Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:07, 14 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.

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

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)

I dunno if it's any worse than List of alleged Brazilian supercentenarians: "Although statistics say that this number of supercentenarian claimants does not make sense, it is impossible to make sure that each of these people is lying." But, as AfD has shown, this is what people want on Misplaced Pages. I may still take a look into it... sometimes trying to fix these problems is the only way I can get vandalism on my talk page and nasty comments on the talk pages of the articles... makes me feel like I'm making a difference, you know? Haha. Cheers, CP 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

• Amanda Knox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure if this is the right section to discuss this, but I will give it a try. In the article Murder of Meredith Kercher there is a lot of discussion of Amanda Knox. Amanda Knox, an American, was convicted of the murder of Kercher, from Britain, in an Italian court. But much of the American media and many public officials and public figures in the U.S. believe she is innocent and that there were many problems with the process that convicted her. I and others have tried to add information that tends to show the other side of the story--i.e. that she may be innocent but British editors keep deleting the information or editing in a manner to try to make Knox look as guilty as possible. If she is in fact innocent then an article that makes her look like a sex crazed murderer is defamatory. It seems to me that both sides of the story should be allowed to be presented in the article under the policies about living people and NPOV. Due to this dispute, the article was semi-protected today for one month so that now only the British editors can edit the article and I now can't get in to the article. This seems all wrong to me. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This message from Former IP that was on your talkpage appears to be an invitation to discuss on the talk any issues you have, if I was you I would except the offer and discussion is actually the only way to sort things out here and the article won't be locked for very long, it is only done as a last resort. Off2riorob (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally while there is likely to be a difference between the view points of British and American editors and WP:Systemic bias can arise, approaching the matter in an 'us versus them' is rarely helpful and usually just serves to damage the discussion. You may also want to see WP:No Personal Attacks and note that refusing to WP:Assume good faith of an editor solely because of their nationality is unacceptable on wikipedia. Also consider that there is no such thing as 'so that now only the British editors can edit the article', protection either prevents all non admins and semiprotection such as this case all non autoconfirmed uses from editing. It doesn't discriminate by nationality. Given that there are far more American editors on[REDACTED] then British, it's obviously the case that far more Americans can edit the article if they desire then British. Also from what I've seen, several editors have expressed concern that you are the same as another editor who has just come off a block. If this is the case, even though you are now entilted to edit as you are no longer blocked, you should confirm it since otherwise it comes across that may be attempting to avoid scrutiny. Nil Einne (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected so only established editors can change it, but it is not limited to British editors. I moved up one UK press source for balance, and added one fact from two sources (ABC, which is American, and New Scientist, which is primarily British). The media have portrayed the case differently on opposite sides of 'the pond,' so prudence suggests working towards WP:Consensus even more carefully than usual. Reading the whole article, not just the parts about Amanda Knox, it appears that the most clearly guilty defendant now has the shortest sentence.TVC 15 (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi

At Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi there was some information, that in my opinion, came from a source of questionable reliability (it is an op-ed written in a mainstream newspaper, but it is very biased). I have asked the other editor to temporarily keep the information in question (which portrays Qadhi very negatively) out, until consensus can be achieved. In turn the editors says my request "reeks of censorship".

More discussion can be found: Talk:Abu_Ammaar_Yasir_Qadhi#Objective_sources. Please comment.VR _talk 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The op-ed in The Boston Globe was written by the former Chairman of the Boston College Political Science Department, and a notable political activist. I don't think that there has been any showing of lack of reliability, and their op-ed views in such a notable publication are IMHO clearly relevant. The only reason that I can see for my fellow editor seeking to delete the sentence reflecting their views is, as he indicates, POV censorship by an editor who dislikes what they say.

It should also be noted how the sentence is presented -- it as not presented as a bald statement, with a footnote. Rather, what is being presented is that the professor and political activist wrote "x" in an op ed article.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't present such an extreme claim using an opinionated editorial unless there was clear supporting statements from the subject or clear actions from him that supported that position. Off2riorob (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

" In July 2009, Dennis Hale (Associate Professor and former Chairman of the Political Science Department at Boston College) and Charles Jacobs (President of Americans for Peace and Tolerance) wrote in an op-ed column in The Boston Globe that "Yasir Qadhi ... is a Holocaust denier who preaches that Jews want to destroy Muslims and that Christians are theologically 'filthy.'"

It is a very strong claim against a living person from an opinionated editorial from two people that are the leading activists in an attempt to close their local mosque. 03:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Is this an isolated claim from this pair or are there other claims or charges of Holocaust denial from anyone else? Off2riorob (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Charles Jacobs is not neutral, and should not be cited in this context.

• The Boston Globe: "The David Project, a conservative Jewish leadership program, and CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, both have deep ties with Charles Jacobs, a veteran conservative activist who argued this week that Obama is taking steps that endanger Israel’s security."
• NYT: "Charles Jacobs, who heads the pro-Israeli group"
• The Nation "Charles Jacobs, who is a co-founder of CAMERA, the pro-Israel media watchdog group; the founder of the American Anti-Slavery Group, which calls itself "America's leading human rights group dedicated to abolishing modern day slavery worldwide"; and, along with Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol, among others, a member of the board of advisers of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies."
• The Boston Globe: "Charles Jacobs, a Newton resident, classified Mosaic" this week as hate speech" and compared it with airing a public access channel in Roxbury featuring Southern white supremacist David Duke. Jacobs is the president of the David Project, which defines its goal as promoting a fair and honest" portrayal of Israeli-Palestinian conflict." .
• "Charles Jacobs, a Brookline resident and supporter of Israel, held a sign that said “Protect Freedom and Democracy by supporting Israel’s right to defend itself.” “We’re out here because we heard people were trying to protest against Israel,” Jacobs said. “They have no shame.”" .

Sole Soul (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that a source does say that Qadhi denied the Holocaust in 2001, and the same source says that Qadhi retracted his statements. Qadhi on his blog also admitted to that, calling it a "one-time mistake" and in 2008 he said he acknowledged the full validity of the Holocaust. All of this is already in the article. When Epeefleche inserts the above, it makes it look like that Qadhi is denying the Holocaust as of 2009, which is not true. If the source in question is referring to Qadhi's 2001 statement then it is still inaccurate in calling him a "denier" because Qadhi is no longer one (as per Qadhi himself).

I know of no existence of any statement by Qadhi that refer to Christians as theologically "filthy".VR _talk 21:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an extreme accusation against a living person, that appears to me, to be very opinionated accusations from two people with a big axe to grind, I would appreciate additional comments regarding this content. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Jacobs need not be "neutral" (though it is not clear why he is not). Misplaced Pages is replete with indications of the views of people, properly attributed to the people. Otherwise, I expect we would delete nearly every quote in the article about politicians, for example. The POV issue is that the editor's edits be NPOV. Censoring reflection of Jacobs' comments in an RS, properly attributed, is just the POV that we much guard against.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well cited mainstream criticism is welcomed to include but minority opinionated positions should be excluded from the article, no amount of attribution allows these minority critical commentaries a mouthpiece in a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ummmm ... no. To reflect a person's criticism, there is not a requirement that the person be "mainstream." Verifiability -- it being reported in an RS -- is the test. Otherwise, you would be introducing your POV that only "mainstream" statements should be reflected (to say nothing of your POV as to what view is minority). Which, mildly put, is not encouraged.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• From policy, The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article , as this position appears opinionated and extreme, are there other noted people or other commentators that support these positions, accusations of holocaust denial and such require strong citations not simply opinionated POV from people that strongly oppose the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• "John is 7 feet tall" is a factual statement, while "John is one of the best football players" is an opinion. "Yasir Qadhi ... is a Holocaust denier who preaches that Jews want to destroy Muslims and that Christians are theologically 'filthy.'" is a factual statement and if true, should be attributed to impartial source. Sole Soul (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• I'm glad to see discussion about these "opinions" have made it here, as I too have had questions about it. I would agree that these very serious claims sourced to an opinion column should be removed. Of additional (though fixeable/fixed) concern is their non-NPOV position in the article and the original incorrect attribution to the Boston Globe itself . Moot, however, since I agree with Off2riorob and others that such opinions have no place in a BLP article. --Slp1 (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Right now there is a consensus that this content is excessive minority POV and should be removed, are there any editors that support its inclusion? Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• I support inclusion of this material.

1. Most muslim preachers are not sympathetic to jihadism and/or holocaut denial. Some are. This is a known phenomenon. Further, at least one muslim preacher -- whose article I worked on a few years ago, made nice with Jewish and Christian preachers, at meetings to do with local charities, while engaging in hate speech, in Arabic, back at the mosque. So the allegations against this particular preacher are not unbelieveable.
2. If the allegations are from a WP:RS, they should, in my opinion, be covered here. It seems to me that BLP is only supposed to protect individuals from frivolous accusations, not accusations from WP:RS
3. Contributors who claim suppressing negative information protects the subject of articles do not always act in the best interest of the subjects of those articles. Why, because it is complicated. Sometimes what is in the best interest of the subject is to cover the accusation in a neutral, referenced manner, and cover the refutation in a neutral, referenced manner. For example US President have to be born in the USA. President Barack Obama had the allegation levelled against him that he was not entitled to be a US President, because he wasn't really born in the USA. I don't think there is any possible question that, in that case, neutral, referenced coverage of the accusation, balanced by neutral, referenced coverage of the refutation was in his interest. When examined in detail the accusation wasn't credible. Covering the accusation, and the refutation made that clear. Not covering either the accusation or the refutation would leave people who would normally turn to the[REDACTED] to reach an informed conclusion can't do so. Geo Swan (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Points number 1 and 3 are irrelevant, IMO. Sole Soul (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not reliable sources, it is The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article is this a mainstream opinion of this man? Are there other people that claim this controversial position? Or is it their opinion only, a minority strong pov from two people with a strong anti muslim pov? Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• No we don't carry the opinions of street-corner kooks. But I think we should carry the opinions, properly attributed, of authors published in WP:RS, like the Boston Globe. Geo Swan (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. Without question.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No consensus here one way or the other. There is until now 2 editors who support the inclusion and 4 who do not. Sole Soul (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• As regards minority opinions with extreme claims about a living person that should not be included here no matter where it was cited to. It is Holocaust denial he is being accused of, that is a crime in many countries, if there is nothing additional to support the claims it should be removed, so I will ask again, is this a isolated claim or have other people commented as to him being a denier? Also, are there any quotes from him that support that he is a denier? If the answers are no then the comment is an extreme claim of a tiny minority position and requires removal.Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC
  • As user Soul points out, there is not a clear consensus here but four two when one of the supporters for inclusion is the original inserter is not much support so I have removed the disputed content with this edit summary ... removing disputed content, as per discussion at the BLPN, content is controversial and is disputed, there is no consensus to include, please do not replace without additional support. Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have taken it out twice now and the original inserter has twice replaced it, could we have some more editors opinions as regards this content please. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Note: In the middle of this ongoing discussion, Off2 has started deleting the material. My view is that no reasonable argument has been presented to deleted the reference to the view of two notable people, which is reflected not only in The Boston Globe but also as I've just discovered in another RS, the Jerusalem Post. The arguments for deletion have had the smell of "Idon'tlikeit" and censorship.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on that:

• Reasonable people could disagree in this dispute
• Extra caution should be taken on BLPs
• Generally, onus is on those seeking to include content, to justify and achieve consensus for its inclusion
• No consensus here and 4 against 2 support removal
• Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

This content should be removed temporary and dispute resolution should be sought. Sole Soul (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the information per this discussion and the fact that the default position for disputed BLP material is its removal, until there is a consensus for its inclusion. I will point out the article already includes information that Qadhi at one point denied the Holocaust, (by his own admission, in fact) but that he had since changed his views. What is being discussed is not the holocaust denial, but whether the utterly unsubstantiated opinions of two activists that he "preaches that Jews want to destroy Muslims and that Christians are theologically 'filthy'" should be included in the article. I don't believe that (a) an opinion column (even if it has been published in two newspapers) is an appropriate source for such serious accusations, as extreme claims require exceptional sources) or (b) it is notable what these activists think of him (undue weight). This is a BLP article and needs to be held to the highest standards. Please do not reinsert this material without getting consensus for its inclusion.--Slp1 (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your position. I worked hard in the talk section to arrive at compromises in previous edit-warring. However, using the editorials of extremists to point out that someone else is extremist seems ironic at best. On another point, the holocaust issue was raised in the Telegraph article which is still there. Fine, but then the Telegraph quotes some unknown organization to make the claim that Qadhi continued to post anti-holocaust POVs on some "internet forum". No information is provided for this. In fact, this is a classic case of hearsay slander, which could have earned the Telegraph a nice lawsuit had Qadhi so pursued. Does not mean it is accepted per BLP standards.Abureem (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. I recall a day when the issue for putting information in an article was "did an RS publish it" and, if it is an opinion, is it properly sourced as an opinion. Nobody has disputed that here we have two RSs. It is also of note that the RSs are in different countries -- as[REDACTED] often takes that into consideration in various contexts. All of that would suggest to me that it is proper to reflect the information, sources as an op ed reported in an RS.

