report: Police Union Accuses Ayers in Deadly 1970 San Francisco Bombing

WorldNetDaily - Cold case: Will Ayers be brought to justice?

Fox Business - San Francisco Police Officers' Association Supports Effort to Bring Charges in 1970 Bombing Case

FrontPage Magazine - A Murder Revisited

KGO-TV - Union accuses Ayers of 1970 bombing

The San Francisco Examiner - Police union targets ’60s radical

Chicago Tribune - San Francisco cops target Bill Ayers

Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As noted, the question is not whether a highly politicized organization accused someone of murder, but whether we will repeat the unfounded accusation. Wikidemon (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This information Wikidemon deleted described a widely publicized event - as shown by multiple reliable sources above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Widely publicized by reliable sources is not the sole criteria for including outlandish statements about living people. For example neither the Dick Cheney article nor the Seymour Hersh articles mention allegations Seymour made that an executive assassination ring existed in the previous administration and reported to directly to Dick . TharsHammar (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The statements made by the San Francisco Police Officers Association concern the death of one of their officers. Their public position on the San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing is notable as this event has been the subject of multiple reliable sources. This is a well sourced notable event that should be documented appropriately, not deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Many BLPs have far less substantially sourced material in them. The people involved are notable (no issue). The group making the allegation is notable (no issue). The allegations are puvblished in a number of reliable sources (no issue). The only basis would be that the accusation is so far out that the people making the allegation should not be believed (a value judgement which WP guidelines suggest is not in our scope). Since the people involved clearly have reputations consistent with the allegations (anyone demur?), asserting that this particular one is "outlandish" fails. Collect (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Our standard for accusing someone of murder here in the encyclopedia isn't "not outlandish". BLP rests on two pillars: avoiding committing libel, and avoiding harm to living people. Repeating poorly founded murder allegations certainly causes harm, and the entire point is to cause harm - to Obama, by bashing Ayers again. What the reliable sources say is that an advocacy group sought to publicize an old murder allegation for political purposes. As has been commented, we need to be very careful and not plaster this, uncritically, in articles throughout the encyclopedia. The claim remains in the article about the police station bombing, so it is misleading to say that it's deleted from the encyclopedia. But if it's going to be here, it needs to be faithful to the sources and not mislead the reader into giving it any special credibility. The claim originates from a single source back in 1970, a man who Ayers calls a paid liar, who says he infiltrated the Weather Underground as an informant and heard Ayers talking about the murder in a way that convinced him that Ayers and Dohrn had carried it out. The informant is now working for an advocacy group, Amera's Survival, Inc., that has disparaging Barack Obama with a laundry list of Obama conspiracy theories - Obama attended a madrasa, Obama is a communist, Obama is a socialist, Obama likes terrorists, Obama was not born in America, Obama is anti-American, etc. The group sought the cooperation of the SF police union in connection with a press conference calling for Ayers' arrest. The union is itself operates outside of the mainstream of SF politics, and frequently attempts to discredit individuals who the union sees as adverse to the interests of oficers, e.g. those who want to expose police corruption or misconduct. Their position statement, if you can call it that, is based entirely on the America's Survival employee's claim, not any new evidence or analysis. The paper reports that this was an unexpected move because investigators have found no evidence linking Ayers to the murder. So the matter is basically a trumped up press release. Edit warring this questionable material simultaneously into five articles at last count is not constructive editing of the encyclopedia - Wikidemon (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It reports an allegation, and reports it as an allegation. And the issue is not whether it belongs in the Obama article, but whether it belongs in the appropriate articles indicated. Further, last I checked, such issues belong on the talk pages appropriate to the issue. It is not for us to determine whether anyone is a "paid liar" for sure. As for your charge of "edit warring" it appears to me that the purpose of asking here is to make "edit war" an inapt term. As for saying "someone is pushing everything under the sun at Obama" - that is joyfully itrrelevant to the issue at hand, and all we deal wth is the issue at hand. Is reporting an allegation, attributed as an allegation, improper? Nope. Collect (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Come again? The discussion is consolidated here. Edit warring BLP vios out of the encyclopedia is encouraged by BLP policy. Edit warring BLP vios in to the encyclopedia is a conduct issue that can lead to administrative action, and has in this case. The matter was referred here from WP:AN/I after three of the five articles were protected - the edit war continued on a fourth article that was not protected. There is no proposal to call the police informant a "paid liar" but rather a proposal to repeat in five different articles his allegation of murder against Bill Ayers, something that is being revived as part of the anti-Obama smear effort. Part of that smear effort made its way to the Obama page and the press with the whole Aaron Klein affair. Another part of that effort is to publicize the old murder claim against Obama. The Chronicle article reports this as a rehash of old material by partisans for political purposes, not a legitimate new allegation. The Misplaced Pages article reported it as a legitimate-sounding allegation. Wikidemon (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(Reposting from AN/I)

