Misplaced Pages

I have fully protected this article for a week (undoubtedly the 'wrong version'). Can all participants please use the talk page to discuss the content and sourcing. Fences&Windows 16:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Current version appears to be by "hagiographers r us" type editors. Collect (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to help discuss the details on the talk page, or just opine? You probably missed that Phil Hare#Political Scandal is poorly sourced, that's one part of the dispute. Fences&Windows 01:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have looked over the article and it is fairly obvious that many citations have been removed. Both users have been vandalizing the page by adding libelous claims as well as removing the necessary citations for each claim. I move that the article be reverted back to the previous article, WITH all citations! This will help decide what is credible and what is not. Furthermore, the section on jobs is some what biased, but SHOULD NOT be completely removed. The number of job losses is credible because Hare WAS Evan's district director.

Philharefan should also take not that if he is going to post that Hare was Evan's campaign manager, then he should provide the citations. Phil Hare was NOT Evan's campaign manager-only a volunteer for the campaign-hardly someone involved in any scandals like mentioned.

What say you fences?--Celticsbruins (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Landeryou

On 12 December, the AfD on this article was closed as keep no consensus. I edited the article to add info and references, as several notable parts of Landeryou's life were not included and much of it was unsourced. All the statements in the article should now be sourced to reliable sources. Starting 23 December, an IP-hopping editor has been periodically sanitising the article, with the exception of a brief period when the article was semi-protected. I've recorded the edits made and why I object to them on the talk page. The IP editor(s) have never communicated; the IPs geolocoate to Australia, so it is possible that Landeryou or an associate is making the edits. I'd appreciate extra opinions on what the article should state about Landeryou, and whether the article needs to be indef protected. Fences&Windows 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Article has been semi protected for a month. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary

Anjem Choudary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Anjem Choudary is currently very much in the news, being the spokesman for an about-to-be proscribed Islamist organisation, Islam4UK. While the article is generally quite well balanced, a few editors have lately been adding material from sources such as The Sun, and The Daily Express. These are tabloid sources, whose reporting of this man, and his group, are quite clearly reactionary in nature, and in no way neutral (headlines such as "£25,000 BENEFITS? IT’S ALLAH’S CASH SAYS PREACHER OF HATE", "Hate Cleric's Buggy Cheek", "Jihad enough to eat?". The list grows longer when you include the headlines from their peers.
• My objection to the insertion of the material (about Choudary's financial status) cited from these sources, however, is not so much from the sources themselves, but from the fact that only the tabloids are giving much space to the claims. None of the broadsheets are reprinting the tabloid claims about Choudary's financial status. He has been asked, in an off-the-cuff manner, about his benefits status in television interviews, but that's it. No television or broadsheet interviewer has ever thought it important enough to expand upon the matter.
• My point is, how, if no reliable and generally neutral news sources are giving any time to these matters, can we claim that its important to mention? How can we claim to have a neutral article on a very notable figure, if we mention such things, but do not offer any context? Nobody knows if he is employed. Nobody knows why he claims for benefits. Why then, should we echo the criticism from the tabloid press, and not offer any reasoning for doing so? At least the tabloids have an excuse - they're here to sell newspapers. We're here to offer neutral, informative articles on notable subjects. We can't do that by reporting the views of tabloid newspapers as important fact. Parrot of Doom 15:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have also asked for a RFC for this content. This is the disputed content and the citations...Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

on January 12, 2010 when asked why he lived on Social security benefits, Choudary said, "The money belongs to Allah and if it is given, you can take it." He is understood to be employed by a Muslim organisation on a shoestring wage, which allows him to claim income support .

• I should like to point out that I have now had chance to see a copy of ITV News at Ten from last night, where their reporter Angus Walker (UK editor), asked him “Why if he hates the British State so much, why does he live off state benefits” – to which Anjem Choudary is then shown answering "The money belongs to Allah and if it is given, you can take it." - so the fact the cite is from a tabloid is more related to ease of access. Codf1977 (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

B. Joseph White bio page

The page for B. Joseph White has become a page mainly about issues at the University of Illinois rather than about White as an individual. I am pasting below an alternative version of a biography that seems to be more in line with an encylopedia entry and with those entries of other university presidents. White's wikipedia page has become a place for individuals to air grievances about recent events at the University of Illinois. It seems like these should be deleted from White's page and, if individuals choose, added to the University of Illinois page, particularly given that White is no longer president at the University of Illinois.

Here is an idea for an alternate biography that is more balanced in its view of White and that is not so heavy with issues specific to the University of Illinois.

Bernard Joseph White (born 1947 in Detroit, Michigan) is the James F. Towey Professor of Business and Leadership at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He focuses on governance, leadership and management. He is the author of The Nature of Leadership. White was born in Detroit in 1947 and raised in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

Education

White graduated magna cum laude from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in 1969. He then earned an MBA with distinction from Harvard Business School and a doctorate in business administration from the University of Michigan.

Career

Following graduation in 1975, White remained at Michigan as a professor of organizational behavior and industrial relations. He spent six years (1981–1987) at Cummins Inc. in Columbus, Indiana, first as vice president for management development and then as vice president for personnel and public affairs.

He returned to academia and served for a decade (1991-2001) as dean of the University of Michigan's Stephen M. Ross School of Business. He served as interim president of the University of Michigan in 2002.

White was named 16th president of the University of Illinois in November 2004, succeeding retiring president James J. Stukel, and took office on January 31, 2005.

White announced on September 23, 2009 his voluntary resignation as president effective December 31, 2009. His resignation followed an admissions controversy at the University’s Urbana-Champaign campus that resulted in most members of the university’s board of trustees resigning and new members being appointed by Governor Pat Quinn. In a letter to the board chairman, White said he took the action to enable the newly constituted board to select university leadership going forward. He said the effective date meant he would forgo a retention bonus as well as the remaining 18 months of a contract that was extended by unanimous vote of the trustees on November 13, 2008.