1. There are wholly unsupported statements made by those who would delete the material. One is that the authors of the op ed are "very biased". I see no evidence to support that. The editors are a fellow who was the Chairman of the Political Science Department at a major mainstream university -- hardly the sort of position that attracts a biased, fringe-opinion person. And even if the authors did have a bias, they are notable persons (the other being a notable human rights activist) making statements in notable RSs -- we report that sort of thing on wikipedia. Or at least we used to.
2. We have articles on Misplaced Pages from a group called "Electronic Intifida," in which their reporting is reported as fact. Here, certain editors are in converse seeking to delete material reported as an op ed from two notable people in two notable papers. The fact that Jacobs is reported elsewhere as involved with a pro-Israeli group does not bear on his reliability, and in any event I have no problem with the synthesis-like step of reflecting as well that Jacobs formerly founded a pro-Israel media watchdog group, if someone thinks that at all relevant, or that the Boston Globe referred to him as a Conservative activist. But surely that's not reason for deletion here.
3. To VR's comment, I have no problem as well with clarifying in the text that Qadhi on his blog said what he said, and the op ed conflicts with what Qadhi says or (if it is referring to his old statement) does not reflect his later statements to opposite effect. That would all be accurate, appropriate, and helpful to the reader. I appreciate VR making that point, and think that this change would be an improvement over what we had.
4. BTW, I believe I've read elsewhere in an article or two about an Egyptian cleric who went to the mosque and heard statements by Qadhi that were of the type complained about here. Also, I believe I read of a reference to tapes of Qadhi's statements that Jacobs had. I could look for those if they would be helpful.
5. I think the "these are the views of a tiny minority" is a baseless argument. They are the views of two notable people, reflected in op eds in two RSs. As such, they are appropriate to reflect IMHO.
6. As pointed out, there are other sources (such as a UK RS) that speak of Q having taken Holocaust denial positions earlier, which he himself has admitted to, though he later said he had subsequently changed his views, but I believe it may have been the UK paper that then in indicated that subsequent to his reported change of heart he posted a link to work by a holocaust denier.
7. I think that some of the above discussion blurs the distinction between the difference between making non-POV edits that fairly reflect what is said in an RS (our goal), and whether the person making the statement is allowed to have a POV (we routinely treat as RSs publications that have POVs--and here, I am happy to reflect the material I discuss above).
8. There are assertions here that what is being deleted is a "minority opinion". There is no evidence of this. And even if it were the case, we routinely reflect minority positions from notable persons reflected in notable RSs.
9. As discussed above, much of the argumentation against inclusion is not rooted in policy. The rationale for inclusion is rooted in the policy that it is proper to reflect notable person's views reflected in RSs. Furthermore, as to those counting votes, I would point out that this is not a vote.
10. As far as him being accused of being a holocaust denier, which it is said is a crime in many countries, well then he would be guilty. As he has already admitted that at one point in time he was a Holocaust denier. The issue here is the finer one of whether the authors intended to say he is as well a current Holocaust denier, as the UK article also seems to wonder about. But we can simply reflect what his statement is as well (as I believe we do).
11. Calling the authors of the op ed article "extremists" is yet another unsupported comment.
12. Suggestions that material in an RS is questionable because we do not know its source do not reflect how wp works. We routinely reflect such information. Though editors should feel free to reflect the existence or lack of existence of reflection of the name of the source. Furthermore, suggestions that what is in an RS newspaper could lead to a libel suit is clear conjecture. If you don't know the RS's source, you don't know why they believe they could make such claim without concern for a libel suit overriding their desire to make such a statement. Our approach is, if an RS reports it, it is proper to reflect it, and we don't introduce our imagination -- based on less information than the newspaper has -- to assert that the subject could prevail in a libel suit. Otherwise, we would be striking every contentious statement reported by every RS, and only publishing individuals' homepages.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

1. If you read the op-ed, you'll find it is indeed biased. Singling out one sect as the "most intolerant on the planet" is similar Robert Spencer saying The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion. There is a lot criticism of Wahhabism, but calling it the worst on planet Earth goes beyond being unbiased. In fact, its statement might

2. Not much of a comment at the moment. Obviously one wouldn't get information about Rabbis and Judaism from Islamist sources, so why get info about Islamic scholars from pro-Israeli sources. Note we should get information about Israel/Palestine from pro-Israeli sources (and attribute them) because in that case their views are important.

3. We already have that, just like we already have the accusation that at one time (2001 to be precise) Qadhi did deny the Holocaust.

4. If you could find RS reporting those tapes, then sure.

5. Actually, I can send a letter to most reliable newspapers and have it published. Secondly, extremists are able to feature themselves all the time, in op-eds of reliable newspapers. Being published in an RS only means that you said, what it is saying you said, it doesn't mean you don't carry a fringe viewpoint.

6. We already have the UK paper in. The UK paper's allegation is not that Qadhi is currently denying the Holocaust, only that he previously did (which Qadhi himself acknowledges in one form or another).

7. The point is whether the POV is relevant to the article. In an Israel/Palestine article, for example, it'd be a sin not to report the POVs of both parties. And perhaps, we should report the POVs of those who oppose Qadhi's theological teachings. Because Qadhi is known for his theological/religious teachings, he is not known as a Holocaust supporter/denier.

8. Again, minority opinion is important if it deals with an important aspect of the article. Support or denial of the Holocaust is not the hallmark of Qadhi's teachings. If we were to present a minority viewpoint saying Qadhi's views in Islamic studies are controversial, then we'd report that.

9. This is not a vote, this is based on consensus. Until we have that, we shouldn't be including the material.

10. We do reflect his statement, and the UK RS does too. The op-ed from Boston globe (which is another reason we shouldn't include it) slaps a label without justifying it or giving any sources.

11. I don't know about their extremism, but per #1, they are biased.

12. I think you're confusing reporting by RS and showing by RS. The Boston Globe doesn't report the op-ed as fact. And I'm sure there's a "the author does not necessarily represent the views of the newspaper" clause. If the Boston Globe reported Qadhi's statements on the Holocaust as a fact, we'd include it.

Hope this helps. Also, its tiring to write long responses. Let's keep things short and concise please.VR _talk 18:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't support inclusion of the material. Editors have to get away from a way of thinking that goes "If it was published in a RS I get to insert it in the article and there is nothing you can do about it." This is the way to get BLPs that attract a flotsam and jetsam of every negative extreme that has ever been published by a reliable source anywhere. We are trying -- or should be trying -- to write rounded biographies that do justice to a person. We should not be focused on getting our favourite damning bit of commentary in. A two-line throwaway comment in an op-ed is not a serious, weighty, well-researched source on someone's political and religious views. --JN466 12:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Motsoko Pheko

As this is the second time I have seen this editor insert unreferenced contentious information in this article, and as I am having other problems with him also (eg I had to warn him about comparing editors with Nazis today), I'm bringing this here. See (my guess is that the editor, who is presumably using his real name if he isn't impersonating a real person, is the author of the book), and his latest edit, (the 'ludicrously believes'). I think there is probably a serious COI here as the editor in question seems to know the person and both (presuming the editor is Ntsukunyane Mphanya) are African politicians. Thanks. I'll notify user:Ntsukunyane Mphanya. Dougweller (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that the article also has this: " two bogus Doctorates in Jurisprudence degree and Theology respectively.Template:Mandela and Sisulu:Equivocation, Treachery and the Road to SharpevilleShapeville Writers collective www.scribd.com " which is from this , presumably the forthcoming book, which relies in part on Misplaced Pages. Pages 5 and 84 are the sources (you can search the document). Doesn't seem to have any named authors. Dougweller (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope I didn't screw things up for you, but before finding this notice I happen to have gone and deleted all the problem sections mentioned by Dougweller. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ntsukunyane Mphanya is indeed a real African politician, but the person posting under this name @ en:wp is almost certainly his former comrade-in-arms Bernard Leeman, which is why Leemans 'books' are being pushed in a variety of articles. Leeman has used Mphanya's name as a cover elsewhere on the internet.--188.220.243.89 (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This would be WP:Impersonation, which says "If you have been blocked for using your real name, please don't take offense; we're trying to prevent somebody from impersonating you! You are welcome to use your real name, but in some cases, you will need to prove you are who you say you are. You can do this by sending an e-mail to info-en@wikimedia.org; ". Dougweller (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mohammed Alhashimi

 Done

Mohammed Alhashimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, could someone with an interest in Arabic alternative health take a look at Mohammed Alhashimi? Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 15:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It was weakly cited and controversial so I have stubbed it back to the cited content and as he does not appear to be notable I have prodded the article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, ϢereSpielChequers 16:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Shing-Tung Yau

Yau is one of the world's top mathematicians, and his recent award of the Wolf Prize in Mathematics has set off editing of his biography from a couple of accounts not too familiar with our house style. Large additions have been made that are not neutral in tone. While Yau's distinction in his field is undoubted, the article must not be allowed to lapse into hagiography. There have also been copyright issues, with chunks of a Chinese academic website being copied in. The biographical material needs careful referencing, and claims for priority in Yau's scientific work also need watching, since there are some over-enthusiastic followers. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Epstein/James O'Keefe

User:Gamaliel is trying to use a Max Blumenthal article in Salon to say that Epstein and O'Keefe "planned an August 2006 conference on "Race and Conservatism", featuring as its key speaker Jared Taylor, founder of the white nationalist publication American Renaissance." Blumenthal offers no evidence for his assertion that O'Keefe planned this event rather than just attending it, and this is generally a terrible, partisan, unreliable source to use for the purposes of calling O'Keefe a racist. This material is being added to both Epstein's and O'Keefe's articles.Prezbo (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

An article in a reliable source is being used for this information. I don't see what the fuss is about. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is being actively discussed at Talk:James O'Keefe. MastCell  22:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

 Category added

This is hardly the injustice of this century or the last, but the great Russian writer ALexander Solzhenitsyn is not connected to the category Russian short story writers. Solzhenitsyn is more remembered for his novels and non-fiction, as well as his advocacy for many causes, than for short fiction, but he did write many tales and stories, and several of them are excellent. One, Matryona's Place (aka Matryona's House), is--in my opinion--a masterpiece, and has its own Misplaced Pages page.

