Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:17, 29 July 2013

• 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

Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority

Since the original charges agains Assange were issues, there has been a long running debate on how to characterize the charges. Some editors have suggested that the charges should be called "rape", while others have suggested more general terms like "sexual assault". Complicating the issue is the fact that the exact charges are legal in nature and roughly translate to something like "rape lesser degree", for which there is no congruent term in the English language. The general nature of the charge appears to be a category of sexual assault which is somewhere between "date rape" and "sexual harassment", though the precise definition is a bit nebulous due to translation issues, both legal and language.

This topic has been discussed several times on both the case page, and Assange's page: , . Similarly, from Julian Assange, , , , , , , , .

The general consensus has been to prefer high quality secondary sources when referring to the charges. Currently an editor is attempting to insert descriptions based on this source: , which is a foreign language primary source from the prosecution. Using this source seems to run afoul of WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:CRIME. Higher quality sources like in-depth reporting from large news outlets are safer sources for supporting controversial content like the exact nature of the charges.

Any guidance here would be appreciated. aprock (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Can any editors more experienced with WP:BLP comment on this issue? 17:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

To add, I'm the user in question, though more accurately I'm attempting to revert information that was removed by Aprock. I have presented three BBC articles, as well as two court documents to go along with one of the original sources. These are all high quality sources, yet the information (what the warrant actually details) is continuously being removed by Aprock, despite the page being about said warrant and the high quality reliable sources. As we've now come to a stalemate it would be best if there were further comments on this situation, as we can't resolve it among each other. Pluvia (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This has always been problematic, not only due to language difficulties, but due to the way the Swedish legal system works. Strictly speaking, Assange hasn't as yet been formally charged with anything - such charges come relatively late in the legal process, as I understand it. Added to that is the difficulty of accurately translating the alleged offences: våldtäkt, olaga tvång and sexuellt ofredande. Certainly English-language media sources have referred to 'rape' as being amongst the alleged offences (e.g. the BBC: "Mr Assange is wanted for questioning in Sweden regarding rape and sexual assault allegations", and The Guardian: " has been accused of sexual assault and rape." ). While I agree that attempting to translate court documents from Swedish is problematic on several levels, I do wonder if the current article could be seen as understating the serious nature of the allegations. If mainstream sources refer to allegations of "rape and sexual assault", it really isn't up to us to second-guess them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree with AndyTheGrump I cant see any reason not to use wording from a reliable source like the BBC. It is not our job to guess or translate original documents but to report the reliable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The cited BBC source is not the only one that has described the charges. Actually, an other BBC included how the alleged crime was downgraded from "rape of the normal degree" to rape of a lesser degree following discussions with Sweden's Court of Appeal (source). In the older discussion on the article talk page, I myself pointed out a UK court document, which translated the charges as lesser degree rape. And if we just go and look, more news articles report the same. We got a few huffingtonpost articles, one that specifically addressing the issue under the heading of: How Rape Is Defined Around The World: Todd Akin's Comment, Julian Assange's Case Raise Questions Over Definition. Google gives more sources, such as this LA times opinion article or this reuters article. The independent calls it "minor rape", but I would call that a slight variation of rape of lesser degree. In the end, given that the Swedish text do translated into rape lesser degree, why should we not use it when it also is reported as such by several reliable sources? Its about a living person. so don't we have a responsibility to "get it right"? Belorn (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Kuldip Singh Kular

Kuldip Singh Kular (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• related edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kuldip_Singh_Kular&diff=565219969&oldid=564844916
• location of previous discussion: User talk:EncyclopediaUpdaticus#Kuldip Singh Kular

• I believe the current version of the article violates WP:BLPCRIME. For the following reasons:
  • The person in the article is relatively unknown, he is a former provincial MLA. A google search under his name "Kuldip Singh Kular" only has 1,750 results.
  • There was a full acquittal due to insufficient evidence, and he was immediately reappointed to his post after this.
  • For these reasons I believe that there is no reason to include the charges as it had no effect on his career, inclusion seems to imply that he was guilty of some crime he never committed.

Gsingh (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Irrespective of Google hits the person receives, the fact of his being charged and later acquitted can go in the article irrespective of how big/small the issue was in media. If the issue was well documented and if the person is actually known for this incident only, it can go in lead also. If not, it should be kept out of lead but be retained in the article. When a biography is written, we will have to mention why he was removed from his post for a certain period and then the reason for it would obviously be needed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not what BLPCRIME says. If he's relatively unknown, we are permitted to, and often should, leave out the information that he was accused of committing a crime. Google hits are relevant to whether he is "relatively unknown".

And if the person is actually known for this incident only, then WP:BLP1E applies and we should not have an article on him at all. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

that's exactly what I was trying to say. The person is a provincial member of parliament, and I believe he is relatively unknown in the realm of Misplaced Pages, in his own province, nationally and internationally as he was simply a back-bencher politician. Gsingh (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Tom Riall

The Tom Riall article is out of date - Tom Riall is now the Chief Executive Officer of Priory_Group, the UK’s leading independent provider of mental health, learning disability and specialist education services. He joined the Group in April 2013. Please see relevant links to corroborate this:

http://news.sky.com/story/1009380/exclusive-priory-seeks-help-from-serco-boss http://www.priorygroup.com/investors/management-team http://www.healthinvestor.co.uk/(S(2fynm545r4srox45lrl5fj45)A(aqr6ycmMzgEkAAAAN2U0MDk5NDUtZTk2Yi00ZWRmLTllMDktOTk2MGE1ZmM3OGUy96JUzb-Pemj3c5S6kb3-bmm3YqA1))/ShowArticleNews.aspx?ID=2547&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Please can you update his biography?

james Randi

I would like to add the following to the James Randi article: On May 29th 2012 James Randi's long-term partner, Deyvi Pena was convicted of stealing the identity of Jose Luis Alvarez, a teaching assistant from the Bronx. Pena was sentenced to 6 months house arrest, but may face deportation. He had lived for 24 years under the stolen identity causing numerous problems for the real Alvarez, including an IRS investigation. Deyvi Pena had also played the part of 'Carlos' a fake channeler, in James Randi's Project Alpha.

There is currently virtually no criticism of Randi in the article, and no mention of his partner being convicted, despite the fact it mentions their marriage and the Project Alpha. I feel the article is not NPOV and is being controlled by those who support Randi's work with no balance. Solar (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Such an edit can only mean you want to make Randi guilt by association. Sorry but it is not going to fly, this would seriously violate WP:BLP. -- cyclopia 14:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and just found you tried to sneak this into the article almost exactly one year ago. It was wrong before, it is wrong now. -- cyclopia 15:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please be polite, I did not try to 'sneak' anything into the article, I just want to add relevant information about the key person in the Alpha Project and Randi's partner. I had talked about adding it a year ago yes, and I was advised to add it here, which I did not get around to doing at the time. I am also not trying to imply guilt by association, just add a point about his private life and the person he worked with on a major project. I wonder if a major psychic performer's partner and co-performer was convicted of identity theft if this would be considered a problem. I'm sure it would be added before the day was out. Solar (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh no, it wouldn't be added, BLP has nothing to do with the subject being a psychic, a skeptic or whatever. And "add a point about his private life and the person he worked with on a major project" is the textbook definition of guilt by association. That stuff does not belong to the article on Randi, because it is not about Randi, first and foremost. -- cyclopia 16:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• The article currently says that Randi came out as gay in a blog post; it mentions his marriage which happened less than a week after DOMA was struck down, includes the name of the husband, and has a section beginning "In 1988, Randi tested the gullibility of the media by perpetrating a hoax of his own..." about their efforts to seek publicity. That section mentions the name of the person whose name was assumed by Randi's partner. The victim's name should be removed from the article, and these new details about the victim should not be added. Randi's husband doesn't seem like a low-profile person to me, having appeared (if I'm reading correctly) on 60 Minutes. The fact that he used a false identity, apparently so that he could live in the United States, seems noteworthy in the larger context of gay immigration, and in Randi's personal life. —rybec 18:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Inserting references to crimes for which there is not the slightest evidence or even a claim that James Randi was involved in is clearly a prohibited attempt at guilt by association and has no place in James Randi's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Randi testified in court—whether willingly or under compulsion, I do not know. Had he been married to a woman, he could not have been compelled to testify against her. This fact need not be presented as an attack on Randi. I feel it's important to his story, particularly since he himself is an immigrant. —rybec 00:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Many people testify in court over many things. There exists a general consensus on the article talk page (and, I might add, a general consensus on Misplaced Pages) that we do not discuss on biography pages unrelated crimes committed by a person's family, partners or friends. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Supposedly, this person, spouse of James Randi, "doesn't seem like a low profile person" to Rybec. OK then, write well-rounded and well-referenced NPOV biography of that person and include this information in a due weight fashion there. Rybec believes that this information is "important" to Randi's biography, "particularly since he himself is an immigrant." James Randi has lived in the United States since the 1950s, I believe. Please, Rybec, explain to us why you believe that a biography of an "immigrant" requires a "particular" level of scrutiny from you? I see absolutely no reason to include information about another person's infractions in a biography of James Randi. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say or imply anything about greater or lesser scrutiny for biographies of immigrants. That's a misunderstanding. My feeling is that if someone immigrates it's an important event in the person's life. So is getting married. If Person A marries Person B, who immigrated, that fact (the immigration of Person B) is likely to be pertinent to Person A's biography. This situation where the two couldn't legally marry because of a discriminatory law, so that a common justification for immigration was denied, seems rather an important circumstance to both of their personal lives.