White’s tenure as president was marked by success and failure. The $2.25 billion Brilliant Futures fund raising campaign, launched July 1, 2003, achieved 76% of its goal by August 31, 2009 with 72% of the campaign period elapsed. The Global Campus Partnership, an initiative to make University of Illinois programs and degrees available online to qualified students, was terminated in 2009 due to an inadequate number of programs and students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.72.118 (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks to you for presenting that, i'll have a look, it is true that the article is a biography of the subject and not an article about the university even if he is strongly connected to it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the next step? Would it be appropriate for me to post the above bio on White's page or is there an issue with taking out what has already been written? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akilib (talk • contribs) 14:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Roman Polanski

We could use investigative help from this board's regulars at the thread: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Let's look_at the OP too. There is a pattern of abuse that bears scrutiny. Jehochman 16:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine why you think that dispute belongs in this forum.Jarhed (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion did involve the editors additions to a BLP so posting a note here seems fair enough to me, the discussion is now over I will mark this as resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Seyran Ohanyan Again

The Seyran Ohanyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article is repeatedly making an extreme and unsubstantiated claim that Seyran Ohanyan is an "alleged war criminal". I had removed this claim , and after it had been inserted again I started a discussion on this page . The claim was then removed as a BLP violation, but it has again been reinserted. I would remove it again, but there are, unfortunately, persons who would seize on this as a chance to block me for breaking revert restrictions. Would an administrator please remove the claim and protect the article until the matter is settled. Meowy 17:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed it as it is controversial disputed content about a living person and the discussion is clearly not over, please attempt to find a consensus regarding this content. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  Off2riorob, could you please join the discussion to help find a consensus? Grandmaster 11:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I left a comment but it might attract a wider audience if you lay out your desired addition and ask for a RFC, personally, I find the accusations weakly cited to opinionated sources and as they could do a great deal of harm to a living person I would leave them out. Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a regular practice here. See the article about Thomas de Waal, for instance. This British journalist wrote an internationally acclaimed book on the history of Karabakh war, but there's a whole section in that BLP article, dedicated to criticism from Armenian partisan sources. If it is Ok to use partisan sources in other BLP articles, why is it a problem in an article about Ohanyan? The parliament of Azerbaijan is a notable organization, and I think its opinion needs to be reflected in some form. Grandmaster 09:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of other stuff exists but I had a look, at that article the criticism is directed at the book which is of course not a living person, naming someone in a biography here at wikipedia to be a war criminal, when you have only a partisan source is a totally different situation and could have real life issues. Why don't you present your desired addition here with the supporting citations and see if there is any support to add it? Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I proposed it at the talk. I can copy it here. This is what I propose to include:

Military personnel of the 366th Motorized Rifle Regiment, stationed in Stepanakert, was directly involved in the attack on Azerbaijani town of Khojali on 25-26 February 1992, in the course of which hundreds of Azerbaijani civilians were killed by Armenian forces. The National Assembly of Azerbaijan (Milli Məclis) of the Republic of Azerbaijan stated in its declaration that Ohanyan was one of the officers of 366th regiment who led the attack on Khojaly.

1. New York: Amacom, 2007
2. “U of Illinois President Resigns in Wake of Admissions Scandal,” Chronicle of Higher Education, September 23, 2009
3. News Release, University of Illinois, September 23, 2009, “B. Joseph White resigns as president of the University of Illinois”
4. News Release, University of Illinois Foundation, October 3, 2009, “ University of Illinois Brilliant Futures Campaign passes 76% mark on way to $2.25 billion goal”
5. “What Doomed Global Campus?” Inside Higher Ed, September 3, 2009
6. Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh. Human Rights Watch, 1992. ISBN 1564320812, 9781564320810, p. 21
7. Thomas De Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, NYU Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8147-1945-7, p. 173
8. Declaration of Milli Mejlis of Azerbaijan with regard to the 15th anniversary of the Khojaly genocide

I'm not proposing to call him a war criminal. Only that the parliament of Azerbaijan claims that he was one of the people who led the attack on the town of Khojaly. As for de Waal, the criticism in that article is not just about the book. It even includes a claim that can be interpreted as a death threat from the leaders of separatists in NK (it seems to him that he and his like will not be responsible for anything. But he is mistaken…). Grandmaster 09:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

My personal position is that as a wikipedian editor with the editorial responsibilities to the wiki that brings...I can't believe you think this is a good thing to add to the biography of a living person, I realise it is important to you personally but please, it is a weakly cited controversial damaging comment that I would not even consider supporting with these citations, feel free to take other opinions but this is mine. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And Grandmaster has wikilinked "attack on Azerbaijani town of Khojali" to Khojaly Massacre - so it is wrong for him to claim the text he wants is not calling Ohanyan a war criminal - it is, and is doing it in a weasel-worded way. Meowy 22:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Conrad Schmidt 2

The information on this page is incorrect. I have tried correcting it, but somebody called RaseaC and Delicious keeps adding it back. I really do not want to take you to court, because wikipedia is the greatest invention ever. Please either remove this page or let me correct the info.

The section on my community involvement is not correct. I was part of a collective that organized those events all I did was help with the media for the event. The reason why it causes me a lot of trouble is because the other people who did most of the organizing are upset. Also I no longer have a radio show, that was 3 years ago.

I think the best thing to do is remove the page. I am not a famous person and should not have a wiki page giving me credit for things that I can't take credit for.

If you have any questions please give me a call —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConradSchmidt (talk • contribs) 18:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see, , wikipedia, no legal threats WP:NLT this policy is taken extremely seriously. Off2riorob (talk) 20

03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you identify yourself to WP:OTRS you can make a request there for the removal of your biography. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you visit the page Misplaced Pages:Contact us/Article problem you will find an explanation of the process, with a direct link for contacting people able to assist with biographical issues like this one. I think this would be a good route for you to take, and may well get you more satisfaction that attempts to edit the article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)I have been trying to communicate with whoever has been removing material from Conrad Schmidt without success because they do not stick with any one account (see similarly named posting above). Are you that person? The trouble is that it is fairly easy to find and use sources which credit Mr Schmidt even if this is not accurate. That is how Misplaced Pages works, like it or not.

I am actually sympathetic to your situation. In my opinion, which is not widely shared on Misplaced Pages, I believe anyone who is not otherwise well-known should be allowed to "opt out" of having an article. I would be happy to nominate your article for deletion, but I would want to know that you actually are Conrad Schmidt, and not someone who is attempting to remove information. Some advice - first, read WP:NLT. You are risking being blocked for making the mention of suing Misplaced Pages. Second, if you are Conrad Schmidt, go to WP:OTRS where you will get help dealing with the errors in the article, and perhaps they will get the article deleted for you. Best of luck. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Krisztina Morvai

All the edits done on the subject of Krisztina Morvai should include full references to the sources used. The person in question seems to bee increasingly popular in Hungary, and her position as a MEP (Member of the European Parliament) increases her political potential.

Adolf Hitler also seemed to be increasingly popular in Germany in 1932, and i'm not collecting this Godwin point for nothing: , . --RCS (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's now talk about Krisztina Morvai for a moment, okay? Krisztina Morvai may turn out to be a really interesting person, but as always, all sources should be controllable. This is even more important, if the person in question has any real potential as a political leader. Krisztina Morvai has it, so it is a critical task to check all the sources! By the way, learn some Hungarian instead of trusting on second-hand translations :o)

Michael Winner

An anon/SPA has added several variations of a description of a recent subtrivial TV appearance by the article subject, all but one completely unsourced, the most recent partly sourced. The anon's intent is clearly derisive; one of its edit summaries sarcastically describes the edit as intended to provide "an insight into Winners' winning personality". This should not be controversial, but User:Little grape has inexplicably reinstated the material while acknowledging on the talk page that the relevant BLP issues remain unresolved. I'm therefore looking for input from other editors. I find this (minor) contretemps of particular concern because the anon seems to have no other purpose in its recent edits other than to belittle article sujects (note the gratuitous insulting comment in this edit summary ). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Michelle Rhee

Hello, I reverted some unsourced material on Michelle Rhee's BLP. The user then readded it, but with a source. I've again reverted due to the nature of the material (negative material about her fiance) and that the language used wasn't quite accurate. I've added a quick note on the user's talk page. As I normally don't deal with BLP issues (I do watch this one however) I'm not even sure I was in the right and as I'm approaching 3 revisions, I'd appreciate it if someone else kept an eye on this article for a bit. Thanks Hobit (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting that edit is an excemption to the 3rr rule. I have watchlisted the article. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was pretty sure it was, but I'm not 100% on stuff like that, thus I came here. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The BLP policy asks us all to be bold in deleting such things. Don't be afraid to do it.Jarhed (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

David Copperfield (illusionist)

Was thoroughly vindicated of all rape charges. The police are quoted in a RS that the accuser has made false allegations against another person. (assuming that the AP is RS) I cited the account, and was reverted twice (second revert) and the editor noted on his page

How do you know she wasn't set up by a paid agent of the accused? You assume far too much. Her lawyer denies the version of events you have uncritically accepted and her civil case against the accused continues. You also say that he was "vindicated by police of the rape allegation". Whaaat? Where do you get that from? You need to re-read and , especially:

Investigations may be closed without charges if prosecutors determine there is no federal jurisdiction, no federal laws were broken, or that it would be impossible to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. "Neither the investigation, nor its termination, should be perceived as a comment on guilt or innocence," the statement said.

Editing 101, really. ► RATEL ◄ 23:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Where a person has been actually vindicated by the police, noted by the Associated Press etc., is it improper to note the person was vindicated after months of the WP BLP containing the allegations? The editor involved previously sopught to have the rape prominently handled, alomg with allegations of "secret children" and the like, so I am unsure how to interpret his first revert comment of No appropriate. This is not germane to the article, would not be submissable in a court dealing with this case, and it is not our place to smear or exonerate individuals) Collect (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, any disputed BLP inclusion that hinges on something not in an RS should be immediately deleted. That goes double if the hinge is someone's interpretation of the law, which is pure POV and should be disregarded. It is also my opinion that any notable scandal where a person has been found not guilty should be mentioned in the barest possible terms, if at all, with the vindication prominent in the article.Jarhed (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Which was my position for a long time -- that the entire allegation did not belong. The other editor, however, worked mightily to keep the rape allegations in the article. Now that the Feds dismissed it, he wishes to not note the facts about the accuser found in the AP article <g>. The entire article was a repository for smears on Copperfield, and it is time to clean it out. Collect (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Flowanda opened a discussion about my additions noting that Copperfield's accuser is under investigation by Seattle police for making false charges of rape against another guy and for prostitution. I believe that this, widely reported in reliable sources, belongs on the page in the relevant section. I think we need third party assistance here, and welcome Flowanda's invitation to discuss thisKarelin7 (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC). Karelin7 (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Drew Pinsky

A former associate of Drew Pinsky told the gossip rags that they did a lot of coke back in the 80s. It may or not be true, but it should be from a better source than lifeandstylemag.com, right? It's only been added from one IP (multiple times), but I suspect it'll come from elsewhere. tedder (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This could be a disaster. This allegation attacks the subject's income and professional reputation. I don't see how anything less than a source based on a court document could be acceptable. I agree that the article is going to be pummeled over this. It should probably be semi-protected.Jarhed (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article for a month. Like Jarhed said, an assertion like that would need a pretty good source, and the one being used was nowhere near reliable enough. AlexiusHoratius 08:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with lifestylemag.com as a source? From the webpage it is a recognisable publication from a named business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a supermarket tabloid; the fact that they ran with a story like that based on the sources they had doesn't say much about their journalistic standards. If it's true, find a better reference, one from a reliable source. AlexiusHoratius 05:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Kaleb Schwade

Hi. I wanted to get some feedback on this article. I don't remember how I first came upon it, but I've monitored it for BLP concerns for some time. It's about an infant (now little boy) who may or may not have been abused by his babysitter. It's marginally notable, with a smattering of reliable sources and enough public interest to have inspired an e-mail meme that led to a Snopes report () and a sand volleyball tournament somewhere in Florida (). Nevertheless, it's a BLP about a minor whose only notability is in having possibly been the victim of a crime, and it has the potential to do harm to the childcare provider, who maintains her innocence and whose criminal status I've been unable to determine — the latest info I was able to find, she was expected to go on trial in October of 2007; if she was cleared but the papers no longer cared enough to report it, this "pending" status could seriously harm her reputation. (OTOH, it also provides neutral, sourced information.)

I've tried to figure out if this could be merged or redirected somewhere, as perhaps at Shaken baby syndrome, but there really doesn't seem to be a proper place. It could be moved to an article about the case in accordance with the suggestions at BLP, but under what name? And what to do about the unresolved information on Saunders?