These are members of a police union, in conjunction with a partisan organization called "America's Survival Inc."speaking out about their personal opinion of the matter, rather than the result of an official law enforcement investigation. If you ("you" being anyone who is pro-inclusion) actually read some of the links above (apart from WND and FrontPageMag, which do not meet Misplaced Pages's WP:RS criteria), no one has ever been charged in the death of Sgt. Young. The articles also state that there is no evidence to connect Ayers, or anyone, to any of this.

This isn't an issue of reliable sourcing at all. It is an issue of whether or not the personal opinions of private citizens in regards to Ayers being responsible for a murder are fit to be included in the Misplaced Pages. IMO, any sane and sensible reading of WP:BLP policy would find that it is wholly unfit for inclusion. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The San Francisco Police Officers Association public position on the San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing is notable. Their position has been widely covered as the subject of multiple reliable sources. This is a well sourced notable event that should be documented appropriately, not deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Tarc crystalizes my objection. What is well sourced is that a fringe anti-Obama group solicited and got an expression of support from a local union for purposes of a press conference and press release. We have to be very careful about the constant manufacture of anti-Obama news by fringe and conservative press events. Just because something is verifiable does not mean it should be coatracked into every article under the sun. It has to be relevant and significant enough to add to the reader's understanding of the subject of the article. It does not increase the reader's understanding of Dohrn, Ayers, or the Weatherman, that a fringe political group held a press conference. It has minor notability in connection with the event itself, and that is where the material now sits. The BLP issue is that the material in question is a murder accusation.Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Mr. Schism, enough with the strawman arguments, please. "Widely covered" and "reliable sources" are not the sole criteria when determining if material can be included in the Misplaced Pages. We know that these people have stated their opinion on that matter, no one is denying that fact. However, it is a case of accusing someone of a crime where there is no evidence to support the accusation, not an official body with the authority to do so making the accusation. None. If in some possible future event a district attorney unseals a grand jury indictment, or something similarly official, then it will absolutely belong in the Bill Ayers and Weathermen articles. Absent that, this cannot appear on this project, in any form. Re-read WP:BLP, and make sure you understand "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment", please. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Pablo Mason

Pablo Mason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This gentleman, a pilot, is undertaking action at an employment tribunal in an attempt to get his job back. Various comments, which imply incompetence on the part of Captain Mason, have appeared and are not supported by the sources quoted, therefore this article could be considered libellous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.149.211 (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified the sourcing of the contentious claims. Since the tribunal issue is a breach of security procedure and the contentious claim is about actual flying, I'm not sure how relevant they are to each other. However the RAF report is a primary source and there's an element of WP:SYNTHESIS. Other views? Rd232 21:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

More fundamentally, I'm not sure if he's notable enough for his career, and the notability for him of the MyTravel incident would fall under WP:ONEEVENT. (The article seems to have been created in response to that incident.) AFD? Rd232 21:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

1. ""Police sergeant dies of wounds"". UPI. 1970-02-19. Retrieved 2009-03-13. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
2. ""Police union targets '60s radical"". The Examiner. 2009-03-12. Retrieved 2009-03-13. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
3. ""1967-71 -- a bloody period for S.F. police"". San Francisco Chronicle. 2007-01-27. Retrieved 2009-03-13. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
4. "" CHARGES IN KILLING OF S.F. OFFICER"". San Francisco Chronicle. 2007-01-24. Retrieved 2009-03-13. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
5. "Al-Qaida claims Bhutto assassination". 2007-12-28. Retrieved 2007-12-28.
6. Bhutto died after hitting sun roof 28 December 2007.
7. "Named: the al-Qaeda chief who 'masterminded murder'". 2007-12-29. Retrieved 2007-12-29.
8. "Bhutto's Party Rejects Al-Qaeda Claim as Riots Spread (Update5)". 2007-12-29. Retrieved 2007-12-29.
9. "Musharraf Denies Allegations Of Involvement in Bhutto Killing". Wall Street Journal. 2008-01-03. Retrieved 2008-01-03.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution