Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:24, 2 February 2010

• 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.

• 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

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)

You should fix the BLP violation quickly and do not worry about 3RR. As for the source, if you care to nail it down, I would take it to the RS noticeboard.--Jarhed (talk) 01:27, 27 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)

• I agree that the phrase "Whittemore's lobbying accomplishments include obtaining tax breaks for Steven Wynn, owner of the Bellagio in Las Vegas" was an inappropriate summary of the sources. --JN466 14:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like some feedback on my original post or suggestions on how to proceed. Here is the timeline to date:

• 17:57, 17 January 2010 -- TerryE announces his intent to raise BLPN on talk page
• 18:15, 17 January 2010 -- Keepcalmandcarryon raises a BLPN issue "Harvey Whittemore"
• 18:50, 17 January 2010 -- In parallel TerryE raises a BLPN issue "Harvey Whittemore".
• On review TerryE realises that there are now two issues as Keepcalmandcarryon has acted on his "intent" post and raised his/her own issue whilst he was drafting his. So for simplicity the he merges the two into a single issue
• The following discussion now focuses on Keepcalmandcarryon's initial point, culminating with Keepcalmandcarryon posting on an extra reference which addresses his/her original point at 22:02, 17 January 2010
• 01:11, 18 January 2010 -- TerryE's content is not discussed, so TerryE then posts a comment that this discussion has not closed his original issue.
• 23:57, 22 January 2010 -- Keepcalmandcarryon posts on HW talk intent to remove BLPN dispute tag.
• 16:06, 23 January 2010 -- TerryE points out that the dispute is not closed .
• 16:29, 23 January 2010 -- Keepcalmandcarryon repeats that dispute is closed and removes the tag .

I, TerryE, have now undone this removal. What I am asking is how do we proceed in these circumstances? I believe that Keepcalmandcarryon feels that he/she is entitled to close the issue as the "originator". However, it was my original flag and intent to raise an incident that triggered this in the first place. The whole article is very WP:NPOV and some 75% of the content really belongs in other articles, Coyote Springs and Whittemore Peterson Institute. -- TerryE (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me posting back again, but I would really like some neutral third party review of this issue. It's just that one of the editors involved in this has decided that this dispute has "timed out" and decided to remove the dispute and NPOV flags. I have reverted this, but I fear that this could descend into an edit war without mediation. -- TerryE (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a main contributing editor to the Harvey Whittemore article, and after reviewing many sources the last few days here are the present issues as I perceive them. The article contains too much weight on Coyote Springs. The details about a 30 billion dollar project in the middle of the desert are complex and the regulatory issues vast. Much of the material is peripheral to HW. The article is more negative and concentrates on development issues that have been resolved than two of the summary news pieces used as sources.. The news sources that deal totally on Whittemore in the article talk about his critics and his supporters, but the WP article seems one sided about only describing his critics. Another major issue is how the material from the sources is biased. I will pick a few examples but there are many more throughout the article. The article states, "According to the Los Angeles Times, Whittemore helped advance the careers of two sons, including Leif Reid, Whittemore's personal attorney. Responding to allegations of favouritism, Reid's office stated that the Senator's behaviour had been "legal, proper and appropriate"." There must be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR because the material is not in the source. Similarly, "Judicial Watch alleged that Harry Reid and other Nevada politicians may have applied pressure improperly on behalf of Whittemore." The source actually states that Judicial Watch sued the Bureau of Land Management for documents to find out if undue pressure was exerted on the federal government on behalf of HW, not that it was alleged. Going though each sentence and every source to find this type of bias is tedious. Ward20 (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The sentences on Whittemore and Reid are reliably sourced to the LA Times:

• "Whittemore also helped advance the legal careers of two of Reid's four sons. One of the two, Leif Reid, who is Whittemore's personal lawyer, has represented the developer throughout the Coyote Springs project, including in negotiations with federal officials" (LA Times, 20 August 2006)

• "Earlier this month, the Los Angeles Times reported on Reid's role in assisting Whittemore in getting necessary federal approvals for parts of the project. Reid's office said his involvement was legal, proper and appropriate" (LA Times, 29 August 2006)

Similarly, "Judicial Watch alleged that Harry Reid and other Nevada politicians may have applied pressure improperly on behalf of Whittemore" is completely consistent with all available sources, including the Pittsburgh source and the following:

• "A conservative group said Tuesday it is suing the Bureau of Land Management for records about any role Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Nevada politicians had in a real estate development project in the state" (MSNBC, 19 September 2007)

• "Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed an open records lawsuit on September 5 against the Bureau of Land Management as part of its investigation of Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and his role in a massive real estate development project in Coyote Springs, Nevada. At the heart of Judicial Watch's investigation is whether or not Senator Reid improperly used his influence on Capitol Hill to pave the way for the development project in exchange for campaign contributions and other favors from lobbyist and long-time friend, Harvey Whittemore." (Market Wire (DC), 18 September 2007)

• "A conservative watchdog group said Tuesday it is suing the Bureau of Land Management seeking documents that might link Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and two other Nevada lawmakers to approvals for the massive Coyote Springs real estate development. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the group was focusing on reported actions by Reid, the Senate majority leader, in moving along the project headed by Reno attorney and developer Harvey Whittemore" A quote from Judicial Watch is included: "If Senator Reid sold his public office to advance a development project that would financially benefit his friend and a member of his own family, he should be held accountable to the full extent of the law" (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 19 September 2007)

If the language used in the article were somehow objectionable (i.e., if reliable sources indicated that Judicial Watch did not suggest that Reid and others had improperly aided Whittemore and that Judicial Watch was suing the BLM just for the hell of it), it would be a simple matter to change the wording to "Judicial Watch sued to find out if..." That Ward20 and other editors present no such sources, object to researching the issue, and elect to portray such trivial differences as an NPOV dispute, a matter for the BLP noticeboard or indication of personal bias on my part is, quite frankly, a bit curious. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim Hollingsworth

What I am amazed at is that I, the subject, made an attempt to do a wikipedia entry and it was rejected. But now I see a few weeks later there is a factually incorrect page under my real name. I want the whole thing removed in 48 hours. Otherwise the lawyers will be put onto it. You have just entered details about someone who was in witness protection, and if I end up dead, well, they know who is to blame, your stupid site listing personal information without even checking with the living person. GET IT ALL OFF!!!! Kim Hollingsworth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.177.119 (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC) IF YOU WANT AN ENTRY IN THIS WELL I WILL GIVE YOU ONE, BUT THIS INFORMATION IS PUTTING MY LIFE IN DANGER. ALL OF IT- OFF! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.177.119 (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The article Kim Hollingsworth seems to be well sourced. If that's you sorry it doesn't look like much can be done about it. If not then understand that there are many people who share the same name. Both of these are fairly common. Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"if I end up dead, well, they know who is to blame". Well, that sounds more like Pauline Hanson ("if you are seeing me now, it means I have been murdered"). Melodrama aside, please advise (with references) what information is incorrect and it can be corrected. Also, please see Misplaced Pages:No legal threats. WWGB (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering the individual in question lives publicly, including posting her name and phone number for an animal-rights rally, I don't believe the OP. Oh, by the way, it's very easy to see that the IP geolocates to an ISP in Sydney, Australia, so it wouldn't be too smart for a person in protection to be posting here without a login! — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, if you have problems regarding content in a biography that you claim to be yours you need to contact the OTRS team, if you visit this 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 know they are open to consider requests from living people to remove content that may be damaging or demeaning to that person. Since you have expressed a very high level of concern, I think this would be a good route for you to take, and may well get you more satisfaction than attempts to edit the article or discussion here, regards, feel free to comment further here or on my talkpage if you have any other questions regarding this that I can perhaps help you with. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike Malloy

This man gained a bit more notoriety by claiming right-wing talk show hosts were guilty in the September 11th attacks. It will surely get more attention. As is, the page is an unsourced nightmare. I don't want to touch it right now without some form of consensus. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is some quite controversial content there, some of it uncited for long time, and the 3 citations that are there don't look very good, one is the brad blog another is Green 960 pages, blog neither of which is imo a wikipedia reliable source and the last one is the subjects own Mike Malloy Show site? so it's not a good independent source either, imo the uncited stuff that is in any way controversial needs removing straight away, I would remove the blog citations and stub the article back to a couple of lines and add the Mike Malloy show site as an external link and either work to improve it with new citations or add a uncited blp template and then as is going on around prod it . Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed it back leaving only a few simple details, and tagged it as uncited, if someone is interested in the topic, it is in need of a copy edit and a couple of references. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence Solomon

I just protected that article for editwarring over a new addition; most recent reversion. It is stated that the quality of the sourcing falls below that required by WP:BLP, but I would like to request review as I am not sure that any violation is egregious enough to invoke the BLP-hammer. If any uninvolved party concludes that this is warranted, please revert through the protection. The current discussion is at Talk:Lawrence Solomon#Environmentalist (2). - 2/0 (cont.) 19:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see any real BLP reasons for concern. Specifically anyway all of the arguably weakly sourced material is positive about the living person so we are in peacock and undue territory nowhere near a defamation. --BozMo talk 10:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

W. V. Grant

• W. V. Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm requesting help in resolving a long dispute. I figure that if we can get an expert in that will mediate it it should help some. I'm about ready to just send it to Afd and see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenlor (talk • contribs) 09:06, 23 January 2010

An article such as this one will never be neutral. On one hand it is currently unbalanced in the amount of coverage it gives his crimes and detractors. OTOH the whitewash version created by the WP:SPAs is simply unencyclopedic. Martin451 (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike Kelley (artist)

Anon editors reinserting promotional material, starting with "Since the passing of Warhol, Kelley's sublime creations have vaulted him to the forefront of the global art scene". Ty 12:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a "notable" tag. He seems to be far less known than Mr. Warhol. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the notable tag: Kelley is notable. That he's less well-known than Warhol is not a notability issue (fame and notability are quite different). The article is sourced and his notability is asserted and sourced. The article could use more references and should be expanded, but I don't think notability is the issue here. What Ty is mentioning above is POV pushing: Kelley is "big" as far as these things go, but "the forefront of the global art scene" is questionable. I'm sure most visual arts editors on Misplaced Pages could name a few more at the the "forefront" whatever the hell that is. (Where is this forefront and how do I get there?) As far as "sublime creations", well I think we know where that can go. Kelley's work is a lot of things, but sublime it is not. We just need to be vigilant here with those kinds of edits. freshacconci talktalk 13:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Vaulted to the forefront" is purple and florid, but on the other hand, please try not to remove writing flair for no reason, especially on an artistic entry. Artists tend to write artistically.Jarhed (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

William Daroff

The article and the image within are a hint that William Daroff and the uploader of the image User:Repjew might be the same person. Can somebody with more clue on this kind of topic have a look.--Stone (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Any wiki bio that doesn't have any criticism at all is unusual indeed, I have tagged it with COI and NPOV template and left him a message asking about it, the article is well cited and not over bad, just a bit one sided, I really dislike lists like this though...He has also been widely quoted in leading news outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, The International Herald-Tribune, Slate, The Jerusalem Post, Ha’aretz, The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), The Forward, and newspapers around the world. He has also made frequent radio and television appearances Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the questions. I do not know Daroff. It is my intent to write entries on Jewish political leaders, and this was my first attempt. I wanted to say that he's often quoted in the news media to show that he's newsworthy. I figured that the laundry list of articles would serve as a sufficient way of showing that. Since I think his being quoted in the media is relevant, how should I cite that? Also, I included his twitter feed since that's how I learned he existed and because the newservice JTA called him among the most influential Jewish twitterers in the world. So, his twitter url seems relevant. Should I make it an external link at the bottom? Also, do I really need to find something bad about the subject to make this a complete entry? Thanks for your help - as a newbie, I appreciate it. Repjew (talk • contribs) 05:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark Weisbrot