I'd appreciate thoughts on this. I'd put it at the article's talk, but nobody would ever see it. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I left a couple of comments and links on the talkpage, the case is ongoing and next date is in February, the child is only notable for this one sad single event, any opinions as to a redirect or merger? Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is something about this particular instance that clearly sets it apart from the other 1,200 to 1,600 children in the US alone estimated to be effected yearly (the referenced statistic used in the Shaken baby syndrome article), then the article should be deleted under BLP1E. If there is something significant about the case it should be moved to a page about the case/trial. Jezebel'sPonyo 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The case itself doesn't appear to be particularly notable, sad but not especially notable, we could send it to AFD which would allow people to comment? Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the best call; if there is some angle not currently covered in the article that would support the significance of the event, it will likely come to light during the discussion. Would you like to do the honours, or shall I? Jezebel'sPonyo 18:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I support the position under policy, but recently I am becoming more of an inclusionist... so I am not going to do it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

but recently I am becoming more of an inclusionist...don't go to the dark side!! use the force :) j/k --Tom (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hédi Annabi

I would like to think this person is not dead until his body is pulled from the rubble (and note that a bodyguard has just been rescued, unscathed) or until Ban Ki-moon says so. 201.137.210.141 (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have removed the presumed comment. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I restored the Living People category and BLP banner associated with the article and also removed the entry from the Deaths in 2010 page. I searched online for the most recent updates and he is still only being reported as missing/unaccounted for. As rescuers are still pulling people alive out of the rubble there is no harm in leaving the BLP banner up until his death is confirmed (if that is indeed the case). --Jezebel'sPonyo 15:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sad news is that Reuters are reporting confirmation of his death Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted my changes now that Reuters is confiming the death. --Jezebel'sPonyo 18:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I understood that the President of Haiti has already said that he's dead. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

He is not officially dead, you need a body for that, he is missing. The article has been locked in this position until there are any official notifications. Off2riorob (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Asim Butt (artist)

There was some potential vandalism by IP editors on the article earlier claiming that Butt committed suicide earlier today, there were no sources added so the edits were reverted and the article semi-protected. It now appears that he may, if fact, have died, but reliable third-party sources are not forthcoming and some ip-editors, who claim to have known Butt personally, are concerned that a strong cultural bias against suicide will keep his death out of the news and as such deprive us of reliable sources. I did find one source discussing his death but it appears to be a blog(the link is on the article talk page) and I am not sure it is a strong enough source to include in the article. Having some extra eyes on the article for the next couple days, especially those of experienced editors, would be very helpful. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of infidelity

There has been discussion at the article for Erik Prince about an allegation made. The material in question is "Prince was unfaithful to his first wife, Joan Nicole Prince, cheating on her with their nanny, Joanna Houck. When Joan Prince died of cancer in 2003, Houck attended the funeral while pregnant with Prince's child. Prince and Houck were married a year later.". Now that is some pretty contentious stuff! The sole source for this allegation is a book called "Master of War: Blackwater USA's Erik Prince and the Business of War" by Suzanne Simons. The book provides no evidence. No media sources have even made this allegation, let alone stated it as fact like this author does. Given Prince's reputation, I find it very difficult to believe that the mainstream media never repeated this allegation if it was even reasonably defensible. Even though the book could possibly be considered a reliable source, and we can't speculate on the authors intentions or motives, I (and other editors) have removed it because the allegation is pretty serious and isn't coroborrated by any other sources. Even the allegation isn't being made in other sources. Could I get some opinions on this? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note, I have removed the material in good faith until this can be resolved and posted a link to this discussion on the talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the song A man needs a maid by Neil Young. Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously though, it adds nothing of encyclopedic value, in fact it is pure titillation and not widely reported at the time or after, so I would support keeping it out. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As for the notability of his infidelity, Erik Prince is well known for his religiosity, so something that is hypocritical is interesting for the readers and I disagree with the statements of Off2riorob. As for RS problem, there are many BLPs in WP where subjects' infidelity is mentioned based on an interview in their biography. If we choose to opt them all out, then we will probably never be able to include something like that in an article. Sometimes, mainstream media take on it and it is hyped(like in the case of VS Naipaul), sometimes NOT, based on their on systematic biases sometimes. I suggest, we keep it. Zencv 14:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, otherstuffexists is not a reason to add similar stuff to all articles. It may be well known to you that he is especially notable for his religiousness but it is not given much emphasis in his biography, we do try to be a bit careful as regards controversial claims about living people, are there any other citations that support this claim? Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Correct, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to keep it in. Prince is best known for running Blackwater. His religious stances came to light after that. But his religious beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. The fact remains that this is a very contentious entry that is based on one source saying that someone told them happened. They don't even term it an allegation, they present it as fact. Yet the mainstram media, the same media that has constantly taken any shot they could at Prince, hasn't even repeated it as an allegation, let alone stated it as fact. That is a big part of the problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I did not mean to come up with OtherStuffExists, Niteshift36 brought this up in the talkpage here, citing another incident as an example - so I just wanted to mention that if one were to look at other sruff or crap, one would find more than enough reason to include them rather than exlude them. Off2riorob, erring on the side of caution is fine, but that can be achieved by better formulation of the allegation rather than complete removal. Just wanted also to mention the illegitimacy of his "single source" argument as it is not a requirement to have multiple RS Zencv 23:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• My example isn't othercrapexists, it is the opposite. It is a very parallel debate that happened on this noticeboard where a subject was being labelled based on the say so of a single source and that source was more reliable and had more evidence than the one you are relying on. If anything, mine is othercrapdoesnotexist. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, we also can apply common sense here, especially in the protection of living people, as I said originally, it is titillating tabloid style speculation that appears to not have been reported at the time in wikipedia reliable sources and that adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the reader at all, so lets keep it out. Of course if you can find a degree of consensus support to add the disputed content that would be fine. Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Instead of spending time trying to prove the "illegitimacy of his "single source" argument as it is not a requirement to have multiple RS", you might want to read BLP. First, the author of the book has a POV to push. It's evident from her title. From BLP: "Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources" (Notice that says sources plural.) It also states: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources." In this case, the encyclopedic value is in dispute and the only person making this claim in print doesn't share the source. BLP goes on to say: "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. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." A claim made by one person, with no evidence, regardless of whether or not she wrote it in a book, barely rises above being a rumor and again, the encyclopedic relevence is in question. I'd also note that on the question of marriage, divorce etc, BLP says: "In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is verifiable by its wide publication in several reliable sources, the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is not private, unless there has been a court seal on the disclosure of the name." Now I ask you, why does WP want "several" sources to print that someone is getting engaged, but you think it is "illegitimate" to ask for more than one source for something like this? Again, your source states it as fact, yet offers no evidence of it. That is a problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