Suppose that, as you request, a separate article about Pena were written. I had the same thought, but didn't see how having a second article could be more fair to Randi without losing intelligibility. Wouldn't Randi be discussed, or at least mentioned, in the new article as the subject's partner in "the Carlos hoax" and later husband? If Pena's false identity were also covered in that article, what's the difference in a possible impression of "guilt by association" that a reader might draw? Is the benefit simply that readers won't look at the Pena article, because Pena is less well-known than Randi? What should be done with the section in the Randi article about "the Carlos hoax"? Should it be moved to a new article about Pena, just deleted, rewritten so it doesn't use the victim's name, or what? It strikes me as an important episode in Randi's career. Will the article on Randi still make sense if that material is removed or shortened? —rybec 04:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If there is sufficient information about Pena to write an encyclopedic biography of him, then that information would belong in the context of his life.

Personally, I don't think there's enough information available about Pena to write an encyclopedic biography, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by reliable sources.

The issue here is the intent clearly demonstrated by the OP in this thread — the line, There is currently virtually no criticism of Randi in the article is quite telling, because something Pena did should not be viewed as "criticism" of Randi. The OP clearly has an axe to grind and wants to use the criminal acts of Pena to attach a negative taint to Randi, even though there are zero reliable sources drawing any connection between Pena's crimes and Randi. That is right out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be simple enough to add a parenthetical such as (whose real name was Deyvi Pena) with an appropriate citation. Or change it to use Pena in most places but include a parenthetical with the assumed name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nonsense periodically erupts at James Randi because skeptics with a focus on hocus pocus (couldn't resist!) attract such attention. Nevertheless, articles do not contain "guilt by association" factoids such as the fact that Obama might have met Bill Ayers, or that has a spouse who was accused of some very bad behavior. It's fine for someone's blog to assert that person X had partner Y, and Y is really bad, but at the encyclopedia anyone can edit, standards are higher. When X is convicted of aiding and abetting Y, of course that will appear in the article. Until then, it's gossip, and won't. When an incident has suitable notability, an article on the incident can be created, such as Bill Ayers presidential election controversy. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, Deyvi Pena is already referenced in the article in several places, not just for being Randi's partner, but for playing the part of Carlos in the Carlos Hoax. The article currently uses the name he illegally obtained. If this is not explained you have the name of a person who is unrelated to the events being named. If you just change it to Deyvi Pena, all references and videos like the 60 Minutes show still use the stolen ID and will be very confusing. It is not just useful to the article to explain this, but also reflects on the honesty of the man who played Carlos in Randi's hoax. Solar (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that that may force the issue. Normally we wouldn't include the information that someone's spouse stole someone else's identity. But if the spouse is named in the article in connection with an event, and if circumstances mean that we must refer to him by the stolen identity in connection with the event, we have to point out that the identity isn't his. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I realize that Misplaced Pages errs on the side of caution and privacy when it comes to BLP issues, but occasionally, common sense needs to be interjected. Keep in mind that this is a biography - the description of someone's life. From what I gather, this person's spouse was tried and convicted of a crime. Are we seriously suggesting that this had no impact on this person's life? This discussion, sadly, seems more focused on whether this event makes this person look good or bad. Instead, we should be focused on providing our readers an accurate description of a person's life. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources discussing the crime in the context of its impact on Randi's life, rather than making an in-passing mention of the fact that the person's partner is Randi? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with NorthBSB. We are writing about a person's life, but that person is Randi. So what we should write in the Randi article should be about the coverage by reliable sources about the impact this has had on Randi. If we don't know what impact that is, we can't write about it. If Randi organizes a fervent defense of Pena, we can write about that. If Randi divorces Pena over this, we can write about that. If he moves to Mexico to be with Pena, we can write about that. But if we just write about Pena, we're off topic. --GRuban (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is not about the reliability of sources, but the assertion that this had no impact on Randi's life (which I find, unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, ridiculous). How many people, come home from a hard day at work, discover that their spouse has been arrested and say, "Hey, this doesn't matter to me. What's on TV tonight?". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't base Misplaced Pages articles on what you think is ridiculous or not. We base Misplaced Pages articles on what is published in reliable sources. We are already seeing multiple attempts (right here in this thread, even) at using this fact as an attempt to unreservedly smear Randi as being connected with, or an "accomplice" to, the criminal acts committed by his partner. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I can believe it had some impact on Randi's life. But until reliable sources write about that impact, we can't either. --GRuban (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The use of the identity in the Carlos/alpha stunt seems incidental to the BLP (although the identity swap should be mentioned in the alpha article). The ID theft itself is not relevant to Randi's BLP, however, one of the sources does indicate a portion of the story that IS relevant to his BLP "Pena stole the identity a year before he began traveling with Randi in the magician's crusade to expose mystics, faith healers and psychics as frauds. Randi testified at an October court hearing to Pena's true identity, acknowledging he had seen Pena's Venezuelan passport years ago." <BLP violation redacted> So, the only question remains are the sources reliable enough for the BLP allegation? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You've just made a completely unsourced, unsupported and knowingly-false statement asserting, as fact, that the subject of the article is guilty of committing criminal acts. I have redacted it per BLP, and will note the irony of unquestionably violating BLP on the noticeboard meant to discuss potential violations of BLP. Randi has not been arrested, charged or convicted of any criminal act and making insinuations or allegations about his conduct in this matter is right out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