Some recent editing at Mark Weisbrot (a left US economist) sought to characterise him as "a vocal supporter of Hugo Chavez in the United States", as the second part of the first sentence, no less. That morphed into this version, where a similar meaning is given in the final sentence of the lead ("an adviser to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and supporter of his policies"). Apart from the question of due weight, there may be issues of synthesis (possibly) from sources not necessarily reliable, and of over-generalising (being an economist, he's mostly written about Venezuela's economic policies). The "Latin America" section seems now also to have developed into an attempt to associate Weisbrot as closely and as negatively as possible with Chavez - which is particularly obvious and questionable in relation to the "South of the Border" film, on which he was an "adviser" to an unspecified degree. The final part of that section, associating Weisbrot with the Venezuela Information Office via a National Review article referring to the organisation he works for, seems again somewhat synthesis. Some additional eyes please. Rd232 12:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Rd232, I took a look at it. Far from being synthesis, it looks like an accurate summation of information and statements made in reliably sourced articles. It's not just NR here; one of the cites in the introduction is the NYT. SandyGeorgia (the editor introducing this stuff) seems to have a good grip on neutrality and the situation. Ray 17:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated :) As a side issue, it would be helpful if others would keep an eye on the edit warring of JRSP and Rd232 across Venezuela/Chavez/BLP articles. In this article, they reverted together to exclude this info. Rather than discuss and improve articles, even when text is clearly sourcable, they just remove whatever is inconvenient. In another article, they revert to include a source that did not say what they said it said (the US State Dept never said Chavez was "illegally" detained, but they revert to include that info.) Getting more eyes on these issues across all Chavez/Venezuela articles now would help. It would be helpful if they would learn to collaborate and discuss rather than edit via revert. For example, if Rd232 thinks the current section is an "attempt to associate Weisbrot as closely and as negatively as possible with Chavez", he is welcome to actually work on the article to expand it via editing, not reverting sourcable additions. I already spent ten hours cleaning up the mess that was previously there :) P.S. I didn't "introduce this stuff" :) The text was originally added by another editor, cited to the New York Times, summarily reverted (as is custom across Chavez/Venezuelan articles, even though it's easily sourced), so I began to look at the article and the issues, which led to cleaning up a very poorly written article. Further, Weisbrot's involvement with Chavez is not confined to "economic policy" as Rd232 alleges: for example, the advisor role on Stone's film, and this example (there are many others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's pointless to pick out all the inaccuracies in that comment (an obvious one: I said "mostly written about Venezuela's economic policies" just up the page - how does that translate to "confined to"?), though the misrepresentation of the State Dept sourcing issue alluded to verges on libel. Anyhoo, for some reason there is an upswing in interest in Venezuela articles, and I certainly agree with Sandy more people being involved would be excellent. Rd232 22:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Libel? Excuse me? Is that a legal threat? You added back text that incorrectly represented a citation. Where is the libel in that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is getting to be a habit, Sandy. What I said was "misrepresentation verging on libel" (and of course it's not a threat). You knew or should have known (and certainly should have checked at this point) that I did not do that deliberately. You removed a word saying it was unsupported by the existing citation, which I didn't originally add. In response I readded the word with an additional source. Prior to that there was a to-and-fro between two different versions, but nobody'd said the word wasn't supported by the existing source. What does any of this have to do with current issues at Mark Weisbrot? Not a damn thing, it's pointless historiography. Rd232 09:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I do have a habit of verifying sources and supplying diffs which plainly back what I state. Your version above is incorrect: you reverted to text which is not verified by the source given; at that point, I hadn't edited at all. You did it not once, but three times. I didn't edit to remove the word until much later. Your edit history shows you do edit by reverting on Chavez/Venezuela articles quite a bit; when you revert to text that is not backed by the sources supplied, that's the same as adding incorrect info yourself, whether deliberate or not (noting that I never said it was "deliberate", just something that you've done). Editing via revert is bitey, discourages others from participating, and lowers collaboration among editors and the possibility that articles will be accurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The diffs supplied verify what I said. On that one word the text was not supported by the ref; a ref I didn't add and which had been there a long time and which no-one had at the point said didn't support the word. Within minutes of someone (you) pointing that out, I supplied another ref. And again, the prior re-adding of the word was as part of editing back and forth over a number of changes, a fact you conveniently gloss over, enabling you to imply I should have checked the source given for a single contested word (there were lots of changes, and sourcing wasn't the reason given for removal). Why you're trying to paint me as a liar and bad faith manipulator, I do not know; but that you do it repeatedly on a topic irrelevant to the subject in hand is really quite aggravating. Rd232 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Now, back on topic. You requested other input here, and although no one yet who has visited the article or this page has agreed with you, you nonetheless removed fully cited text and continue to claim that it is original research and synthesis. Could you please explain why we don't want Wiki readers to know what reliable sources have to say about Mark Weisbrot, Center for Economic and Policy Research and Venezuela Information Office? Wiki is not censored; please see WP:CONSENSUS, and restore the cited text. And yes, "verging on libel" is clearly a threat, as it could have the effect of silencing someone with whom you disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

On the topic (remember that? good) you're quite plainly wrong: user:John Z agreed with me below, and made an edit backing up his comment. Rd232 22:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, JohnZ did not agree with you, and removed the one clause that he had a problem with (which, by the way, came from the South of the Border article, as a claim that US critics had a problem with the film). Please do read his response, and refrain from edit warring against consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• As I've commented at WP:ANI#Legal threat, saying that an article is libelous is not a legal threat, just a statement of fact that may be wrong or true. Indeed, one of the principal purposes of WP:BLP is to prevent libel on behalf of Misplaced Pages.  Sandstein  21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sandstein, could you please take the time to read the statement again? He did not say the article was libelous; he said my characterization of the edits was verging on libel. That is plain. He is saying I misrepresented his edits with regard to the State Dept sourcing issue, which I plainly did not, as shown by the diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hm, yes, that is indeed more problematic; not a legal threat stricto sensu but such comments should be avoided if only for reasons of collegial courtesy.  Sandstein  22:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The diffs show what happened. It's your interpretation thereof which is mispresentation. Rd232 22:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Venezuela emphasis does seem a little WP:UNDUE. The statement that "South of the Border,a 2009 film about Chavez which was not well received by US critics", citing mainly negative reviews is a clear case of OR, so I removed it. A statement of expert consensus, particularly in a BLP, must be sourced and preferably quoted, and the relation of the film's reviews to Weisbrot is too tenuous.John Z (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a positive review, by all means, add it. I couldn't find one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis

Comments please re a WP:Synthesis concern explained at Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Synthesis. thanks. Rd232 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Rd232 is still edit warring to remove the content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm drawing on the BLP exemption for 3RR. For those who can't be bothered to look it up, "Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." I assert that the material is WP:Synth, and I await some additional editors helping to resolve that issue. (Existing editors actually addressing the issue would be nice too.) Rd232 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It seem you're the only one who sees synthesis here, and you're still reverting. Can you please explain which part is poorly sourced? Wiki isn't censored, we report what reliable sources say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No longer the case with John Z commenting now, so presuming that ain't gonna settle the issue, more input would be helpful. Rd232 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't realize the arguments were still going on here. A general comment. Weisbrot is an economist, not a film-maker or professional co-writer of letters to the editor. I doubt he spends very much time on either activity, and is not notable for either. If he is the "intellectual architect" of the Bank of the South, and an adviser to Hugo Chavez, that is what the "Latin America" section should focus on. A second general comment: Links and sources for an article should generally at least mention and preferably significantly treat the topic; especially in a BLP. If not, they should almost always substantially cover something directly, integrally and particularly connected to the topic, here CEPR or maybe Bank of the South, for explanatory purposes. Otherwise it is almost impossible not to violate OR and UNDUE.John Z (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Update