NiteShift, To include something in WP(even in a BLP), what kind of "proof" that normally is needed other than being cited in a published book? Of course, you seem to have problem with the source(ie, book), but that is your problem and I can imagine why you oppose the whole thing then. I am not keen to put/keep anything malicious in a BLP, but I disagree that it is not worth mentioning this at all and this goes with my general belief that allegations in a book is best put it in a way that makes it clear that way. In this case, if we don't state it as an obvious fact, then should anyone has a problem to mention it that way? Zencv 16:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Clearly I am not the only one who disagrees. I'm also not the only one who has removed it from the article. I haven't, however, heard anyone else make a case for inclusion except you. And your sole argument has been "it's in a book". You have not even attempted to address the question of why something so lurid and damning about someone so despised by the media hasn't been reported anywhere else. I've at least had the courtesy to address different points, rather than just repeat "it's in a book" over and over, to find a very parallel case (and how you can't see the parallel escapes me) and to keep this about the topic, not about you. Where is the corroboration? I'd love to hear you opine why multiple sources are needed for a pending engagement, but not for something like this? Go to a science article and try to edit in some extreme theory that has appeared in only one book and see what happens. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We will not know how many agree or disagree, though there was another anon user who brought this up and who opposed adding it, if he has to be counted. I dont understand why this issue which Mr.Prince had never bothered to deny should be so contentious to others. It is beyond us to speculate why tabloids didnt pick this up. Maybe there is an obvious reason why Fox News did not report it, in any case I dont think that we have to propogate the same bias to this article. What keeps me from proposing a compromise statement is the fact that I had not been able to read the book so far(I don't know whether you read it either), but after that I would be able to propose something(if I think it can be put in a neutral way based on what is written there). If you are bringing parallels, then I have to say other stuff or crap exist need not be brought up here. As for the source, it looks like this book is far more unbiased than many conservative propaganda materials that are profusely used as sources in WP. Zencv 21:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why wouldn't the IP editor count? Because he doesn't agree with you? You also forget Off2riorob, another experienced editor doesn't think it belongs without corroboration either. Perhaps Prince doesn't respond because responding lends creedence to the allegation? Fox News? Who said anything about Fox News? Bringing them up (when nobody else has) and not even mentioning any other outlets is very revealing Zencv. Then you go on to accuse them of a bias and claim we are propogating the bias. How deftly disingenuious. You pick out Fox, claim a bias and ay we are doing the same. Why hasn't CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC or anyone else reported it? None of those networks have hesitated to report anything negative about him or Blackwater, if it was reasonably supportable. Neither have the NY Times, LA Times or any number of other papers. Yet none of them have reported it. They have full staffs of investigative reporters who can't find enough evidence of this to report it. But you want to take the unsubstantiated word of a barely known author, whose only other book was a childrens book about dolls, and claim it is fact. Put aside your dislike of Prince (which is evident) and see if that even sounds the least bit logical. She works for CNN. If this was supportable, why wouldn't CNN use it themselves? Their own employee gets an alleged bombshell like this and they ignore it? Or is CNN part of the "neo-con conspiracy" too? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote, I am not keen to guess why media ala CNN did not pick this up and I think thinking in that direction doesn't make me a better editor or improve the quality of article in general. A disproportionate amount of scandals related to liberals, lefts, immigrants, Muslims etc. are sourced to Fox, The Sun, Bild etc. Now may be you are getting why you don't hear much about Prince's affair in these kind of media. Also Prince is no celebrity ala Tiger Woods, so media apathy is partly due to that. I don't expect Western popular media to focus excessively on the sexual exploits of a (alleged)neo Crusader. If it had been Ahmedinajad or his Chauffeur who did this, you may have found abundant reports in all the media you have mentioned. You put as if there were many editors who are serious about removing it, hence I mentioned that you just have the support of an Anon(in the talk page). In general, it is irrelevant whether I am a fan of Prince or not, but the question is whether there is a strong case to remove a sourced content which in my opinion is no. I don't think that having a few secondary sources that mentions that improves anything. Off2riorob: If we have a book which says "Obama is a follower of Hitler", we don't have to write that as a fact in his bio, but it would be worth mentioning that a bio by XYZ states/alleges that "Obama followed Hitler". I hope you get it now Zencv 00:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do, I have a problem that you want to add, that this persons maid was pregnant with his baby when his wife died, according to the writer of this book. . I have a problem with it whatever way you write it, as I said if you can find several reliable citations to support the content or you can find a degree of consensus support to add it I would be fine with that. Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think there is anything I need to say here, WP:BLP is quite clear, but, I shall do so anyway to be absolutely transparent;

Regarding Negatively sourced material, BLP has several, clear requirements:

1. No self-published sources unless they are published by the article subject, and even then:
   1. it is not unduly self-serving;
   2. it does not involve claims about third parties or unrelated events;
   3. there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it;
   4. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
2. The material cannot be poorly-soured: Poorly-sourced material is that attributed to a single source, but has not ever been listed in any other reliable sources. Meaning you cannot use a single source for attribution, it just be several, reliable sources.
3. They must be reliable sources. A single book by an author whose only other book is a children's book is not a reliable source.