Anyway, I think Solzhenitsyn should be added to this category.

Thanks,

Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.138.69 (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I think you've come to the wrong place - this page is specifically for issues connected to biographies of living persons (Solzhenitsyn died in 2008). But if he belongs in the category, you should be able to edit his page to add him there. --GenericBob (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaime Martínez Tolentino - subject requesting deletion

The subject of this articles is requesting deletion, having had a pretty bad experience of Misplaced Pages. He's marginally notable at best.

The debate is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jaime Martínez Tolentino, and I thought people watching this noticeboard might wish to comment.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaimema (talk · contribs) More eyes needed to calm down this user who apparently had a bio about him written, and then got very, very mad. The article is at Jaime Martínez Tolentino. I've nominated it for deletion per what appears to be the wishes of the subject. He was quickly bitten hard and templated to hell and back, however. There was an obvious failing somewhere. Hipocrite (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

AFD closed as "no consensus" and subject has withdrawn request to delete.. – ukexpat (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Howard Gardner

• Howard Gardner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dispute over sourcing and copyright of some added text. See page history. Some extra attention here would be appreciated, Cirt (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted to the pre-copyright version as a start. Seems that User:ProjectZero new editor needs some guidance. I'll try and help.--Slp1 (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC about red links in progress at List of male performers in gay porn films

Since this is a BLP-related issue and deals with an article previously discussed here, I think it is appropriate to mention the Request for comment currently underway about the inclusion of red links in this particular list. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Louis Uccellini

Hi all. Louis Uccellini is currently the director of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Prediction, and he helped to develop the Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale, as well as write dozens of meteorology publications. The question is, is he notable enough for an article? I recently wrote one on his colleague, Paul Kocin, but I'm unsure whether Uccellini passes the notability bar. Any help appreciated! –Juliancolton |  19:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

They're both good guys. I can't see what either of them has done to deserve a Misplaced Pages article on them with its possibilities for vandalism and other forms of abuse. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Needless to say, I have/intend to have both of them on my watchlist. –Juliancolton |  20:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That's good, but will you be active on the project as long as these articles exist? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Misplaced Pages will have other editors for a while. I don't really think I need to be lectured on the sensitivity of BLPs, since I spend a good portion of my time dealing with them. –Juliancolton |  20:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Church of Bible Understanding

This article on a controversial religious group seems to be at least partly written by a disgruntled former member and has major BLP problems which should be looked at by a neutral person. Thanks. Borock (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yickes. Speedy deleted as an attack. Happy to undelete if any established wikipedian wants to use whatever is useable.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll put 10 minutes into it, and come up with a stub. It's clearly notable, and warrants a wp article IMHO, while apparently some controversy has swirled about it. See here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, create a stub, but the article was terrible. The sources were terrible. It was POV and incredibly negative.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've created a stub -- let me known what you think. As far as negative info about it, I've reflected some of the controversy. There's more out there on the "church", and the controversial aspects of it, if someone wishes to beef it up, but I think that as of now it's accurate, balanced ... though more reflection of the controversy would not hurt, and there is enough in it to survive AfD if my wikihounder chooses to AfD it.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

New-ish RfC on content and sourcing

I'm not sure if this is the right place to mention, and please feel free to remove this notice if it's inappropriate here ... but I started an RfC several days ago, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Content, to discuss what to do with content in older BLPs that is unsourced. Some of the immediate issues around that RfC are resolved among the involved editors, but it's probably a broader discussion worth having. This is a side discussion to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, where we're talking about how to handle the backlog of completely unsourced BLPs. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Marisabel Rodríguez de Chávez

Another Venezuela article, Hugo Chavez's ex-second-wife. I do not know if there's BLP vio here; I simply do not have time to look into it. I think most of it is true and can be sourced, but there's a lot of unsourced text under "Death threat". A Spanish-speaking editor is needed to source it; I can't do it all, and I'm posting to WP Venezuela and getting no help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I took the death threat section out, I searched for it on Google but found nothing, the article is very poor and is uncited, if anyone is interested in her the article needs improving. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem there is that you'd have to search in Spanish (eluniversal.com and others), and I just don't have time to get to all of it. Thanks for the help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Person is divorced

Kathryn M. Drennan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What to do in this situation? A reliable source states that persons A and B were married. No reliable source states that A & B are divorced. But they are in fact divorced. Do we continue stating that they are married due to "verifiability not truth"? What if A himself (purportedly) as an anon updates his marital info? Do we then allow the statement that they are no longer married to stand without a source? Perhaps better to remove the whole bit on their marriage altogether? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If there's doubt take it our. Verifiability is needed, but if there's genuine reason to think the sources are out of date, then we need to be cautious. At very leat go for something like "The New York Times in 2006 recorded that he was married to Jane Smith".--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ze'ev Tahor

An editor is edit-warring fairly egregious violations of BLP into an article, despite being reverted by three separate editors. The claims made about this individual are nowhere to be found in the source provided (e.g. that he is that he "lied", "is highly controversial person", "infuriated public opinion in Poland, Germany and Israel by false claim", and that "His opinions are sometimes compared with Holocaust denial"). He also attempted to add the claim to the Holocaust denial article. Additional eyes/views would be appreciated. Jayjg 01:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

bad image

No care about terrorists but take away that horrible image from the box. Majid Khan (Guantanamo captive 10020). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.50.68 (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it, the booking shot displays the subject in an extremely disparaging light, in fact the subject is unrecognizable and could actually be anybody, for that reason the picture is of no value to readers of the article either. Off2riorob (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Terima kasih (thank you). I know also 2 others Mohamad Farik Amin Malaysia and Riduan Isamuddin Indonesia. Why english[REDACTED] has such horrible images off them. Please repair this pages too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.183.7 (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Adam Clayton Powell IV (politician)

Needs admin attention. Powell has a bad reputation but article seems to go overboard in trashing him. Recently mentioned at WP:EAR#ADAM_CLAYTON_POWELL.2C_IV_PAGE. --CliffC (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This article should be stubbed immediately and rewritten from a NPOV. Sole Soul (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• In the link above someone apparently related to Adam Clayton Powell claims that a political rival called Nelson Antonio Denis is inserting malicious content to his article. A user named Nelsondenis248 (talk · contribs) was blocked in 30 January 2009 for "Attacks to Adam Clayton Powell IV (politician), WP:BLP violations". I think a sockpuppet investigation should determine if he returned with another user name. Sole Soul (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• A user named MBernal615 (talk · contribs) whose first edit was to create the article Nelson Antonio Denis, started to edit Adam Clayton Powell page in July 2009. The user edits are largely negative. Sole Soul (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• I opened Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Nelsondenis248. Sole Soul (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Even the picture of Adam Clayton Powell uploaded by MBernal615 is unflattering to any politician and sends a clear message. The comments under the pictures are outrageous  : under one picture "Powell's mother charged with fraud", under another while he looks distressed "Powell accused of rape". Sole Soul (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Jason Grilli

Person is editing their own page to use as an advertisement for their various websites. Completely self promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmidt28 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have left him a message on his talkpage asking him not to edit the article until its sorted out and left a note at the RFC usernames board . I reverted the promotional edits . Off2riorob (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This probably belongs at WP:COIN. Woogee (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Swett

• Richard Swett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mentioned on The Daily Show, then was hit by some vandalism. Could use some improvements. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Gerard Butler

I'm fighting a recent battle where several editors, including one who seems to have a COI over the source, keep sourcing claims on the Gerard Butler page to a fan site. I'm reverting their edits every day, and have tried to explain the WP:RS and WP:BLP requirements, but the fan site sourcing continues. Woogee (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You could try a polite clear comment about it on his talkpage and point him to the exact point in the guidelines that explains it, this or is it WP:FANSITE well thats what I would try. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I hate Haiti, and am working for Hello magazine. Woogee (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes he reported you as a vandal, hehe..it not working out, if he isn't shaping up soon and continues the same path it may go badly. Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Jamel Debbouze

Hi, I am new to this so please can someone verify or tell me what to do in a situation like this, its about Jamel Debbouze article. I placed some BLPunsourced tags on some a very questionable section on Mr. Debbouze page. I was directed from Melissa Theuriau's page, he is her husband, a famous French actor/comedian. The section in question is in his biography, it mentions that he was accused of manslaughter early on in his life including a mention of an injury sustained that paralyzed his arm, I checked the talk pages as well and a question was raised about his amputation 3 years ago it was recently changed to paralysis. The section mentions some very serious libelous charges without any reference or source, I don't know the exact policy So I tagged the section, Maybe an admin can look into it. In contrast, the rest of the article paints a glowing picture of his career again most of it without proper references. --Theo10011 (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Note - rewritten paragraph to a more neutral tone, sourced. MLauba (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that MLauba, much better now. the rest of the article still needs more references though.--Theo10011 (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Claimed links to drug trade

Could somebody please have a look at this edit to Ramón Rodríguez Chacín. The allegations of drug ties (and claims of "intercepted communications" relating to a supposed $250m payment) rely on the supposed validity of documents recovered from a laptop after a military strike on foreign territory (Colombia striking Ecuador); the validity is disputed, including by the head of the OAS. Some data from the laptop (sometimes called the "magic laptop") has been shown to be false. Rd232 02:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about this case, so can't opine, but it appears that Bloomberg says in May 2008 that Interpol found the laptop authentic (I believe that was after the LA Times report above). I also notice The New York Times in the sources there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well if they report it, it must be true - Jayson Blair notwithstanding. Interpol made some examination of timestamps (which examination has been criticised ), but it relies entirely on the Colombian chain of evidence, which Interpol acknowledged had problems. , And the remark that the LA Times report precedes the Interpol examination misses the point entirely: the LAT report shows that the Colombian government's fraudulent use of data from the laptop: "a photo from Reyes' laptop leaked to El Tiempo newspaper that alleged to show Reyes with Ecuadorean Interior Minister Gustavo Larrea did not actually picture Larrea." Rd232 10:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I do not know the case, but if I'm reading correctly, it looks like you're suggesting that Venezuelanalysis.com-- a website run out of individual's homes, funded by Chavez, with no journalistic credentials and known to be partisan to Chavez-- should be given more credibility than the LA Times or The New York Times. There may be a content dispute here, or need for expansion of the article, but text sourced to Bloomberg, the LA Times or The New York Times wouldn't typically be a BLP violation (particularly when a partisan website like Chavez-funded Venezualanalysis is the refutation). Since I don't know the case, all I can see here is that you're asking us to believe a partisan website over highly reliable mainstream sources. Expansion of the article would have to account for our BLP policy: "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims. Material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used anywhere in the article ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it's no surprise to see you're repeating unproven claims about Venezuelanalysis, and ignoring the views at RSN that VA can be used as a source. No surprise either that you ignore El Universo linked above, or heise.de linked above - a German source described in Venezuelanalysis in English. But then information not easily available in English automatically becomes untrue when reported by Venezuelanalysis - by some mysterious process of alchemy known only to you. Rd232 15:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't derail the discussion here, avoid personalizing issues, and do re-read the threads at RSN. This is a BLP; Venezuelanalysis may have some (limited) use on Wiki but BLPs aren't one of those. At any rate, this article is now clean, I don't know why *I* have to do it or why you pinged me about it, and please continue your RSN discussion in the appropriate place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's laughable. You brought up the credibility of VA here; and its relevance here is in summarising other sources (also provided) casting doubt on the serious BLP allegations. (Look, I know how to bold too!) Rd232 16:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As for derailing discussion - that's your speciality. Here, you've successfully avoided addressing the LAT point. Rd232 16:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The section has had a small rewrite to take some of the weight out of it, is it a bit better or are there still issues with its inclusion? Off2riorob (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the current version complies with BLP. Notable allegations are well-sourced, and the denial is noted. THF (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup there, and left an inline query (can we clarify to our readers what "AFP" is)? Interestingly, there are other statements in the article that could be a BLP vio (about his involvement in Chavez's 2002 coup attempt). I didn't pull that content since it's well documented, but someone needs to source it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the AFP, I didn't expand it as I was unsure, I thought it was the Affiliated press but I see it isn't its the American Free Press which perhaps makes a difference in that section. Off2riorob (talk)

Are you sure? AFP usually refers to Agence France-Presse. If it's American Free Press, it has no business being in a BLP, much less given the misleading AFP description. THF (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes on second look you are right Ted, I have corrected it now. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Agence France-Presse does not, IMHO, raise any RS concerns.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I just flagged some other problems there as needing citation; in a BLP, they really should be sourced, although I believe it's all well documented. (I work in bits and pieces ... will make you crazy :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The new section now is the best bit, who is going to do the searching for the rest??? Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems my Wiki work to clean up these Venezuela BLPs may never end <sigh> ... in general, when I find unsourced claims that I'm reasonably sure are accurate and sourcable, should I just pull them, or must I spend the rest of my days seeking Spanish citations? I'm coming across so much of this, with no help from anyone, that I'm really growing weary of the Venezuelan mess we have on our hands. It takes time to find sources, because they're usually in Spanish. (It's slow going because, when I don't know the case, I don't know what Spanish keywords to use in a search, and I've been posting all of these to WP Venezuela but getting ZERO help.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It gets better ... I don't know the "chap" (I use that term loosely), but naming conventions in Venezuela include doble apellido (two last names, paternal and maternal). If "Rodriguez Chacin" is his doble apellido, we shouldn't be referring to him as Chacin-- that would imply that Rodriguez is his middle name, which is unlikely. Lots to sort on all these articles: I can't do it all. Someone needs to tell us what his name is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I located and fixed his full name (Navio Ramon Rodriguez Chacin): his correct last name would be either Rodriguez or the more formal Rodriguez Chacin, and I see the sources did get it correct. I'm posting that here so y'all will know about doble apellido for future cases. We've got lots of BLP messes on Wiki :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn, this is a timesink: can we use http://www.heritage.org/research/LatinAmerica/bg2243.cfm to source the 1992 involvement? It's well known. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Stike that (it doesn't): still looking. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, cleaning up Venezuela messes all over the Wiki alone ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Cited it, that's all I have time for, and Rd232 removed the other tangent that I was working on and didn't know about a Massacre-- didn't belong in this article anyway. It's another crappy Venezuelan BLP, but I think it's BLP compliant now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

the LAT report shows the Colombian government's fraudulent use of data from the laptop: "a photo from Reyes' laptop leaked to El Tiempo newspaper that alleged to show Reyes with Ecuadorean Interior Minister Gustavo Larrea did not actually picture Larrea." There is also doubt from computer experts about the Interpol "authentication". Shouldn't these issues by mentioned, for BLP balance? Rd232 21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not here to provide "balance," we're here for WP:NPOV. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel_Tammet article

User 85.210.180.155 is in breach of Misplaced Pages's rules regarding original research and the posting of unsourced or poorly sourced information for biographies of living persons.

I have removed his edits that breach these rules and each time he has reinstated the edit, sometimes within a matter of minutes.

I have explained to him that he is in breach of Misplaced Pages's rules on several occasions on the article's discussion page, but he ignores this.

I have also repeatedly asked him to provide published sources to support his edits but he has not done so. He claims, incorrectly, that the burden of proof is on the person who removes unsourced claims. In fact Misplaced Pages's rules on biographies of living persons state clearly that the burden of proof lies with those who add or restore material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.193.84.62 (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Tammet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The IP has also started the same thread at ANI. Off2riorob (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Page protected for three days, IP repeatedly adding uncited content, I have added it to my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Combining two related sections together. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Tammet

• Daniel Tammet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I full protected this page due to a dispute reported at WP:RFPP. Other admins please investigate and feel free to edit over the protection (leaving it protected) in order to remove questionable and/or unsourced material. Cirt (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see there is a thread above, good. Cirt (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bybee Memo

Bybee Memo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor keeps insisting that the BLP policy does not apply to this article, though it very clearly makes statements about a living person (and indeed devotes the majority of the article to a list of people criticizing the author of the memo). The article suffers from severe NPOV and SYN and OR problems. Third opinion appreciated. THF (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A third opinion is that you need to attempt to engage other editors in the spirit of cooperation, rather than agressively overtagging. Hipocrite (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's an unfair characterization: I "overtagged" at the request of the second editor who asked me to add tags to individual cites in an attempt to cooperate. Feel free to undo that edit if you think his request was unreasonable. THF (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP applies to many articles not just BLP's, any content about a living person or if the comment could be seen to affect a living person then BLP could apply. I think that if someone adds a few templates to an article then its no big deal for a few days, talk about it and try to work through the editors issues. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is clearly a subsection of Jay Bybee, and WP:BLP most certainly applies to it. On the related, but unasked, question: yes, it should be subject to arbitration enforcement as being a waterboarding-related article.—Kww(talk) 15:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree w/Hipo that conversation is better than overtagging, and with Off2 that BLP policy applies even if the statement as to a BLP is in a non BLP article.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials

• Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Malaysian opposition leader

This article, is about an ongoing event involving a well-known Malaysian politician. It is not the main article about Anwar Ibrahim but it is nearly as long as that one. The subject matter should definitely be of interest to BLP watchers because it involves highly contested, culturally and politically incendiary charges. The article is very active right now because the trial is now happening, mostly being written by two editors I have not interacted with much but seem antagonistic and both highly active on articles about Malaysia. There is an unusual number of subsections in the article, which seems to feature a lot of details from the two trials. Only in a number of cases, the details are incomplete or do not enlighten. Sometimes they appear to be spreading innuendo. Ibrahim is a public figure no question, but with so much unproven and so much speculation it seems to me this should be much more conservatively treated. Can someone with more experience look at this article and provide guidance? --Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your points that he is a living person, and also that he is a public figure (libel concerns are different for them), and that it is a charged issue. Is there anything in the article as it currently looks that concerns you? The number of subsections does not concern me (it makes navigation easier, and does not raise any BLP concerns that I can see). The same with the level of detail. If you could point to what specifically concerns you, as a BLP concern, perhaps we could better respond. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I also had a look at this article, when an article is by definition controversial like this one and large and cited to here and there and english and foreign cites then as an individual looking it is almost impossible to do much about it unless something shouts out loud as a big issue, I agree that if an editor has a specific issue it can be looked at but if the issue is simply with the article in general, the best thing for them to do could well be to simply start editing the article to improve it and use WP:RFC or Misplaced Pages:Third opinion to get outside independent comments regarding any disputes.. Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sargon Dadesho

This article is quite a mess. Sources for contentious information are questionable, and a lot of what's cited to the sources is OR and synthesis. It may need to be stubified and rebuilt. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding article Billy Garland (Ex-Black Panther)

A person claiming to be a researcher is on the Entertainment Ref. Desk querying the source of information in this article, (link above)
Question linked HERE, text below:

"Hello,Im a researcher and i read an article on the[REDACTED] website about ex black panther/ tupac's father Billy Garland.Im doing a research project on Tupac,now there is something interesting in the article about tupac's biological father Billy Garland that he is a decendant of the african tribe tuareg.Now I don't know the credibility of this information about billy garland's orgins which is stated on the[REDACTED] website.Please let me know where the information about tupac's father billy garlands heritage was obtained.I cannot find much information about billy garland, if the information about him being of tuareg heritage is credible. Then i can use it for the research paper im writing.

Thank you

Kops —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zolani7 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)"

It appears this may in fact be unreferenced. The closest in-line cite in the article is HERE. Thought it might be of interest. Hope this is the right place to report this! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The text in question appears to have been added by AlyciaBellamyMediaInc. See DIFF. See also related AN/I archive
NOTE: the article in question has received some 'fixes' from Charles Matthews —220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Arthur A. Goldberg‎

• Arthur A. Goldberg‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be a bit of an incipient edit war starting at Arthur A. Goldberg‎ over the name represented by the middle initial. Some editors believe it stands for Abba and others seem to believe it stands for Avrum. This becomes a BLP issue in that the "Abba" editors have inserted information about fraud charges and a disbarment, and the "Avrum" editors (likely related to the controversial anti-gay organisation headed by Goldberg) have removed the information. Neither side seems to have introduced any references to show that the A stands for either Abba or Avrum. I don't know if the allegations about Goldberg are true or not, but without sourcing of the name and a more direct link to the charges, I don't believe it is appropriate to include them. Anyone want to tackle this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this has been moved to the talk page already for just this reason. All of the charges and the disbarment were sourced in this version, but due to the ambiguity about the middle name, will be left out until it can be better determined. Jim Miller 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Infomation update on Daniel Francis footballer

He played for canver island fc 2007-2008 won promtion to isthmian premier league made 26 appearances 20 starts 6 sub app. 5 goals in this time.

Made 2 apperances for dominica u21 ref

Made two appearences for grays pre season verses west ham utd and east thurrock utd ref http://www.whufc.com/articles/20090712/grays-1-2-west-ham-united-ft_2236884_1720313

ref http://www.etfc.co.uk/pastplayers.htm Youth career. Arsenal under paul Davis earining a 1st year yts and leyton orient from yts in a first year proffesional0 first team appearances. realeased

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/preliminaries/nccamerica/matches/round=250441/match=10000000/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Df9685 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

John Murtha

He died yesterday. Some say BLP doesn't apply. Is this true? We can smear anyone we want if they are dead? I don't think so. If so, at least apply the spirit of BLP to dead people.

WP:BLP says The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account,

The Navy refused to make comments on the cause of death -- ---- but declined to reveal additional details, citing his family's request for privacy and federal privacy laws. from http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/08/john.murtha.obit/index.html?hpt=T1

So shouldn't we abide by that? The specifics can be discussed on that talk page but guidance/confirmation about following BLP and following personal privacy (as noted by the BLP quote) may be helpful.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI: the proposed edit is: Murtha was hospitalized with gallbladder problems for a few days in December 2009 and had surgery January 28 at Bethesda Naval Hospital. He was again hospitalized two days later, and died on the afternoon of February 8, 2010, in the Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, Virginia with his family by his side. The National Naval Medical Center did not release further details citing requests from Murtha's family and federal privacy laws. (rather than go into heresay information about how he died, H1N1 flu, kidney failure, infection, etc. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking BLP doesn't apply to the dead. However in the case of the recently dead we have to be careful because BLP does apply to their living friends and family. In fact there is a template for this situation -- {{Blpo}} -- though it is rarely used. It was the subject of a deletion discussion in 2008 (Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 21#Template:Blpo) and I think the comments of the "Keepers" there are spot on. – ukexpat (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to Suomi Finland 2009's (possibly rhetorical or even sarcastic) question, the fact that WP:BLP does not apply has nothing to do with 'smearing' anyone. Information must still be reliably sourced and accurate. HIPAA limits what details the hospital can disclose, but cause of death is generally public information, even for private citizens. Reliable sources report unanimously that the cause was complications from surgery, specifically a bacterial infection, not H1N1. The article does respect the family's privacy, omitting any tabloid details of their vigil during the subject's last days.TVC 15 (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It does look to be well written and without any excessive commentary, I would say it is respectful and written in an encyclopedic manner. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Alive or dead, we seek to have accurate articles. That said, the enhanced concerns that apply to living people do not apply to dead people, however. The fact that recently dead have relatives does not distinguish them from people who are dead a number of years, but also have living relatives. IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sarcastic. I don't know why there is the BLP policy. I thought is was because Jimbo Wales did not want to smear people but wanted a respectable encyclopedia.

I'm still not certain why there isn't a BLP-BDP, D for dead. Is it because dead people have a hard time suing?

The Murtha issue is resolving as their are more reports on what happened. I read that he was feeling deathly ill but tried to tough it out for 3 days before seeing a doctor. By then, he was nearly dead. That is too bad. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The primary reason for BLP isn't legal, but moral. We strive to not do unwarranted harm to living people and, in the case of the recently dead, their families. That means we make sure that information is properly sourced, so we aren't posting false information about a person. There's no set time period, but it's reasonable to give a few days for things to sort out before we start debating what to include. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any disadvantages to extending BLP policies to all people, living and dead? Why kick the dead and multilate their bodies? Very disrespectful if done to the living or the dead. Couldn't the nice way be to have references and verify all things for all biographies? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Gideon Levy

There are many problems with this article, about a prominent dissident journalist in Israel. It has become a coatrack of hostile smears, many of them poorly translated from unreliable Hebrew-language sources. One of these is sourced to http://www.omedia.co.il/Show_Article.asp?DynamicContentID=25789&MenuID=681&ThreadID=1014003 , which gives a 404 not found error. The entire site is currently unavailable; but it appears to be an aggregator of news and commentary, with a right-wing, "pro-security" leaning. A Google search for the Hebrew original cited in the footnote leads to the apparent source, a blog by one Uri Heitner, an Israeli settler in the Golan Heights and "director of the Golan Youth Cultural Centre" http://israblog.nana10.co.il/blogread.asp?blog=272685&blogcode=11000765 . Although I have removed this, as a personal attack taken from a hostile blog, another editor has restored it, claiming that it is not a blog, and that the comment is notable and reliable. Is this an acceptable source for an attack on the character and integrity of a living person? RolandR (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It was in the footnotes, in Israeli or Arabic and translated into English for good measure, there is no good excuse to do this in the footnotes unless it is a quote that is used in the article , which it wasn't, the citation is also not needed as there are other citations supporting the comments, its excessively opinionated and the article is more WP:NPOV without it. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RolandR neglected to mention that Omedia's website is currently under revamping (see "האתר בתהליך שידרוג") and I don't know where he came up with the idea that they are right-wing. Maybe compared to his professed anti-zionist position they are but I've been reading that news-site for a while and they are a mainstream site without any notable political affiliation. This is also mentioned in their brief on the web. Anyways, I wasn't aware that their article was quoted by any other source and being quoted by a blog is not a reason to remove a reliable source. The writer of the article was Omedia's cheif editor, Ran Farhi, btw and not Uri Heitner who is, I know due to working on the 1929 Hebron Massacre article, indeed a settler in the Hebron area. RolandR was noted to be wrong to assume the original was any blog and I can vouche that it was indeed taken from the news-source with the exact link posted here. As for the value of the translation, that is another issue and we can surely discuss it collegiately without harrassing the community needlessly. The original issue, though, for which this concern was posted -- i.e. the belief that "the footnote leads to the apparent source, a blog by one Uri Heitner" -- is flat out wrong. Also, the text in the quote is used in the article regarding "pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli" perspectives of the subject. The word "propagandist" was left out as a way to avoid BLP concerns raised by fellow editors.

With respect, Jaakobou 00:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This article appears on Heitner's blog, where he writes "נכתב על ידי הייטנר 26/6/2009 09:28" -- "Written by Heitner, 09.28, 26/6/2009". It also appears under Heitner's name on Hadashot Ben Ezer, published by the Union of Creative Women of Israel. I have no idea why Jaakobou insists that it was written by Ron Farhi; this is disproved by the only two sites where the article can currently be found. RolandR (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RolandR,

You saw the original editorial by Ran Farhi on Omedia so I'm not getting where you're suddenly refering to this blogger as the alleged source. No one can control if this blogger copy-pasted the article into his blog without adding who the original writer is. This doesn't change that both of us saw the original and that it was written by Farhi, not Heitner.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 02:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not see, and never have seen, the "original" on Omedia. I have no reason to doubt that a version of this article was there, but it is not now, and cannot be verified. I have never seen any source that alleges that this was written by Farhi. What I have found is that all available versions, including Heitner's blog, state that it was written by Heitner. This is the only verifiable information that we have. RolandR (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The obvious solution satisfying BLP rules is to keep the material out of the article until verification of the source is possible. With due respect to Jaakobou, it is not his recollections but what can be verified by others that matters. Zero 02:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Zero,

No offense, but there's no such rule. The source does not make an exceptional claim and even the blog sites the original came from אומדיה.

With respect, Jaakobou 03:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no such rule as what ? Which rule are you referring to ? I assume it isn't "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources" in WP:SPS. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of "Verifiability ... means that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Misplaced Pages article has already been published by a reliable source". It seems that at the moment the precise relationship of the text to Omedia cannot be verified. Since this is policy, and the example is contentious, and the BLP rules enjoin us to be especially careful, we can't at the moment use the material. If Omedia comes back on line we can revisit the question. Zero 05:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well,

No offense intended, but you're both wrong.

Sean, the material was not self-published but rather came out in a meainstream news-outlet. On top of this, we're not dealing with an exceptional claim and this is one of several reliable and notable sources that repeat a similar perspective.

Zero, the original was verified just a couple months ago by several established[REDACTED] editors. Let's not make this into a "precise relationship of the text to Omedia" thing since RolandR saw the original himself.

Regards, Jaakobou 06:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

He says he didn't see it, and it does seem that Heitner's name appears as author in the places Roland indicated. So even if your memory is perfect and it did appear in Omedia as the work of Farhi, we would still have the problem of two competing claims for authorship. It is more than enough reason to discard it; you should at least come up with sources whose provenance is clear and unambiguous. Zero 12:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RolandR hasn't said he hasn't seen it since he did, in fact, did see it. The blog copy-pasted the original and the blog username was timestamped into the post. This argument that Heitner is the source can also be fully rejected considering he never wrote for Omedia and "אומדיה" is stamped at the bottom of his post. Jaakobou 13:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC) correction - I missed the comment above. 13:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I said that I did not see it, and I was telling the truth. I request that you withdraw the assertion that I am lying. RolandR (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RolandR, how can you say you never saw the editorial, when you commented on it here? Jaakobou 15:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to the discussion on the talk page. What I wrote was "please give an explicit translated quote. Until you do, this has no place in the article". The moment I tried to check the reliability of this source (in response to recent request on my talk page), I discovered that not only was the cited source unavailable, but the only available source was a blog article. I repeat, although I accept that the text was previously on Omedia, I have not seen it there, and object to being called a liar. I have certainly neither seen nor read anything, except your assertion above, to suggest that this was written by the Omedia editor, while I have cited two sources which state that it was written by a blogger. I can back my claim with verifiable sources; you cannot. That is the issue here, which you are trying to evade by false accusations, red herrings and other obfuscatory tactics.RolandR (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RolandR, how can you say "I have not seen it " when in your original comment you said "Especially since the editorial is in Hebrew"? Jaakobou 17:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

QED RolandR (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of any editors with challenged understanding of colloquial English, my cryptic remark above did not mean that I had conceded Jaakobou's argument and accepted that Farhi wrote the text in Omedia. It meant that I had established my argument that Jaakobou was trying to evade the issue by means of "false accusations, red herrings and other obfuscatory tactics".RolandR (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

For your own beneft, the conversation above shows that you claimed the source to be a blog while fully knowing it to be a news editorial in a Hebrew mews-site. Jaakobou 11:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you not understand plain English? I state that the source is a blog. I do not "know it to be a news editorial", since I do not believe this to be the case. Stop accusing me of lying, and please bring verifiable sources for your assertions.

I think I can put an end to this particular disagreement. I posted the question at Uri Heitner's blog, saying that there was a disagreement over the authorship of the article. Here is his response:

אני כתבתי את המאמר ופירסמתי אותו ב"חדשות בן עזר", ב"אומדיה" ובבלוג שלי. איפה יש ויכוח כזה? מהיכן הוא צץ? על סמך מה טוען מישהו שהמאמר אינו שלי? איזו סיבה יש למישהו לפרסם בשמי מאמר שאינו שלי? איזו סיבה יש למישהו לחשוב שהמאמר אינו שלי? מוזר מאוד מאוד. אשמח לקבל יותר פרטים.

Translation: I wrote this article and published it at "Hadashot Ben Ezer", "Omedia" and on my own blog. Where is this dispute? How did it arise? On what basis would someone claim that this article was not my own? What possible reason would someone have to publish an article in my name that wasn't me? What reason could make anyone doubt that the article was by me? Very odd, indeed. I will be glad to receive details.

So I think we can safely say that the article was written by Uri Heitner and originally published on his blog (among other places), and therefore, under the rules as they are presented here, inadmissable in a biography of a living person.

Personally, I think that disallowing this is petty and wrong. There is nothing in Heitner's article that could be interpreted as a personal slur or libel to Levy - it is simply an opinion about Levy's opinions, and perfectly legitimate. I don't think that Heitner himself is particularly notable, nor is his opinion especially original. He does have a way with words (albeit in Hebrew), and makes points which could be germaine to the article. On the other hand, three other sources make pretty much the same point, and they are already quoted. So I don't think that disallowing this source makes much difference one way or the other. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Behe

This revert with no discussion and a deceptive edit summary by Nunh-huh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is in violation of WP:BLP as discussed here. As per WP:BLP, the burden of evidence to show the reinserted material is well sourced lies with him. I requested a self-revert but received no response. JPatterson (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps it would be better to have put citation needed tags. Most of your unilateral objections seem to be based in a claim that there there is no scientific consensus to cite. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, legal findings of fact support the claim that there is a scientific consensus, so it is unlikely that Behe will sue Misplaced Pages. Abductive (reasoning) 02:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Most All of what I removed was either unsourced or non-RS. WP:BLP is quite explicit as to sourcing requirements and I see nothing there that provides exceptions based on the likelihood of getting sued. The trial transcripts are primary sources so conclusions drawn from them are OR and unacceptable in a BLP context. They should be able to find solid sources from recognized scientific bodies to support the assertions. JPatterson (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, I seem to recall hearing and reading many secondary sources saying that evolution is the overwhelming scientific consensus. Just for laughs, here is a source (Education Week) that uses the words "overwhelming", "consensus" and "evolution" together: . You will note that it spells out that creationist's latest strategy in its Abstract; "In another twist in the decades-long battle over evolution's status in public school science classrooms, state legislators are arguing that teachers have a right to raise doubts about that essential scientific theory as a matter of free speech. Similarly worded bills that attempt to protect the right of educators and students to present critiques of evolution on the basis of "academic freedom" have emerged in at least five states. Those measures do not call for teaching "intelligent design" or biblically based creationism. Instead, they generally describe evolution as controversial and seek to bar school administrators from interfering with teachers who describe what they see as flaws in the theory. The overwhelming scientific consensus, however, is that there is no debate about the core principles of evolution, which scientists regard as the only credible, and thoroughly tested, scientific explanation for the development of human and other life on Earth, and for its diversity of species. Opponents of the bills see them as repackaged attempts to introduce religious concepts into science lessons by falsely implying evolutionary theory is riddled with doubt." Sound familar? Abductive (reasoning) 08:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Look don't get me wrong. I certainly do not disagree that ID or IC or whatever are WP:FRINGE. That doesn't change the fact that there are strict sourcing standards for BLPs. If the editors want to hang the coats back on the rack all they need to do is find reliable sources for each point of contention. There were many unsourced contentions on both sides that I removed. You've focused on just one, which isn't even germane (the statement was about rejection of Behe's theory specifically). Statements like " are rejected by the scientific community" need to be backed up with something more than cites to three web articles criticizing the theory. If you want to defend the sources I removed, please do so on a point by point basis. This isn't about evolution vs creationism. It's about reliable sources vs. unreliable ones. JPatterson (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is precipitous to remove the text, rather than just removing the references and adding citation needed tags. The preponderance of evidence suggests that the article is correctly balanced. Abductive (reasoning) 17:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your statement is in direct contradiction to the policy laid out in WP:BLP which requires immediate removal. I did a search of the archives here on this page and ironically the last editor who came here on this article claimed he was banned for doing exactly what you suggest. Why don't we follow policy and add the material back in as reliable sources can be found? JPatterson (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say if it were an article about a Flat Earther, which said "Person X's theories are rejected by the scientific community," we wouldn't be having this conversation. Suffice to say, there's no scientific basis for Behe's claims. What, exactly, would you qualify as a source that his claims are rejected? — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at all of the sourcing issues I've summarized here. When I actually got down to editing and checking sources I found numerous other issues on both sides of the argument. Play particular attention to item #8 which is very problematic. Please note that the fact that a person is a proponent of a fringe theory does not give license for editors to say whatever they want. Each contention must be sourced and there are numerous unsourced or poorly sourced contentions in this article. As to your specific question, Scientific societies exist to opine on just such issues. One would think there exists a biology society that has issued a statement on irreducibly complexity which would be an excellent source. If not, I've offered specific suggestions on the TP as to how the opposing views could be juxtaposed to avoid the SYN issue. JPatterson (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To refocus this discussion on the specific issues with this article, I've detailed the 19 identified sourcing issues here. Note that these are not, as the above red-herring would have it, "based in a claim that there there is no scientific consensus to cite" but rather clear violations of WP:BLP. I do not understand why any of this should be controversial. We can not allow OR and SYN and non-RS/unsourced material on BLP pages simply because some of the editors want it there. JPatterson (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources are being provided on that Talk page discussion, so I don't think there's anything else to do here. Also, saying "X person's theory is wrong" is not a BLP violation. Saying "he's an idiot" or "he's deluded" would be, but simply saying his ideas are rejected doesn't have anything to do with BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WP can not say X person's theory is wrong. It can say Y says X person's theory is wrong, assuming Y is RS JPatterson (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Trudeau

• Kevin Trudeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This grotesque mess of an article needs to be stripped bare – as in probably 2/3 of it should be deleted – and the heavily watchlisted by people not afraid to enforce policy. I'm by no means a BLP extremist, but I find myself constantly in the position of having to police this article, from WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEASEL and WP:SOAPBOX violations on the one hand, and WP:PEACOCK, WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:COI wallowing on the other. Just to keep it from getting worse. I've given up attempting to actually improve it, or even make it not grossly violate WP:BLP, WP:V, etc., in more places than can be counted. I'm neutral about the subject muself, but after months of trying to do anything with it only to get editwarred with, I can only conclude that others are going to have to deal with it, and should do so en masse and with thick skins. I don't think that long-ish term partial or even full protections would be out of order, to stem the tide of total crap edits at that article, which are a near-daily affair, and the almost certain revertwarrior backlash that will rise against any attempt to bring balance to that article. Fromwaht I can tell, the only editors at that article are a) me and a few other BLP-enforcing editors who are worn out; b) people who hate Kevin Trudeau because they fell for some telemarketing scheme of his, or they just heard he's a Bad Guy(tm) and feel like getting their two cents in, and c) shills, almost certainly paid, who perennially try to re-write the article to spin Trudeau in a ridiculously positive light ("consumer rights advocate", etc.). The fact that he's been successfully prosecuted for fraud is very much proven and sourced, is a major part of his notability, and cannot legitimately be stripped from the lead, or otherwise marginalized. The countervailing facts that the IPT and some other projects of his haven't raised any fraud red flags at all and people are actually pretty happy with them is also significant. It is grossly unfair to both the article subject and the readership to marginalize everything notable about Trudeau that doesn't happen to be salacious enough to bring uncharitable glee to his haters. It's equally wrong to let the article be whitewashed simply because Trudeau happens to be a living person. We're not here to protect his feelings. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 08:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two weeks. The article has only been protected once previously, and that for but a day, so I was unwilling to go straight to longer protection. However, I saw all the issues that you menion above, and am willing to extend the protection if the problems persist. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 17:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Captain Beany

• Captain Beany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject of this article is wanting some information removed, see discussion at editor assistance. However, it is sourced to a reliable source (the BBC) and so his efforts to have it removed have been understandably resisted. My thinking is slightly different however. The offence was relatively minor with only a small fine, and our BLP policy states "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". I do not think that the information is relevant to the subject's notability. Quantpole (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you there, for me it could be removed, its a very minor offense, with a small fine, a small thing like that, well published through[REDACTED] could have a detrimental effect on his charity work, I added a bit to portray it a bit more npov. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute: "officially transformed his apartment into the Baked Bean Museum of Excellence" is encyclopedic content, but a criminal offense reported by the Beeb is not? I think this reeks of a NPOV-breaching WP:NOT#CENSORED violation, requested in order to improve the subject's cash flow. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Captain Beany frequently stands for political office in elections (for which he gets significant publicity). A conviction of this kind is certainly relevant to such notability. The conviction was also reported in articles:

• "Beany is fined for fraud", South Wales Echo (Cardiff); Sep 1, 2005; p. 21
• "'Beany' is fined £200, South Wales Echo (Cardiff), Sep 2, 2005, p. 2
• "Fundraiser Captain Beany is convicted of benefit fraud", Western Mail (Cardiff), Sep 2, 2005, Paul Carey, p. 7.
• It is also repeated in "Still full of beans", Wales on Sunday (Cardiff), Feb 5, 2006, Nathan Bevan, p. 30.

Ty 06:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Riduan Isamuddin

Please take away that horrible image from the box. Riduan Isamuddin 60.49.113.34 (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, this image is of such low-quality as to be useless here. Removed. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mohamad Farik Amin

Please take away that horrible image from the box. Mohamad Farik Amin 60.49.113.34 (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This one, however, is borderline. Personally, I don't think it's worth having in the article, but it's debatable. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, turns out the original source linked in the image page is here. I dunno about anyone else, but I can't read that clearly enough to say that any of those pictures is who it's claimed in the articles. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Miodrag Ješić

• Miodrag Ješić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I've been called by a soccer coach and former player Miodrag Ješić. After some discussion, I finally realized that he is right about what he is saying, so i removed the link (but, i was thinking that i was at sr.wp, so i left comment in serbian :) ). The point is that that site has partial information about him. It is about a lot of his unsuccessful parts of carrier than about his successful parts of carrier, which affects his life: football club managers are looking into that information. So, i have one question and one ask. The question is: do you think that my action is according to BLP policy (it is important to me because of sr.wp, too)? Ask is: if it is so, site reprezentacija.rs should be added into the list of sites with not so reliable information about living people. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 12:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  A note: The site is promoted as "Serbian national football team website" , which is not true. It is a fan site, which has been during the past months. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 12:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I´ve properly re-arranged the page. The site www.reprezentacija.rs is in the list of WP reliable sources, so it´s utilization here has been very usefull for certain biographies, specially the ones of older Yugoslav players. I´ve made some minor changes, so if you have any more questions about it, you can post them here or on my talk page. Anyway, on the page, there were two more general sites (the Partizan and Buducnost P. official sites) but without any information about Jesic, so I removed them as well. Thanx for notecing this. FkpCascais (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing like the "list of Misplaced Pages's reliable sources". Also, you've added that it is an official site in your last edit, even it is not. The official site of Serbian federation is http://www.fss.rs/. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 00:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides that, the article is not appropriate as it doesn't list all of the Jesic's carrier, but it pretends to that it consist the whole. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 00:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Link should be removed until the information inside of the article would be fixed. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 00:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a list of sites here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Football/Links, and please don´t engage in edit wars. The removal of the site is not productive in any way, and the site contains a relatively complete playing and coaching careers, in both, Serbian and English language, so it´s really hard to understand what are you talking about. If there is any info missing in the article, you could help by adding sources, and adding that infrmation, but please don´t be disruptive, and stop removing the valid source that is "covering" much of the information written in the article. If you have some issues regarding the use of the website here, please be kind and adress them properly here:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Links or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football. If the issues are about the website itself, or lack of some important info in the Jesic´s page in the site, it is the website that you should contact. About the naming here of the website ("Serbian Federation site" or "Serbian national team"), it has been named this way ever since, so if adequate, a change can be donne, but you need to adress this issue first, and demonstrate your points, before engaging in some massive changes. From what I can see, your intention is to de-creditaze the website, but it is hard to understand, since the website has been considered reliable for a long time now, and has been very usefull, as I already told you.

P.S.:I do understand that in the translated English version in the site, much enphasis is given to the Turkish player incident injury, and the text could obviously be better written, but that is far from being a reason to consider the website unreliable, and remove it from everywhere. Anyway, all written there is right. The simple reason of the source not writting the text the way you would like isn´t reason enough to delete it. Adding more sources would be much more adequat. I think you are also missing the entire point of how sources work here on WP, and remember, Misplaced Pages is by no means a promotional website, as you can see here FkpCascais (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Thanks for explaining to me rules at Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately for you, your threatening style may work with some new editor and I am not a new editor here. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 20:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
2. The page which you mentioned states that it is not a list of reliable sources. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 20:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
3. The name of the site which you promote is misleading readers to think that it is an official site, which means that you are doing advertising here. --millosh (talk (meta:))
4. But, besides all of that, this issue is not about your site in general, but about particular page and particular link. Otherwise, this discussion would go elsewhere. Partial information about Jesic at that site affects his life and Misplaced Pages shouldn't promote such sites as reliable sources of information. At least, in that particular case. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 20:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've read the Misplaced Pages article and the link for the reprezentacija.rs webpage. First, we should be clear that represezentacija.rs is NOT the official website of the Football Association of Serbia (which is fss.rs). Second, without knowing any details about the phone call mentioned above, I suspect Mr. Ješić's concern deals with the content about the clash with Rıdvan Dilmen that is currently in the article and the reprezentacija.rs webpage linked on the article. It is a negative statement, and I think that without further confirmation (in reliable sources), the statement should be removed from the article. I don't know if the link should also be removed since it does contain useful confirmation of many details about Ješić's career. I suppose WP:EL has the answer, so I'll take a look. Jogurney (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In your last comment you said: "...your threatening style..." , where exactly did I threat you? "...I am not a new editor here..." , where I said that you were? Please, be precise in when putting words in someone elses mouth.

Regarding the link to the external sources used in the WikiProject Football, the list may be not named that way, but the criterium of inclusion of the websites to that list is very much about reliability. And the site www.reprezentacija.rs has been very reliable for now. About Ješić, again, all the rest of the information in the website page is wright (clubs, stats...).

I am not promoting the website here. I am editing here for some years now, and the website was used as a source for almost all Yugoslav and Serbian international players way before I started editing here. I´m just following the precedent trend by naming it by the name I do. Anyway, it is my right, as a active ditor of football players biographies, specialised mostly in the Serbian and ex-Yugoslav players, to support the website as a reliable source.

Talking concretly on Mr.Miodrag Ješić, he is a worldwide well know football manager, so it is really hard to understand your statement that the inclusion of the website in his article as a source for the enumeration of his playing career clubs, with stats, and his coaching career clubs, can be harmfull. If the text of the WP article was harmfull to his career, that would be one issue, but WP is not responsable for the content of another external websites. Your suggestion that club Presidents could hire or not him as a coach for their club based on the inclusion or not of certain website as external link on his page, is wrong and quite naive.

Anyway, the content in his WP articles should not be a copy/paste from the content of his article from that website, so the removal of the controversial content can be perfectly donne without the unecessary removal of the link (not everything from the source must be in the text). And please remember, I am a football editor here with a great passion for Serbian and Yugoslav football, so it wouldn´t be hard for me to agree with you if there was anything harmfull, or against the WP policies, found in any article related with Serbian or Yugoslav football. You could have removed the paragraph istead (as I ended doing).

About the naming of the source, we should rename it in another way, so when a proper renaming is found, I will change it in all the articles where is named wrongly. FkpCascais (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Filip for removing the negative content about the clash with Dilmen. I re-read the coaching section, and I suspect Mr. Ješić may have a concern that it is not written from a neutral point of view. I added inline citations for the statements about his departures from Partizan and Otopeni, and tweaked the language to be more NPOV. The section describes his successes at CSKA Sofia, but not with Buducnost, so adding something there would help make the entire section more NPOV. Otherwise, I think the only question is whether the link to the reprezentajica.rs page can be (or should be) included. Jogurney (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the site has information about his playing career with all stats, that are really difficult to find elswhere. All the initial coaching career is included in the Serbian part of the text, wich unfortunatelly is very much abscent from the awfull English version. I think, as I already said quite many times, the article needs more sources, adding them, and making a expansion of several parts of his career in the text of the article is really welcomed. But removing the source, that I honestly beleve that in case of being missing, it will, sooner or later, be re-added by some other editor, it´s just unfruitfull. My main divergence with Millosh is maynly my total oposition in trying to name the website non-reliable (as he said in one of his comments) only because of his disliking of the way this article was written. Despite the article in the website being far from ideal, I´m refering to the English version, because the Serbian is way better, there is also not found anything that is untrouth, so what possible reason could exist for eliminating the website in general? And the other thing where I disagree with Millosh is about the way of understanding the sources themselfs. I´m not sure if Millosh understands that a source doesn´t necessarilly have to have all from it included in the article, and can be used only, as for exemple, for the career stats. Many sources can be used for many different parts of the article, and all of them are welcomed. FkpCascais (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Jogurney, thanks for taking care about this issue. Jesic didn't talk about articles on Misplaced Pages (both: in English and Serbian), but about article at the site reprezentacija.rs. Managers probably know that they should use Misplaced Pages article just as the starting point and they use for description of his work article on reprezentacija.rs site, as they think that it is an official site of Serbian Football Federation. Probably, it would be good enough to mention inside of the paragraph with link that the information about Jesic is impartial and that it doesn't contain a number of his latest successes, as well as being clear that it is not an official site. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 06:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I am out of football for 20 years (I know for Jesic as a player, not as a coach) and I don't have any clue about anything related to him as a coach (actually, I don't know a lot about him as a player, too, as he was not one of the stars at the time when he was playing football). However, I have no doubt when a person tell to me: "This is written inside of the article, but not those my successes. And it affects my carrier." I am sure that both of you know better about what he was talking to me. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 06:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, but the paragraph is now removed, since there is plenty of other more important stories that could be written in the article, luckily, many of them of success. I´m not sure you understood, but when I was talking about the English and Serbian versions of the text, I wasn´t refering to the Eng. or Srb. wikipedia, but the texts written in both languages that are in Jesic´s page in the website, that unfortunatelly, is quite well written in the Serbian version, but awfully resumed and incident concentrated in the English version. Just for making the things clear: The main reason about the complain is regarded to the English text from the website that is very concise, and gives too much enphasis to the incident that happend in Turkey while he was a player, right? As I told you initially, I removed the paragraph, so that information is not there any more. But unfortunatelly, there is one strong reason why I think that the website should stay. You certainly are not aware, but it is currently under way a process of colecting the unsourced articles, that would soon be deleted. The Jesic article, beside his actual website, has only this one (reprezentacija.rs) as a source. If removed, it would leave the article quite "naked" of sources. We could try to find some other websites that could contein much of the information about him, but I think that that would not be a easy task. So the Reprezentacija.rs website has been very practical exactly for that purpose, because it covers, as source, all his playing statistics, clubs, years, matches, goals, and much of his coaching career, beside the information regarding his participation in the national team matches.

I think you should really think about a possibility of you, or Jesic himself, contacting the website, and asking them to make a better translation of his career to English. About wikipedia, I think that having a well written, and precise about the facts, article here is really all we can do. I hope that you are much more satisfied now with the article here, after having the controversial paragraph been removed. More sugestions? Jogurney? By the way, many thanx for all your help. FkpCascais (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. I agree with Filip that we should link to the website as it contains details about his career that don't appear to be available elsewhere. Perhaps we should link to the Serbian version, since the English one has the problem? Otherwise, I think the Misplaced Pages article is okay, but obviously could be improved with some copyediting. Jogurney (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, it appears that we should only use link "ites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." Thus, I'll change the link to the Serbian version which appears to be neutral, rather than the English version which may not be. Jogurney (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I removed this as it was crossposted both here an ANI. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ayaan Hirsi Ali. In future please don't crosspost like that. If it's necessary to raise an issue in multiple boards, choose one as the place for primary discussion and just link to it. However you should only do this when there's a significant[REDACTED] wide issue which requires significant attention not for a single dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Shelby

• Richard Shelby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is generally a C-class mess that needs a good scrubbing, but I write regarding an editor edit-warring to include a paragraph about Shelby's legislative maneuvering. For five days, Shelby put a hold on dozens of Obama nominees to protest the administration's decision about the awarding of a tanker contract to a rival of a factory in his state. 'The holds had absolutely no effect, since Congress was out of session, but the paragraph doesn't include that information, or even that Shelby lifted the holds. I would suggest that WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS applies; an ephemeral news item is not encyclopedic just because it happened this week. There's also a WP:SYN violation through the citation of a 2003 CNN article that does not mention the 2010 holds by Shelby. THF (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Administrator intervention needed as editor is using Twinkle to edit-war to add inaccurate information to the article. THF (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked this editor to identify the supposed inaccurate information, but this editor would prefer to use the talk page to argue instead of discussing the article. Gamaliel (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop lying. The inaccurate information is identified both on this page and the talk page, but I've added bold text to make it easier for you to find. THF (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And I have already asked you for a source for this information and you have yet to provide it. So I'm supposed to add something to the article that 1) I don't know is true and 2) I don't have a source for simply because you want me to and you are yelling at me? This isn't how we edit BLPs. Gamaliel (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It had no effect anyway it says so how important is it? in a few months it will be totally forgotten and only remembered by the couple of[REDACTED] editors that make it to that section of the article. Why not leave it out, it isn't important or very notable looking. Off2riorob (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a widely discussed event and such a sweeping use of the hold system is unprecedented. That more than justifies a brief mention of it in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That's another BLP violation, since Shelby's use of the hold system is not unprecedented. See also WP:PERSISTENCE: something that makes a brief flare-up in the news isn't necessarily encyclopedic. THF (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is pretty much a messy unreadable hash anyway so no one will ever read it anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Bacanovic

I kindly ask the board to review this page: Peter Bacanovic. He is marginally notable, at best, and does not come close to meeting the notability requirement for Misplaced Pages. The page was deliberately created as a smear campaign and the relevant info about Peter is already encapsulated within ImClone stock trading case. Per BLP standards, I nominate this page for deletion. Samwestonx (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Helen Clark (UK politician)

Please keep an eye on this article - I've cleaned up what I can, but the subject has raised some concerns about it via an OTRS email, so extra eyes would be helpful. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Article was edited to a more NPOV situation and a note was left on the talkpage about this thread and the OTRS ticket, an editor [[

User_talk:Shakehandsman returned the article back to the previous version, I have reverted it back to the NPOV position and left a note asking hm to move to discussion here. Off2riorob (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

For example here is the version trimmed to NPOV position, detailing the simple facts without the insulting and basically unnessecary comments..

Clark was involved in an incident in 2008 when video footage of her complaining to bar staff about their refusal to serve her husband was posted on YouTube. After Clark threatened legal action over the availability of the video, she was charged with public order offences. Clark was at first found guilty of using threatening words and behavior but was cleared on appeal.

and here is the version replaced by Shakehandsman which is basically exactly the same that had been inserted previously.

Clark was involved in an embarrassing incident in 2008 when video footage of her complaining to bar staff about their refusal to serve her husband was posted on YouTube. After Clark threatened legal action over the availability of the video, she was charged with public order offences. The case came to trial in March 2009 when Clark was cleared of being drunk and disorderly but found guilty of using threatening words and behaviour; she was given a conditional discharge. The judge presiding over the case described Clark as having a "preoccupation with self and self-image" and that "Clark was clearly out of control". On appeal, the conviction was overturned, with the Appeal Court judge describing Clark's behavior as shameful but not criminal.

You can clearly see the second version is written in as negative portrayal as possible, and includes embarrassing .. described as.."preoccupation with self and self-image" .."Clark was clearly out of control" and the her actions were shameful all in all an attack, although I have got a citation guv.Off2riorob (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Stirling work Rob! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wring in quoting the judge whatsoever - the only fault in that version is the use of the in the term "embarrassing" (and that's not a term I came up with at all as it isn't' in the source). There's a reluctance to use quotes about MPs by opponents and to a lesser extent journalists, but when a fully independent and totally impartial and respected judge has such a thing to say in summing up the trial of said person it couldn't be more merited. On top of that it's hugely dishonest for you to pretend that I simply reverted the article back to the previous version - I've added plenty of balance to other sections, additional references and I removed the most problematic parts. (all of which you have again undone).--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The judge's comments are actually essential here in particular they've very useful in understanding the case and the previous verdict - - i.e. that the previous judge had perhaps confused shameful and criminal conduct or that it was hard to determine which one was the case here. On top of that the terms used by the judge are not "all an attack" as your rather misleading state. Yes it describes her as shameful, but you've rather conveniently ignored the last part of the phrase - that of "not criminal" (i.e. terminolgoy that's actually defending her). Any attack piece would have omitted that part, whereas to include it is far more honest and balanced. Perhaps we could find something more pleasant the judge had to say about her or more importantly add something about her defence or mitigating circumstances? - that would certainly be far better than just censoring the whole article all the time and removing content until almost nothing is left--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Cia Berg

An IP editor introduced this edit to the above article claiming that the subject of the article "achieved some notoriety for the oral braces she wore" and "flaunted" and, as a reference, provided a link to the music video on YouTube. The video in the reference shows the braces, yes, but proves nothing of "notoriety". Per my prior experience, people like to share with the world their favourite moments of films and music videos and often attempt to assert notability for this trivia by calling it notable or controversial or, in this case, notorious. I consider claims of notoriety in violation of BLP, especially when not cited properly. I removed the info from the article, explaining my reasoning but was reverted by the IP editor without an explanation. I removed the negative claim from the article again and explained myself in detail on Talk:Cia Berg. The editor reverted me again, this time refactoring his claim of "notoriety" and claiming this time that the subject's wearing of braces was "worthy of note". I disagree that it's worthy of note and believe that it doesn't benefit the article as much as it opens the door for other personal opinions to be expressed — all the while disguised as notable encyclopedic material — about her braces in a contentious manner. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the claim of notoriety, and 'refactored' (a weasel word if ever there was one) at the FIRST time of asking. A quick check of the edit history will show that the claim above is untrue, of course. I do remember that at the time (1993?) the braces caused a bit of a stir but I was uable to cite that so the claim of notoriety stays out, correctly. That the braces are notable is a bit more straightforward as it's a most unusual thing to see in a video, especially in female artists. Furthermore, I cannot see the argument that saying 'she wore braces' is 'contentious'; it's merely a statement, it's true and it's cited. I think that it enhances the article simply because it's additional information about the subject that I consider to be worthy of note. It's not in the least contentious and I don't see how it can be considered inappropriate. What is inappropriate, however, is making untrue claims about the edits of others to attempt to strengthen your own position, and the edit history in this case bears this out. Do have a look.. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(Copied over from the article talk page)

My apologies for stating that this was a reinsertion of the same info. I failed to look at the edit closely enough to see that you refactored your statement on that edit. I saw the link reinserted and the edit summary that stated only that you had reverted my edit. For that I do apologize.