In spite of absolutely no support for his claims, after review on three different dispute resolution forums, Rd232 is still removing reliably sourced content, against all consensus. Is Rd232 immune to being blocked because he's an admin? Multiple diffs of his frequent edit warring and invalid reverts have been given; 3RR warnings are on his talk page; we have evidence of tenditious editing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And again, in spite of no agreement or consensus at multiple forums of dispute resolution. The "advisor" statement has two reliable sources. Rd232 is claiming a BLP violation when the sourced statement is even hosted on CEPR.net, where the subject Mark Weisbrot is co-director. If Mark Weisbrot doesn't have a problem with it, why does Wiki have a BLP issue? The page on CEPR.net says "Segun fuentes cercanas, el propio Chavez consulta con cierta frecuencia a Weisbrot ... " (According to close sources, Chavez himself consults Weisbrot with certain frequency ... ). Hosted by Center for Economic and Policy Research, where Weisbrot is co-director. The BLP argument does not hold, and Rd232 is edit warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that the article turned an activity - "Chavez himself consults Weisbrot with a certain frequency" into a position: "adviser". I saw that issue before but overlooked it this time, I was distracted by the quote in the footnote referring to the Bank of the South. Rd232 18:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, then you can certainly reword the text if you don't like "described as an advisor", in spite of two sources that back that up, but what you can't do is edit war with the excuse of BLP when Weisbrot himself hosts the information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop multiplying this issue. The discussion is on the article talk page, and I don't want to waste time clarifying issues in multiple places. Rd232 20:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not immune. Please don't use BLPN as a forum for these sort of comments. WP:ANI is that way. Rd232 18:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Update2

More issues arising about sourcing of other contentious claims made (Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Adviser.3F) and ongoing discussion about the other issues. More input on the article talk page please. Rd232 18:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Murray Walker

Could people take a look at this article please? IP editors are repeatedly editing the article to claim that the subject has died, without any corroborating sources. This happened in December, and again today. Murray Walker is very famous in the UK - particular in Formula 1 circles - and if he had actually died, sources would be easy to find. Google News finds nothing.

WP:3RR suggests I bring this up here rather than rely on the BLP exception to the rule (which I believe applies) - so that's what I'm doing. Pfainuk talk 20:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations and blatent vandalism are exceptions to 3RR, and unless there is a reliable source saying he is dead, claim that he is dead is BLP vandalism. Martin451 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's rather what I thought. Thanks. Pfainuk talk 21:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Simcha Jacobovici

There may be nothing factually wrong with this article, however I do feel that some of the information provided may be blown up or far fetched. I can definitely tell that whoever wrote this article has ill feelings towards Mr. Jacobovici. I feel that this article is more of a slander page. I feel that Mr. Jacobovici is wonderful at what he does. I am not a professional in any way, but I do have a good bit of knowledge concerning the Bible and history, he does a great job at accurately portraying these events. I do hope that someone can take a look at this. It would be such a shame that just a handful of people's views can taint other's who read this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.137.168 (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit negative, criticism of criticism viewed critically, any takers? Off2riorob (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It is kinda in my specialty area, so I will see what I can do. I don't think the BLP issue is a serious one.Jarhed (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Peter Foster

I'd appreciate some input over on Peter Foster.

Brief background: Peter Foster is an Australian who's been jailed in three continents for fraud, false advertising, and other such offences. Media outlets commonly describe him as a 'con man'. According to this Courier-Mail article (as reproduced on PF's website - I have not sighted the original) his mother called him "Ratu Galoot" (King Fool). An ABC piece described him thus:

"Interviewing white collar criminals like Foster is probably the toughest part of this job. They’re harder to talk to than politicians because lying isn’t just a habit for them, it’s a business practice. If they can they’ll try to play you like they play everybody, with a carefully marked deck. The trick is, to recognise the cards. Tonight’s main guest Peter Foster is ultimately in the business of selling himself. He bought the full deck of cards marked ‘trust me’ to our studio."

The original version of Foster's WP article was created in 2005 by Ratugaloot (user has a total of three edits, all to that article). While it acknowledges his criminal record, it comes across as a puff piece: 'Said to be fiercely intelligent, charming, witty and entertaining, he has also been labelled as “the greatest conman of all time,” in Nigel Blundell’s 2004 book, “The Sting: True Stories of the World's Greatest Conmen”.'

The article was subsequently edited by User:Kingcoconut, an apparent single-purpose account created one day after Foster was released from prison. It has also been edited extensively by anons (see the PF talk page for detail). Both Kingcoconut's edits and the anons' have concentrated on playing up Foster's "celebrity". There have been repeated attempts to emphasise the "international playboy" angle on the strength of a few articles that have used this as a throwaway line - even though those articles give vastly more coverage to his criminal activities.

As discussed on Talk:Peter Foster, many of these edits are unbalanced and poorly cited, and some are hard to see as anything other than bad faith. Examples include 'citations' to sources that do not support the content attributed to them, and to sources that are difficult to check. After hunting down several sources and finding that they had been dishonestly used, I am unwilling to trust any source offered in that article until I've checked it to confirm that the citation is accurate.

When other editors have attempted to rebalance the article, Kingcoconut and anons have complained vociferously about bias etc. (Foster took a similar course of action after an ABC interview turned out less favourably than he had hoped.)

On the one hand, I appreciate that WP:BLP requires us to be careful in how we write about living people, for good reason.

On the other, based on editing style, agenda, etc, I am convinced that Ratugaloot, Kingcoconut, and the anonymous IPs are one and the same person, and would lay good money that that person is none other than Peter Foster. Whether or not I'm correct in that belief, it's clear that they are trying to promote Foster. I don't believe BLP requires us to accept that. However, I get nervous deleting favourable material from a BLP on the grounds of WP:WEIGHT - what's the best way to deal with this issue? --GenericBob (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't accept no fluff...he is not a major criminal though and he is a living person, the article is a bit poor and a bit excessively negative towards him imo, yes I know, all the tabloid style reports are negative so what can we do..what I find is that if you write a decent encyclopedic style article the article will be respected and will stabilize, people will come there and read it and think, yea, that was imformative. Off2riorob (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Gruber (economist)

Several single-purpose accounts are persistently adding large amounts of negative material which is sourced solely to weblog entries and op-ed pieces. The SPAs engage in edit-warring when the material is removed.

— goethean ॐ 04:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

He's blocked for 24 and a sock farm is under investigation, obama health care issues, awful, I have watchlisted it. Off2riorob (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Discounting the fact of the socking, one of the queries is of the sourcing. Does an op-ed from New York Times, etc suffice to add the bit that's trying to be added to the article. NJA (t/c) 08:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's vastly WP:UNDUE for more than the passing mention I've left in; and the sources are either bloggy, partisan, or primary (the Times note is a primary source here). Rd232 09:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Brooks Keel

The background information on this page comes word for word from the president's biography at www.georgiasouthern.edu/president . Every external link goes straight to a marketing page for Georgia Southern Very biased information. 141.165.171.60 (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have removed the copyvio material and deleted two external links. If the university would like to release the copyright text for use, there are instructions at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. If you have ongoing concerns about bias you could start a discussion on the article's talk page. - Pointillist (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Gabriel Iglesias

Article needs quite a bit of work, he went triple platinum and is pretty damn popular. Article... not so much. Comes off with an informal tone, reads like it was written with a giant bias and is poorly worded. "fat" might be replaced with "obese" or "over-weight" in a lot of instances, capitalization is lacking, and there's a lot of poor formatting. The notable works is outdated, references don't exist, etc...

Any of that may be true about this or many articles, but I see no BLP issues.Jarhed (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thor Halvorssen Mendoza

Rd232 again (see Mark Weisbrot thread above). In this edit, Rd232 repeats selective info from Thor Halvorssen Hellum, (Sr. vs. Jr.) in a BLP that now reads as an attempt to smear Thor Jr. with allegations about his father, Thor Sr., although the Thor Sr. article is already linked and info about Thor Sr. belongs in and can be explored in more detail in his article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? As you can see from the diff provided by Sandy, I moved the existing para from one section where it really didn't belong to one where it does (though it may need trimming). And don't you think you might have tried raising this on the talk page before posting here? Or, er, editing? Rd232 12:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And frankly claiming the paragraph is an attempt at smearing is fucking funny, excuse my language. Key phrases: "trumped-up charges" and "He was found innocent of all charges." and the bit about Jr is "led the campaign for his father’s release, enlisting the help of Amnesty International". Rd232 12:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a third party could mark this Resolved, if they think appropriate. The original question was a non-issue and the off-topicness is better not pursued. Rd232 16:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, no the original issue at Thor Halvorssen Mendoza is not at all resolved; in fact, no one has even looked at it yet. We have what looks like a smear in the article, and a thread that was diverted to a discussion of previous harassment, still with incorrect claims about what my diffs clearly showed (four reverts to incorrectly cited text) on a different article. An alternate is to cap off the diversionary posts that started with your post of "I'm starting to think that the only reason you dragged the 'legal threat' ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, four reverts to incorrectly cited text which nobody knew was incorrectly cited, and the minute you pointed it out the issue was addressed. Your persistence with that irrelevant non-issue has crossed the line into disruptive. Rd232 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

So are you going to explain the nature of the "smear"? Or better yet fix it? If it's really a smear, then per BLP you should be removing the offending text, not farting around with BLPN. BLPN comes if discussion on the article talk can't resolve the issue. Rd232 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Luckily I am here to help sort this out. I made some changes. The father's arrest and incarceration seem worth including, but I tried focus it more in relation to the son. I also made it a subsection. If it needs to be made clear that the arrest was improper in the thread title, that's okay with me assuming it's supported by sources. I saw in one of the sources the term "frame" is used. Perhaps that would be good to work into the conent? What exactly was he framed for? I put trumped up in quotes, it's fairly colloquial for an encyclopedia. Were the charges found to be fabricated in order to frame him? Maybe it would be best to state that clearly? I also adjusted the "privileged" bit from teh New York Times (although I didn't see a cite for it???). That's a loaded term so I just put that he was well off or something. I'm not sure it needs to be included. The article says his father was a minister so it seems to me to go without saying. As far as the lineage, I'm not really sure what that's about or if it's relevant (I am a direct descendant of the Aristotle and Pinnochio) it seems like it might be an effort to smear him or make him look like an outsider? But if it is to be included it certainly needs to be cited. Please let me know if there are any questions or I can be of further assistance. I am always happy to help, especially two editors whose work I always appreciate, except when they dare to disagree with me. Please keep that in mind. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems basically fine and I've added the oddly missing NYT source. But there is now a new problem: WP:UNDUE prominence. When you add a subssection heading for something, it sticks out in the Table of Contents, as well as in the section. I'd leave it in that section without a heading. Unless perhaps more sources can be found to more clearly link the father's arrest with his later activities, which seems very possible. If it can be shown to be important enough, it may deserve a subhead. Rd232 11:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I considered that, and I kind of like to have more than one subsection if there are to be subsections. I'm okay with it not being sectioned, but it is a block of content that holds together well and isn't quite in sequence with the rest of the chronological background, which is why I broke it out. As far as undue it does seem that his involvement with human rights groups and his career interests got started from those events, even if there is not yet a source noting a direct connection. As you note, there may well be one, or he may say so in an interview. I haven't looked. So that part of his life does seem quite relevant and important in the direction the rest of his life has taken. Anyway, good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Rob Bell

I am requesting the input of an administrator for a dispute on the megachurch pastor Rob Bell article. In the controversy section of the article I added a few lines detailing a significant criticism that has been made of Rob Bell in at least two leading evangelical sources. One of these sources is the blog of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) which is a leading voice with regard to the criticism at issue. Anyone familiar with the gender debate in the church will recognize CBMW as the leading conservative voice in the matter. The other source is some self-published media of Mars Hill megachurch (Mark Driscoll's not Rob Bell's) which is also a leading news/information outlet in the American evangelical world. These sources contain witness information and also contain comments by leading evangelical Wayne Grudem on his personal involvement in the issue. Given the notability of the sources and the fact that they contain information from witnesses including bible scholar Wayne Grudem himself I thought it deserved a mention in the criticism section of the Rob Bell article. I mentioned it in a responsible manner being careful not to pass criticism off as fact - rather I described it as 'allegations'.