I believe that is all. Now, as said, I want to be absolutely clear, so, let us examine this thread for a minute:

Those in support of addition of material

1. Zencv (talk · contribs)

Those in support of removal of material

1. Niteshift36 (talk · contribs)
2. Off2riorob (talk · contribs)
3. Daedalus969 (talk · contribs)

Consensus is pretty clear, and I am sure, nothing more needs to be said.— Dædαlus 00:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow

UrbanisTO (talk · contribs) insists on describing the subject as a "Canadian American" because of some obscure Canadian law, but presents no reliable sources that describe Maddow as such. After failing to push this into the article, the editor began removing "American" from the article (despite the fact that she is described as such in a number of the reliable sources within the article). I would appreciate some suggestions. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page unhelpfully cites no sources whatsoever (that I can see). Which of the sources in the article describes her as American? Rd232 01:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

She was born in California. Her mother was Canadian. "my dad worked for the water company, my mom was a Canadian and worked for my middle school" -- Proofreader77 01:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The answer "she was born in California" would seem to have the same status vis a vis her being American as "her mother was Canadian" to her being Canadian. Are there sources (preferably not blogs...) that clarify it better than that? Rd232 01:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Progressive blogs don't misquote progressive's about who their mother was. LoL As for born in California, I got that from Misplaced Pages. :-) Don't think too hard — this is not that hard. Proofreader77 01:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

She's American with a Canadian mother, she would be able to apply for dual nationality but there seems to be no citations that she has done that. Off2riorob (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just added a citation that explicitly notes her California birthplace. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Interesting ... Canadian_citizenship#Canadian_citizenship_by_descent

Born: born April 1, 1973 — if she'd been born a few years later, she'd automatically be a Canadian, too (by descent).
-- Proofreader77 04:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bernie Miklasz

Bernie Miklasz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Sdiver68 keeps on adding negative content in a "controversy section" from self-published sources, clearly not wp:rs. Trying to avoid 3rr. The only one that isn't a message board is "Bleacher Report" which is user-generated content. See Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the controversy section on the grounds of being...well, not actually controversial. I've also started a discussion on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree about it not being controversial or notable....which is why it hasn't been covered in a wp:rs! Thanks for your help. I tried to reason with the user on my talk page and got nowhere. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ron Nehring

• Ron Nehring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saw this over at WP:RFPP - could use some attention and additional eyes and some cleanup. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales libelous characterization of Roman Polanski

User:Dream Focus has been advised of libelous comments, but is repeating the reinsertion, including ALL CAP version for emphasis.

Will add all diffs shortly, but posting this now . Proofreader77 11:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You advised someone not to do something you didn't like. And of course, like most people, I just try to ignore your nonsense. Stop vandalizing a talk page! The rules here are for articles, not for talk pages, which operate under totally different rules. Dream Focus 11:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

please get acquainted with WP:BLP#Non-article space. Sssoul (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: User talk:Jimbo Wales is a highly public forum. These are libelous posting in the most visible forum in Misplaced Pages. Proofreader77 11:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

We have been through this many times on Roman Polanski. The guilty plea is for "unlawful sexual intercourse" which is not rape (according to L.A. court officials). The shouting (all caps now) of "CHILD RAPIST" is libelous, and I have advised , then refactored the comments out when the response was to add the all-cap version. Proofreader77 11:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Notification of this topic Proofreader77 11:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages does not censor. We mention what was said in the major media sources, many of which called this rape, and child rape. Dream Focus 11:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Warning for disruptive editing Proofreader77 12:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose indefinitely blocking Dream Focus, who is blatantly using Misplaced Pages for purposes unrelated to building an encyclopedia and is by his actions bringing Misplaced Pages into disrepute. --TS 12:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone else brought up the topic there, attacking someone, I then responded. And how does this bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute? Ignoring all the news media that calls him a child rapist, because you don't want to offend his fans, would damage Misplaced Pages reputation for accuracy. Dream Focus 12:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a scandal rag. --TS 12:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Concur with proposal of block if editor does not immediately agree to cease. Proofreader77 12:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --TS 12:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: Editor has been notified of ANI. Proofreader77 12:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dream Focus, you're soapboxing through WP:BLP violations. You may not agree that your posts have gone astray of BLP, but consensus will most likely be that they have done. Either way, your soapboxing on the most widely watched user talk page on this website is blatant and isn't allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please respond at the ANI How is it soapboxing? Is me calling the director a child rapist, and linking to a CNN article where the District Attorney calls him that, and other news source calling him that, a violation of any rule? Dream Focus 12:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You asked here, I'm giving a short answer here. Public statements by magistrates are often wholly adversarial and meant to be so, you're soapboxing in support of an adversarial position, not an accomplished legal outcome. In doing so, you're also astray of WP:BLP. There's more to it than this, but that's the pith. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Statements about Polanski, anywhere within wikipedia, should stick to what he was actually convicted of, which is basically statutory rape, not "child rape". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Story

A user has undone edits that were factual, while at the same time re-inserting information that is essentially unsourced. The user in question asserts that a single book, which I own, contains information, which it does not. Even if it did, mainstream reviews of the book claim that the info in the book is of duboius origin and that the book makes many factual errors.

The book in question also contains NO SOURCES and NO FOOT NOTES.

I'm not sure how an unsourced book can be a source for "facts" on wiki.

In addition, I placed other actual beliefs of CS on the page.

The user removed those beliefs in a effort (I can only assume) to make CS look more reasonable.

This is essentially political editing on the users part.

If this entry is to be considered valid, it needs to use real source material and the subject's own words should not be removed from the entry.

Can someone please look into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leelikchi (talk • contribs) 17:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

David Copperfield (again)

The discussion and wording of a section concerning sexual assault allegations could use some eyes, please. I took a shot at shortening the section while adding current details, but it needs work, and the discussion needs some better guidance. The proposed edits and discussion are at Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)#Investigation ends. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 23:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sergiu Băhăian

Sergiu Băhăian, allegations are serious, sources are in Romanian, and sorry but I'm off to bed. ϢereSpielChequers 23:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick G News Archive search gives this apparently reliable newspaper The Google translation of the title says: "Sergiu Bahaian will stand over 5 years behind bars"--and the G translate of the article itself seems consistent with the Misplaced Pages article. I don't think we need to be concerned. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. ϢereSpielChequers 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Orca Conservancy

I've been concerned about changes made to Springer (orca) and Luna (Orca) for several weeks. Content was recently added and re-added by editors who appear to have a close relationship with a person I'll call M.H.: Babywildfilms (talk · contribs) and Mrjoshuawells (talk · contribs). Much of this is sourced from a document called "The Springer File" which is here: http://www.orcaconservancy.org/ . The Springer File is a mixture of copied newspaper articles and original pieces written by M.H. The parts written by M.H. include extremely POV commentary about named living individuals. See, for example, the section titled "OC TIMELINE: ”THE EVIL DR. NIGHTINGALE”. I would be happy to remove *everything* sourced to the Springer File and all links to it. I've been posting messages for weeks to get more eyes on this article, with little response, but I only just realized the severity of the BLP problem. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've removed all URLs that lead to the website. The website itself contains clear BLP violations. A question for the community is whether this website may be used as a source at all, or whether all material that relies on it must also be removed immediately and without discussion. There are IMHO good reasons to remove it, in addition to BLP. The question is, how urgently does this have to be done? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Roman Polanski Sexual Abuse Case