I do still stand by my point that claiming notoriety must be avoided in a BLP unless it can be properly sourced. Moreover, I don't find it an improvement to remove your statement where you claim notoriety and then insert a statement where you claim notability and subsequently explain that notability as a result of bringing "Ms Berg notoriety at the time". It's contentious and unsourced, doesn't belong here. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not argue the point that unsourced claims of notoriety should be removed - which is why I did so at he first time of asking, as we have agreed is what happened in this case. Also, I did not contest the point - not a peep. The inclusion of the line about the braces is NOT about notoriety. It's in because it's unusual, it's verifiable and I think it adds to the article and the reader's understanding of Ms Berg. The insertion of a simple fact - that cannot (IMHO) be considered contentious - allows the reader to draw their own conclusions without prejudice. Removal of this fact would not allow the reader that privilege - or that insight, or that information. I'm not much of a fan of the song, but I think the video is quite interesting on an visual level. It's no work of genius though, and I'm not a fanboy, but the braces are conspicuous - deliberately so in my opinion. To point out that they are there gives people the chance to decide if they agree, disagree or couldn't care less. I complied with your original diktat, heavily edited the sentence down to a simple fact and argued that the inclusion of the braces is notable due to how unusual it is a thing to see. Again, it's misleading (at best) to claim that I argued for inclusion of the braces because it 'brought Ms Berg notoriety at the time'. It did do, but as I explain (more than once), I couldn't cite that and so it's the unusual nature of the braces in a music video that is the reason for inclusion. You're being very selctive in your editing (again) and - again - a quick glance at the edit summaries and discussion page supports - twofold - my version of events, not yours. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm having a hard time explaining what I mean when I say that you use the argument of notoriety to keep the info in the article. Even in your immediately preceding response, you say that the braces did bring her notoriety. I know that the claim of notoriety is no longer in the article itself but the expressed argument for keeping the statement in the article is still because of this alleged notoriety. Sorry if I've been unclear about that. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and keep this short. I personally believe that the braces brought her a level of notoriety. I cannot cite this, so it's neither here nor there. My solitary argument for the inclusion of the line about the braces is that it is a highly unusual thing to see in a music video, expecially in female performers, and I think the inclusion of this information adds value to the article. Notoriety is NOT the argument for inclusion - which is why I immediately removed it and left it well alone. You're seemingly telling me why I put this line in when I have stated on what must be half-a-dozen occasions now that it's in because it's unusual. The 'notoriety' angle is redundant and not mentioned in the article, so it's silly of you to continue to bring it up. I moved on after the first edit. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A note regarding what else this user considers appropriate and helpful information, he defended this edit by claiming that it's apparently true, even though no citations are available. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is true, but I couldn't cite it, so it's not in the article. Case closed. Your point, and its relevance to this discussion? do I have to trawl your edit history for similar occurences? Hopefully not, I haven't the time. I get the feeling you feel obliged to bring up an unrelated case as you feel a bit threatened by the fact that you a) made a number of untrue statements and included weasel words about this edit process and, b) continue to assert that it is you, not me, that knows on what basis this information is in the article. I know my own mind, you know! --80.192.21.253 (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You state: 'it doesn't benefit the article as much as it opens the door for other personal opinions to be expressed — all the while disguised as notable encyclopedic material — about her braces in a contentious manner'. If that happens, take it/them out. Hypothesising on what might happen to the article in the future has no relevance here. Another spurious argument... --80.192.21.253 (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wearing braces is not notable, and youtube is not a reliable source. I've removed the sentence. Please don't return it to the article again. Yworo (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wearing braces in this medium is very unusual, and I think notable on that basis. Can we have someone else look at this please? The video is a primary source and has been commented on on the web - google 'Cia Berg braces'. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I've Googled it. None of the sources returned qualify as reliable sources. It is simply trivia, not important enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. This is an encyclopedia, you know, not a fan site. Yworo (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

An encyclopedia? Really? I thought it was a Whale fansite. Don't be so condescending, it's not becoming. Can we find some sort of external concensus on this? That you think it's not notable isn't good enough. It's an encyclopedia, not a dictatorship, you know! --80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is up to you to find and present a source which qualifies as reliable under Misplaced Pages policy. Even then, the fact is trivial, and does not belong in the lead paragraph. Yworo (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion, as you put it. It was in NME back in the day. I'll email them for the appropriate issue. I assume New Musical Express is OK, or, let me guess, that's not RS either? --80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Loren Legarda

• Loren Legarda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• GiannaManiego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At issue is a defamatory and non-verifiable text that is being repeatedly inserted by user HoppingHare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). May I suggest that the board keep an eye on this page and on other Filipino politicians' biographies as well. I weeded out as best I could. But since the national election is approaching, mudslinging is in full swing. Thank you!

GiannaManiego (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)GiannaManiego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The issue whether this is verifiable is baseless. As you can see, there are neutral sources that confirm this so any suggestion of such is unreasonable. I think it is sad that a good politician can be tainted but regardless facts are facts and they should be told as such. Please see The Philippine Star. See below:

• Corpus apologizes to Loren but sticks to accusations. Manila. February 7, 2004. The Philippine Star/Philippine Headline News. Retrieved on February 13, 2010.

• What do you think of the Villar-Legarda tandem?. Manila. November 22, 2009. The Philippine Star. Retrieved on February 13, 2010.

I am asking that the deleted material be restored.--HoppingHare (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bill Moyers--2nd Request

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)

--Drrll (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Marcus (comedian)

• Marcus (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The article has a sourced reference as to the subject's last name. The subject has allegedly denied that this is his last name, in a comedy routine and on a podcast, without saying what his real last name is; but there is no reliable source to indicate that the published information is wrong. I believe that this is a matter of "I don't want people to know my last name, and I am trying to cover up the fact that (when I was even more obscure) it got published, by creating a fog of FUD about the issue." Another editor keeps removing the sourced information in favor of keeping the whole thing secret. I feel that WP:NOT#CENSORED and WP:V are on my side; but I'm bringing it to this forum for further comment. Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is weakly cited and disputed and IMO should be left out of the article.The subject wants it out and disputes it is accurate, it is cited to one single weak citation and not supported anywhere. As it is a BLP and we need to err on the side of caution is this detail available at multiple reliable sources? Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The only citation it is in is this knoxville Karaoke’s still king at Big Mama’s citation , imo , considering it is disputed this is not strong enough or widely reported to be worthy of inclusion here. Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone's last name isn't publicly known and the subject of BLP disputes, it's a pretty strong sign that they're not notable enough for Misplaced Pages. I've nominated the article for deletion. THF (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

He came in 2nd place on a season of Last Comic Standing, a show that aired on network TV with ratings in the millions per night. If deleted, this would place a hole in the references for the show. He has been the subject of newspaper articles relating to his appearance on the show. The subject is notable, just none of them have references to his last name.Whillice (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If there's dozens of articles of cruft from Last Comic Standing, where even the winners fail to go on to anything resembling real careers, that's an argument for more deletions/mergers, rather than keeping this one, but take it to the AFD page. THF (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I had this thought earlier, so lets see. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We should side with[REDACTED] rules here, not OrangeMike's suspicions over the motivations of the subject. My contentions: 1- I believe that the overarching rule is that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful."-- this info is contentious and should be removed. 2- The sources cited are reliable. First, None of the references are part of a "comedy routine." One is from Twitter where Marcus expresses his frustration that people keep adding this info on his page, mostly by engaging in name-calling to other[REDACTED] editors. http://twitter.com/ComedianMarcus/statuses/7879267179 This coincides with edits from an anonymous user claiming to be Marcus asking people to stop changing this info because it is false. The other source is an episode of the Geek Show Podcast, downloadable through iTunes, episode named "Kill It, Before IT Kills You." At minute approx 21, Marcus again explicitly states that the info people keep putting on his page, specifically related to his name, is false. Per WP:SELFPUB these sources which normally wouldn't be considered reliable CAN be, as long as:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

It meets none of those caveats, so the sources are reliable when it comes to keeping this info out.

Also, per WP:BLPEDIT "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whillice (talk • contribs) 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We should also note that the source for the name is not the body of the article in question at all, but a caption on a photo, further adding to its dubiousness. Since this is a case of leaving contentious material out of an article rather than leaving it it, I believe we must side with keeping it out. Whillice (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that the article isn't deleted, I think the SELFPUB argument has a mild amount of merit. But those are some of the unfunniest tweets I've ever seen. THF (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Through more searching, here is a source that is not a podcast, not from Twitter, which says Marcus only has a first name. http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2008/aug/18/last-comic-standing-live-tour-comes-bass-performan/ I have 1 verifiable source, you have 1, and I have two which I claim to be verifiable per SELFPUB. By the by, THF, if humorousness of source material was a requirement for verifiability,[REDACTED] would be pretty small. ha! Whillice (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Demagogy

• Demagogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Repeated attempts to define examples of "modern demagogues". Invariably provides more insights into the politics of the person making the addition than about the subject of the article. Could use additional contributors watchlisting the article. --Allen3  20:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Olexander

• Andrew Olexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - website with slander // 210.84.2.155 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC) and/or
• Hahapsht (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - mischievous user // 210.84.2.155 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this user seems to have a grudge against people involved in the Australian Democrats in 2008-09. This person has added a whole bunch of crazy to the article on Andrew Olexander, including some pretty hardcore assertions with no citations. Here's a diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Andrew_Olexander&action=historysubmit&diff=341110635&oldid=310624341

Their edits to the Australian Democrats page are petty, but probably not worth hassling over.

Anyway, I don't feel comfortable editing the page.

Fairfield College

An anon editor has regularly been updating the page with poorly sourced information about a real crisis at this school. The information added has been removed or sourced and made more neutral by several editors. However, in defence of their actions, the anon has posted material to the talk page about the current principal which I think might be unacceptable. Am I justified in removing this? Normally talk pages are subject to much looser rules than articles. I have semi-protected the article to prevent the repeated addition of the material.-gadfium 22:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a common attempt at inserting negative content on the talkpage that the editor wants to put in the article and has failed, BLP applies on talkpages as much as anywhere else here but more lax attitudes are generally applied to talkpages, wrongly imo. One course of action that I have used in similar cases is to archive content like that, but deletion is an option, delete, uncited or poorly cited attack on a living person. I have deleted it, I would also take a little bit of weight out of the critical comments, perhaps remove the comments about student fights or squabbles, as that sort of think happens at every school and is not really notable content and is getting undue weight and coverage through its inclusion in the wikipedia.Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Pibroch

Not a biography, but still with a BLP-like issue. See . The root of the problem appears to be this edit on 9 November 2008. The word "blasphemous" remained until 7 April 2009. Although that has now been removed, could someone please take a look at the mentions of this book in the article to make sure that it is now NPOV? (Context: the author has just contacted WMUK about this). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:01, 14 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