However, an edit war has ensued as two other editors do not want the information to be present and they say Misplaced Pages rules do not allow a blog to be a source. I have read the relevant part of the rules and I find no categorical prohibition of blogs or self-published media, and given the notability of the sources I think they are valid, especially as they are not mere opinion but contain interviews with witnesses and comments by Wayne Grudem himself. Please would an administrator resolve the issue. I have tried talking to both of the editors on the discussion page, our dialogue can be read here for more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rob_Bell#Controversy_section.3B_Basileias.2C_Henrybish_and_Lyonscc

Thanks--Henrybish (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• First off, 'Controversy' sections are discouraged. They invite people with an axe to grind about the subject and can lead to undue weight being given to certain aspects of a person's biography. Secondly, undue weight should not be given to a particular viewpoint. There is an awful lot out there regarding Rob Bell, and if all there is about this particular issue is a blog post which has been reposted in a couple of partisan sources, then it should be given very little, if any, attention in the article. Thirdly, reliable sources should be used. I have no idea who 'Jeff Robinson', the person who wrote the blog piece is, but blogs are very rarely used as sources, particularly if it is negative information about a living person. In summary, I agree with those who have removed this section, and you should not be edit warring for it to be included. Kudos, for bringing it to this board, but please do not carry on reverting.

If this dispute has been widely covered in other areas, I'm thinking newspapers or magazines such as Christianity Today, then it may have an appropriate place in the article, but not with the current sources. Quantpole (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

First, it's not necessary for an administrators opinion. The opinion of any experienced wikipedian, and here's the key bit, founded in policy, is as good as any administrators. In wikipedia, administrators have certain powers (like blocking people and protecting articles) which they can use when things get out of hand, but their voice doesn't count for any more then any other experienced wikipedian. Note that any editor can request the help of an uninvolved administrator as necessary for the same purpose and while quite a few administrators frequent here, it isn't necessarily the best place to get the attention of an administrator when action is needed even on BLPs (it is the best place to get advice as you seek above from wikipedians experienced in BLP matters)

Commenting on the issue now, as others have stated, based on your description (I admit I haven't read the sources), they most definitely aren't good enough. I would note WP:BLP says

"Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."

An additional note, since I read some of your talk page comments, you may want to see WP:AGF. In particular, accusing other editor of trying to keep negative information out of articles, censorship, having a hidden WP:COI or otherwise acting in bad faith should be avoided, particularly if you don't have good evidence.

Finally while I commend you on bringing this here, it's normally a bad idea to edit war when adding information people have disputed for policy based reasons, particular when adding negative information on LPs. Discuss first. If you can't reach an agreement, come here as you've done now. Wait until you've achieved WP:Consensus before adding the disputed information.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I will respect the decision. I do have one question that still seems to make this verdict seem a bit stringent - the two sources that I used are both leading voices in the evangelical world. I understand that they are both from organizations that hold an opposing view to Rob Bell, but almost all criticism is partisan and surely that does not mean it should not be heard? - especially if it is from prominent sources who use witness information. Wayne Grudem himself is even interviewed in the article. And I did make it clear in the text that is was an allegation rather than a fact, and I kept it short. Regarding the Wiki rules, the last line that was quoted says:

"Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals"

I don't see why my CBMW source does not fulfill this, since CBMW acts as a news organization with regard to the church gender debate - see their statement: http://www.cbmw.org/Why-We-Exist#building. They are a very well known and prominent voice in the evangelical world (see the list of council members: http://www.cbmw.org/Council-Members ) and I would have thought that their criticism deserves to be heard, regardless of whether one disagrees with it. Waiting for Christianity Today to cover the issue - as one of you mentioned, is not really a fair call because they themselves are a predominantly egalitarian (Rob Bell's view), and they can't be expected to cover every single story regarding every megachurch pastor anyway. The fact remains that there are only a few official outlets that critics have, and CBMW is the most prominent of them - its news blog and its journal. It just seems as though it is a little stifling of information to require that criticism is not allowed from the opposition, this is rarely the case elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. Again, I appreciate your input, and I take on board the comments about refraining from making accusations against other editors unless well supported, and I will respect the decision but I would really like someone to help me understand why CBMW may not be used as a source for making a significant criticism of Rob Bell known. I am really being so unfair in this? Regards--Henrybish (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Further to this, I have had a closer look through Wiki's rules and here are some quotes:

"Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals"

If you are familiar with the gender debate in the church you will know that CBMW (from whose website one of my sources comes from) is one of the most prominent voices in this field. It is true that they hold a very different view than Rob Bell, but this does not mean that they are untrustworthy. Opposing views deserve to be heard if they are from prominent enough sources (see below). Here are some other quotes from Wiki's rules:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"

Again, CBMW specialize in reporting on the gender debate in the church. See here for what they do: http://www.cbmw.org/Why-We-Exist#building . Also from Wiki's rules:

"Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format."

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author."

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves"

So these would validate expressing Wayne Grudem's own view of Rob Bell's conduct since the source thus validates that the world-famous scholar Wayne Grudem did indeed make these comments about Rob Bell.

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." I did not devoted disproportionate space to the matter (just a few lines) and was careful not to present it as 'fact'.

Is it still unfair for me to use this source? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrybish (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC) --Henrybish (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Content about living people should be cited to the strongest possible sources especially if it is controversial, disputed content . Off2riorob (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be acceptable to mention Wayne Grundem's views on Rob Bell in the article on him, using his page as primary source, if that were in some way highly relevant to his biography. (Actually I was never comfortable with this and realised it's dealt with at WP:BLP and the answer is no this isn't acceptable since they deal with a third party.) However it's clearly not acceptable per WP:BLP to use a primary source for mentioning Wayne Grundem's views on the article on Rob Bell since it has not been demonstrated that Wayne Grundem's views are particularly relevant, since it seems no one is particularly interested in them (hence the lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources). Note that you quoted something which said "and Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources" (emphasis added). You seem to have missed the fact that regardless of how much space you devoted to the matter, you were using a self-published blog, which as has been explained isn't acceptable in a BLP. P.S. Looking at the article itself, the quality of sources isn't particularly great. Nevertheless they mostly appear to be better sources then the ones you are trying to use. Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger

• Wendy Doniger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Raj2004 is edit warring in order to add highly negative, unbalanced, inaccurate, and poorly-sourced material to the Wendy Doniger article. Wendy Doniger is a highly distinguished professor at the University of Chicago. The added material gives a highly politicized perspective on her career. The material should be removed immediately and a balanced, accurate account of the reception of Doniger's career should be added. — goethean ॐ 21:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that the material is at least badly worded; it seems to be written to emphasize sensational stuff about sex. I would suggest perhaps rewriting it to tone it down and get the point that Doniger has been criticized across without the sensationalism. I am not going to try myself, not being an expert on Doniger's work. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not too bad now, rude, crude and lewd, I'm no expert but she is into tantra and the traditionalists don't like her, it was worse but bearable now. imo, and appears to be stable, so... Off2riorob (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's somewhat more complicated than it looks at first, although the WP policy aspect of it is probably clear. The real issue is that, given the general thrust of WP policy on BLPs, such articles really should not have "Criticism" sections at all. How do you criticise "mainstream" without allowing "fringe" into the picture? And if there is a controversy, would that belong in the BLP or in a separate dedicated article (with a "See Also" in the BLP, at most)? While this justifiably protects notable people from (opportunistic) mudslinging, it also serves to shield the less than worthy (like Doniger -- which is the complication referred to earlier.) But that's just the way the cookie crumbles on WP, the price to pay for sanity. Next case. rudra (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh sure. Wendy Doniger is "less than worthy." And I'm the pope, up is down, black is white, etc. It's like the Bush years all over again. — goethean ॐ 03:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As usual, you are missing the point. That she is no great shakes as a scholar is no surprise, but no estimation, not even one that sings her praises to high heaven, can be suitable material for a BLP unless it is sourced to a work specifically on her scholarship. None such is likely to be found or even forthcoming, so the entire idea of "evaluating" her work is not only moot but also an open invitation to POV-pushing. rudra (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the only scholarly review of (some of) her work has been by Michael Witzel (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). It's a legitimate review because it is by a recognized expert in his own field of expertise, namely Sanskrit. Witzel restricted himself to the quality of her work in Sanskrit, which he found unsatisfactory. Despite the hype going around, she is not a Sanskritist, only someone who knows Sanskrit (because she has to). Her actual specialty is "religion", and that is what she happens to be a professor of, in a Divinity School. As far as her scholarship there is concerned, I know of no scholarly review -- hardly likely anyway, as when it comes to Woo, anybody can say anything -- but it's somewhat telling that other leading scholars of Saivism, Shaktism and Tantra (such as Alexis Sanderson) hardly ever cite her for a finding or an insight. But naturally her students and proteges ballyhoo her: in profusion, of course. rudra (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you appear to be talking to yourself now, may I suggest that you find a more appropriate, preferably off-wiki venue for your editorializing? — goethean ॐ 13:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Rich Dad Poor Dad

• Rich Dad Poor Dad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ThuranX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At issue is a link to a self-published polemic anti-Kiyosaki site by John T. Reed. The site can be found at http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html. Reed is a competitor of Kiyosaki and hardly a neutral unbiased source. The site clearly make defamatory statements about a living person. It is not simply a book review site as misrepresented by ThuranX. The issue has been discussed here on Talk:Robert Kiyosaki and it was agreed that it should not be linked. I do not believe it should be linked from Rich Dad Poor Dad either. Could someone please take a look into this situation and discuss the WP:BLP policy and the potential legal liability incurred by linking to this site with ThuranX? TIA, Yworo (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

First, yworo made no effort to demonstrate ANY prior discussion. Second, Reed's review is cited by other critics. Yworo's editing history shows a disturbing amount of work on various products and 'entrepreneurs', to be polite, all of which seeems designed to shine only the most positive and glowing of lights on them. He removed criticism and didn't move it until challenged, and so on. As such, I am quite concerned that he will remove Reed, then use that as leverage to remove any criticism which mentions Reed, thus resulting in a whitewash of the material. Further, the discussion Yworo points to never demonstrated any such consensus to remove the material, and makes good arguments for retaining it. In fact, the only 'conclusion is one editor's statement a full year later, unilaterally deciding the matter, hardly any establishment of consensus. Slightly more salient is the number of search results linking the two, and the content thereof, a number of which, including two used int he RDPD article, cite Reed. ThuranX (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nigel Griffiths

User:B626mrk has removed the "sex scandal" section on Nigel Griffiths a few times (eg: diff), giving an explanation on his talk page. I think the section is supported by the references, but I'd like to ask others to take a look to see if that section is fair. The source is the original News of the World article; other sources in a search are just newspapers reporting on that article without adding anything. More balanced sources would be helpful, but I can't find any (there's no response on his website, for example). --h2g2bob (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sex scandal is a bit of a loaded section header. Off2riorob (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The supporting citation is a bit low brow but quite a titillating saucy read. Off2riorob (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears from a question that I asked at the RS noticeboard that the news of the world and the guido blog are primary citations for this information and not to be used in this case in a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Marijan Dundek

Marijan Dundek The draft article is here http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Meechpod/new_article_name_here (I can't seem to format this link properly - sorry!)

Please accept my apologies if I shouldn't be posting this here. This article is already being discussed on the 'New Contributors Help page' ]. But I am confused about the different feedback sections - Editor Assistance, Requests for Feedback, New Contributors Help page - and now I see there's a separate section for BLPs, and I thought perhaps I could get further clarification for the main issue regarding notability and sources.

In the feedback on the page mentioned above, it says that a couple of reviews or notices of a book in trade journals do not constitute valid sources. Why is that?

The editor also said that I don't provide sources for 'most of the information' I say about the subject, but I'm not clear how such biographical details (where he worked, travelled, etc) should be sourced (I got the details from the subject himself, as I am the editor of the book mentioned in the article, and from an interview that hasn't been published yet).

Anyway, any further clarification would be greatly appreciated, and again I apologize if I shouldn't be writing this in this forum (and also for duplicating this discussion for which I've received some feedback elsewhere). If you feel this article will probably not fulfill the criteria without substantial additional sources please tell me and I'll retire it for now.

Thank you for your time and patience with this newbie! Meechpod (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What your in need of is a claim to notability to meet WP:BIO and some independent third party citations WP:RS that are talking about him, right now I would say he is not notable enough for an article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas Phillips, Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers

Nicholas Phillips, Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This biographical article appears to be well written. However I see only one citation for one aspect of the scope of article.

Much of the Introduction, Career, Personal Life, Styles, etc. are not sourced/given citations.

Is there a standard way to approach this/template to place on the page to encourage readers to add content and citations or at least mention them on the talk page so other editors can increase the quality?

Since I seem to find myself here in BoLP more often than anticipated if anyone can contact me on my talk page to help with basics or to help discuss standard procedures I would appreciate it greatly!