• Roman Polanski sexual abuse case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this Wiki worthy? Seems like the old Court TV-like BLOG material to me, and potentially libelous in the discussion and reprint of certain (Secret) Grand Jury Testimony which seems to have never been legally released. ] (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean some specific content or the whole article? Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I must say the entire article. If someone (perhaps they did) wanted to do a biographical article on the subject, his biography, his achievements, with perhaps a small mention of his sexual abuse case, that would be one thing; but to devote an entire article on this case seems to me to belong in a newspaper, blog or tabloid. If we are going to set a trend of devoting an entire article on the scandals of public people, I predict that it will not be long before Wiki turns into something other than it's original premise. It is also my opinion that it is dangerous in the legal respect, in that some of this casually posted material can be potentially libelous in that the references are from newspapers and print that are generally protected from libel. That is my view as a Wiki editor and a former paralegal in Criminal Law. Mugginsx (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Harvey Whittemore

TerryE has placed a BLP tag on Harvey Whittemore, an article I created about one week ago. TerryE states that I have engaged in "deliberate deception" in the following sentence: "Whittemore's lobbying accomplishments include obtaining tax breaks for Steven Wynn, owner of the Bellagio in Las Vegas". Two sources are cited: a New York Times article explaining a tax break bill before the Nevada legislature and Whittemore's role in the lobbying, and a Las Vegas Review Journal article about the passage of the bill. It would appear to me that this sentence is not even a potential BLP violation, but I would appreciate other opinions. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

See Lobbyist/Attorney. I asked for the removal of this sentence because the nowhere in the (Internet accessible) RS did it state that Whittemore accomplished any tax breaks. This is pure WP:SYNTH or WP:OR of KCACOs part. I asked him to provide the exact quote or remove the comment. In response he added a second reference, implying that this now addressed the text. So I paid my $2.95 to get a copy of the RS and checked. Guess what? still WP:SYNTH or WP:OR but now with obsufscation. See the discussion. I would be happy for some more experience editor could give me the appropriately politically correct Wikipedian expression for this action and apologise if "deliberate deception" is overstepping the mark. -- TerryE (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Harvey Whittemore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A Nevada based business man

This is a recently created article (Jan 10, 2010) with three main contributing editors:

• Keepcalmandcarryon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The original creator
• TerryE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The author of this notice
• Ward20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Though there are other editor involved, these three are also the main contributors to the

Talk:Harvey Whittemore (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

The main reason for this notice is because of failure to progress some disputes discussed on the talk pages. Examples include:

• Lobbyist/Attorney. See also the discussion Another WS:BLP WS:NPOV issue -- Lobbyist/Attorney. The main issue at point here is not that HW is a lawyer that specialised in lobbying but on the inaccuracies (the wording in the article is an inaccurate quote from the RS) and bias of the reporting (these inaccuracies enhance the critical nature of the content; any balancing positive content is omitted).

• Coyote Springs section. See also the discussion Talk:Harvey Whittemore#WP:BLP and WP:Coatrack. Coyote Springs is a new development in Nevada by Coyote Springs Land which is a subsidiary of Wingfield Nevada Group of which Harvey Whittemore is the chairman and founder. This section occupies some 65% of the HW content most of this material relates to controversies to do with the development. There is little coverage of the positive issues and not of this material is covered in the Coyote Springs article itself. Whilst I agree that HW is a major player within Coyote Springs Land, the correct place for balanced reporting is in the main article, with a balanced précis here. This content is biased WP:COATRACK material.

I am sorry if I've made any procedural errors in this notice as this is the first time in two years of editing where I haven't been able to resolve issues through amicable discussion on the talk pages. There is a fundamental divide in attitudes and approach to this article by Keepcalmandcarryon vs. TerryE and Ward20. I didn't think that HW was really notable enough to merit an article but it's really hard going when you need to try and source every RS to validate that the included text is actually a verifiable, accurate and neutral summary of the wording in the article. I would like to solicit independent feedback before proceeding further -- TerryE (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for adding a duplicate section. I posted my intent to create this section on the talk page before doing so and Keepcalmandcarryon posted his view in response. Nothing wrong with that but there's no point in having two sections. -- TerryE (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• It does look like a bit of 2 plus 2 equals 4 and also like this one event is being given undue weight and has been cherry picked as a single achievement from what is probably a long list, I would remove it or rewrite it to more accurately reflect the citation and add some more achievements so that this chosen one is not given undue weight in the way of.. he had many achievements including this one! Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment Whittemore does indeed have a long list of accomplishments, most of them relating to casino legislation and his various Nevada business ventures. The section in question here includes several accomplishments as examples, but begins by noting the subject's reputation as a successful and accomplished lobbyist. The arts tax break was chosen as one of these examples because it was featured in the national media, not just local papers. In any case, this issue is clearly, at most, an issue of weight and wording, not a matter of BLP violation (unsourced, poorly sourced, or defamatory statements). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please provide (here) quotations from the sources backing up the claims made for them. Jayjg 20:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

From The New York Times, 12 April 1999: "Mr. Wynn is hedging his bets. He is lobbying the Nevada Legislature to pass a bill granting tax exemptions on the collection that would amount to a one-time sales-tax break of $18 million on the purchase of the art and $2.7 million each year in property taxes" and: " Harvey Whittemore, a lobbyist for Mirage Resorts, said Mr. Wynn was not trying to wriggle out of paying taxes on the Bellagio collection. The collection, which includes works owned personally by Mr. Wynn (which he leases to the hotel) and others owned by his corporation, is classified as inventory because the works in it are for sale. As such, Mr. Whittemore said, it would already be exempt from sales tax. The interest in passing the law is altruism, Mr. Whittemore said, so that those who buy art will want to show it for the property tax breaks they will get. 'You're trying to encourage the public display of art.'"