Der.Gray (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sufficent refs added to make notability clear <g>. There is absolutely nothing contentious in the BLP at all. The Times articles actually cover a great deal. Collect (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, Collect! Ug I really need to take a day and fully learn enough about BLP so that I can do more to be productive rather than just saying "hey how can this be fixed?" ;) Der.Gray (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Gerald Flurry

Gerald Flurry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Founder of a splitter church, and therefore a subject of sectarian anger from many members of the original church. We have a DUI arrest with primary (as in court document) sources, with one link going to the talk page(!) as a source. There were huge sections of completely unsourced OR describing why this fellow a is a Very Bad Man. I've removed most to the talk page. Don't know what to do about the arrest bit. Advice? Auntie E. (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Awful, I took some more out, more needs removing if anyone wants a go.. some what look like primary citations with negative content, Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

More gone now. I am thinking "is this even notable?"--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Its getting better the more thats removed, I also had that thought, I don't know..a minister, perhaps, if the primary citations from the Philadelphia church of god are taken out there is nothing much left. Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a biography - not a theological treatise. Collect (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Princess Anne

Category:English criminals is being added as she has a minor criminal record. It is not a defining characteristic so should be removed IMHO. Category was last added here I think: Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed as inappropriate.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniël de Ridder

• Daniël de Ridder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Unregistered users as well as registered users continue to insert Israeli nationality to Daniël de Ridder's page despite citations given that he is not Israeli. They also keep adding a lot of speculation into the article regarding the nationality. NYC2TLV (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

List of disputed supercentenarian claimants

I'm not entirely certain, but I think that this list is a bit problematic. Is it a problem that so much potentially controversial information on these people is uncited? I don't know, I thought I'd bring it up here though since some of them are still living. Better to bring it up and be wrong than to not bring it up at all, right? 96.52.12.116 (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Particularly problematic is the claim that 'it should be taken as evidence that the person could not "keep their story straight" and thus their claim is suspect'. Kevin (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Bill Moyers

I have introduced two items to the Bill Moyers article. These items were objected to on the basis of not meeting BLP requirements. Please look over and give your opinion, citing specifics of BLP policy:

1. Under the direction of President Johnson, Moyers gave J Edgar Hoover the go-ahead to discredit Martin Luther King, played a part in the wiretapping of King, discouraged the American embassy in Oslo from assisting King on his Nobel Peace Prize trip, and worked to prevent King from challenging the all-white Mississippi delegation to the 1964 Democratic National Convention.

2. Allegations of hypocrisy on the influence of money in politics

Though Moyers regularly objects to the influence of money in American politics, he distributes significant amounts of money to political advocacy groups and news organizations for the purpose of influencing public policy. Moyers hands out these funds as president of the endowed Schumann Center for Media and Democracy.

Discussions at Talk:Bill_Moyers#Addition_of_unsourced_or_badly_sourced_derogatory_material and User_talk:Drrll#Bill_Moyers --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark Brindal (12th May 1948 -)

2nd February 2010

Dear Sir,

Purported biographical details of myself are inaccurate, poorly sourced, contravene a number of Misplaced Pages policies and, are, I believe in at least one instance, libelous

The reference quoted is “SA Election 2010 Poll Bludger”. I note that it is used as a source in other articles in Misplaced Pages and on perusing a number; I found them similarly both inaccurate and less than encyclopedic in style.

I have read on your site that questions as the efficacy of this source have previously been raised with the editors. I am surprised that they have not ascertained that Poll Bludger and the closely aligned “crickey site” while containing valuable “insider information”, report with particular slant and bias. It clearly offends Misplaced Pages’s “neutrality” principle”

I edited the text in January. This is recorded in the history of the article (lwjb). However, I note today that my text has been deleted and the original re-inserted.

I find this offensive as it ensures that, in this instance, Misplaced Pages continues to reflect matters of fact inaccurately.

The offending passage in Misplaced Pages reads “…Involving claims of extortion and a relationship with a 24-year-old man whose financial affairs were administered by the public trustee due to "mental incapacity". He was forced by his party division to withdraw, he retired in October. ”

However, the quotation referenced reads as follows” He withdrew from politics altogether in August 2005 after outing himself as a bisexual and admitting to an affair with a 24-year-old man whose financial affairs were administered by the public trustee due to “mental incapacity”.

Note that there is neither a Reference to being “forced “ by my party to withdraw” or to “retiring in October.” Poll Bludger makes the equally invalid assertion that I “withdrew from politics altogether in August 2005”.

My editing was both accurate and neutral.

I resolved, in August, without pressure from my Party, that I would not seek to continue as a candidate at the next election. I served the remainder of my term and in fact retired at the state Election in March of 2006.

This can be verified by numerous articles in the “Advertiser” ,references to my speeches in Hansard, or to the following website http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1433760.htm, which is a recorded interview with me broadcast nationally on 9th August 2005

The statement is I believe both libelous and possibly criminally defamatory of myself and the other party involved when it uses the words “due to "mental incapacity".

While the incident was inappropriate, in terms of its setting, it was a consensual act between adults. To sensationalize the story, sections of the media asserted that the Public Trustee controlled the other parties Finances (true. A statement of fact) “due to mental incapacity.”

This assertion has no basis in fact and is not the result of any statement either by neither the Trustees nor the authorities that made the Order. Indeed, the matter was looked at by the Public Advocate, who was concerned that the order represented. a possible deliberate manipulation of the person’s affairs,

Importantly, the South Australian Police treated the other party as a “consenting male adult” That is, his ability to consent was not in question.

The editors may feel that Paul’s status as to the administration of his finances has a bearing on consent to a sexual act or to the article (apart from the deliberately calculated purpose of diminishing in the mind of the reader the consensual nature of the act). I do not think it serves any purpose other than a calculated libel. Because the assertion as to financial administration a statement of fact I did not delete it myself. However, I ask you to consider so doing.

I appeal to the Editors to re-instate my Editorial corrections and to delete completely the offending sentence.

I ask that you protect the article from further erroneous insertions.

I use Misplaced Pages a great deal and place much store by its work.

However, the matter about which I write has placed me in an invidious position. If I cannot receive timely adjudication from the editors I will have no alternative but to seek injunctive relief and damages

Yours faithfully Mark Brindal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwjb (talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of discussion on this topic that I could find, I made two edits as an initial attempt to address these concerns while they're under discussion. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Charvet customers

Odalcet claims my sourced statement that Chavez wears Charvet shirts was defamatory. Further to TransporterMan's 3O, I brought elements to prove the media was reliable, the journalist professional and - more important - the source was supported by others. 3O considered burden of proof was reverted. Odalcet still claiming defamation. Consensus seems out of reach and discussion is lacking civility. Advice would be welcome. Thanks, Racconish 23:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Kotz, Nick (2005-01-12). Judgment days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the laws that changed America. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 234. ISBN 9780618088256. Retrieved 2010-01-03.
2. Safer, Morley (1990-03-31). Flashbacks: on returning to Vietnam. Random House. p. 96. ISBN 9780394583747.
3. Greve, Frank (1999-10-09). "Moyers' 3 Roles Raise Questions Journalist, Foundation Head, Campaign-Finance Reform Advocate". The Philadelphia Inquirer. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages BLP policy