See also: Las Vegas Review Journal, 02 April 1999, "Wynn offers Bellagio art show discount for Nevadans", in which "Lobbyist Harvey Whittemore told the Senate Taxation Committee..."; LVRJ, 08 April 1999, "Wynn's tax break compromise gains OK from committee", stating, "During testimony last week, Wynn lobbyist Harvey Whittemore said Wynn has sold..."; LVRJ, 14 May 1999, "Wynns art tax break endorsed by Assembly committee", containing: "After the hearing, Mirage Resorts lobbyist Harvey Whittemore said..."; LVRJ, 04 March 2000, "Art tax exception will proceed", reporting, "Harvey Whittemore, a Reno lawyer who represents Wynn before the Legislature, said the art collection was part of the deal..."; LVRJ, 30 August 2000, "Rules finalized for art tax break": "Wynn attorney Harvey Whittemore said..." These sources may give a general indication of the level of RS support for Whittemore's involvement. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that these comments support the content.."Whittemore's lobbying accomplishments include obtaining tax breaks for Steven Wynn, in fact the citation says that Wittmore said that Wynn was not trying to wriggle out of taxes and Whittmore was not specifically lobbying for a tax break, even if a tax break was the outcome. It is 2 plus 2 equals 4, a bit like saying.. Harry was a lawyer and that made him overweight.. when it wasn't the work as a lawyer that made him fat but the fact that he was paid a lot and he spent all his money on food that made him fat. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How would you suggest we summarise this content, which clearly states that Harvey Whittemore was the representative of Steven Wynn/Mirage in lobbying something related to taxes (whether it's a "tax exception", a "tax break", or a "tax break compromise" as stated by reliable sources)? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, as it is disputed and the current comment is not supported by the citations I would just suggest just taking it out. There are plenty of other links in the article connecting him to the casinos, if that is the value to the reader and objective of the content. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for keeping this going, but I'm not at all excited about removal of reliably-sourced information from Misplaced Pages articles, especially when the information involves one of the most prominent episodes related to the subject, and would prefer an alternative formulation of what these sources contain. I have asked at the article, and I now ask here, which of the following statements, supported by multiple RS, are in dispute:

• Whittemore was the Wynn/Mirage lobbyist (NYT, four Las Vegas articles)
• Whittemore testified before the Nevada legislature in this matter (four Las Vegas articles)
• the goal and/or outcome of the Wynn/Whittemore proposals was a tax cut (NYT and Las Vegas articles).

If, as I maintain, they are not in dispute, how can we best summarise them accurately? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This was the source I perhaps should have included when I opted for the more prominent New York Times: Las Vegas Review-Journal, 02 May 1999, Ed Vogel: Harvey Whittemore "lobbied the Senate Taxation Committee to kill Sen. Joe Neal's bill to impose a 2 percentage point increase in the gaming tax. Then he persuaded the Senate to vote 14-7 for a bill that gives Mirage Resorts Chairman Steve Wynn tax breaks on his $300 million art collection." Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There it is in big letters, the lobbying for whatever is what he did, one of the outcomes was..bla bla..we shouldn't remove the middle bit, if fact we don't even need the end bit, the article is about Whittmore, not how some casino boss benefited from his actions, just take it out, it is unsupported by the citations. take it out and you will see that it is not even important, the article is as good and as informative without it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, an interesting discussion. As far as an RS has said X and we repeat it or précis it in such a way as not to alter its meaning then Misplaced Pages is safe. My understanding is that the presumption is that if the subject had a problem with the content then he or she would seek remedy from the RS; all Misplaced Pages is doing to attribute X to the RS. However, synthesis oversteps this mark. So quoting a verifiable RS is fine by me if the editor finds an appropriate source. When an editor are introduces potentially contentious wording from a printed source (and provide the URI when online copies are available, then it would greatly help others if the originating editor quoted the exact extract in the discussion. I am not a professional researcher and I have to pay to verify such sources.

I also think that balance or neutrality is orthogonal to verifiability. When picking a couple of sentences from a few thousand line article, we should be asking the question "have we maintained the overall balance?" and not seeking the two most juicy quotes which underline a specific POV. I also think that we've lost site of this in the HW article, and not yet covered it in this discussion. -- TerryE (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Marcus (comedian)

Article Marcus (comedian). After a long series of unexplained reverts an IP Address user has claimed to be Marcus the subject of the article. If we assume good faith, despite the offensive tone, broken edits, and forced deletions, this user still needs to go through official channels. The article needs to be clearly marked so that editors like myself do not get hassled for making Good Faith efforts to preserve material or waste time trying to find citations. -- Horkana (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Marcus (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• 67.169.242.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - claims to be subject of article.

Try and be gentle with him, he could well be the subject of the article, and will have a lot of knowledge about himself, point him in the right directions, if he likes to identify himself thats up to him, it is not illegal to have issues with your own biography, suggest he stops editing it but ask him what his issues are and have a look at them to see if the article can be improved. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

He made many edits and unexplained reverts before making any attempt to explain himself and he was very impolite when eventually did so. He has made a twitter post which is credible confirmation it was him. Massively impolite but at least credible, this is the most effort he has made to repond so far instead of just pushing through edits. http://twitter.com/ComedianMarcus/statuses/7879267179 He goes by his first name for his performance and he seems to have problems with his full name being included in the article, although it was referenced. Another editor had tried to add it with a weak source (a radio show) and I restored it with a better source, a local newspaper that even included photos of him. Most of the rest of the article is not properly referenced, quotes are excessively long, some of it is dubious self promotion, a lot of that would have to go too if I had been strictly enforcing WP:BLP. Maybe I should have done it sooner but I did post suggestions and links to guidelines the IP address talk page, and he had been previously warned for unconstructive edits. He doesn't get that he should read the guidelines, and ask for help. -- Horkana (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I see he has contributed on other IPs. Hes got seven edits on this IP four of then removing this content he clearly didn't like..For much of his stand up career his surname was unknown as his stage name is simply Marcus. In an interview on Radio From Hell on Thursday July 16th, 2009, Marcus stated that his last name is Hardy. cited to this link, The content seems to be gone now? If I was you I would go through the BLP and remove anything uncited and anything weakly cited to possibly not wikipedia reliable sources as well.