In other news, between the current scandal articles, and the previous fame from the alpha hoax, It seems like pena may pass WP:GNG where more of this information could correctly go. (Although obviously he is only getting coverage (in both cases perhaps) via his relatinoship with randi - he is getting the coverage. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Tim Loughton

An IP editor at Tim Loughton has identified himself as a party in an incident discussed in the article. Perhaps some UK editors could untangle this matter? Gamaliel (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This situation is getting more and more out of hand with covert legal threats with the latest edit summary implying an indirect legal threat with the summary "removed lies currently under legal challenge." Please can this be sorted out as soon as possible to prevent this becoming serous disruption. The only contributions made can be seen here and they are exclusively in relation to the Tim Loughton page and are shown here Sport and politics (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Dave Hilton, Jr.

Some days ago I came across this article while monitoring recent changes. I removed a paragraph of unsupported criminal allegations. My removal was undone today, with two footnotes added -- one an invalid URL and one to an aggregator which backs up almost none of the paragraph in question. Upon looking more closely, the sources adequately back up such a small part of the article as a whole that it seemed worth bringing it to the noticeboard. I should say, however, that I had absolutely no idea who Dave Hilton Jr. is and can't make a judgment as to whether the article is actually true -- just that as it stands the sources don't back it up.

• Particularly damaging is the first sentence of the second paragraph, the end of which is tagged with cn. --Rhododendrites (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Improved the second paragraph citing; but the last one seems not only uncited, but way off topic. Removing. --GRuban (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: The Movie

• Zeitgeist: The Movie
• Edit in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Zeitgeist%3A_The_Movie&diff=564455778&oldid=564452015
• Discussion: Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie#Peter Joseph Responds to "The Marker"

An Israeli news service called TheMarker reported on their interview with Peter Joseph, maker of the film, Zeitgeist: The Movie. In the report, they said Joseph is now "distancing himself" from the movie. Peter Joseph responded to this via the film's website, saying that he was misquoted and denying that he was distancing himself from the movie.

The addition of Joseph's self-published response (diff above) is the subject of an edit war and a discussion on the talk page. I'm presenting a condensed version of the discussion below (I've made every effort to present both sides without bias. If any involved parties have anything to add, feel free):

• Some of those against the addition state that WP:SPS prevents the self-published source from being used in this case, as Joseph's website and the statement in question are unduly self-serving and promotional, and the statement furthermore makes claims about third parties (TheMarker). They reject the BLP issue because there is no right of reply on Misplaced Pages. They say a secondary source must pick up Joseph's response before it is added to the article.

• Some of those for the addition say that the alleged misquote shouldn't be presented without Joseph's rebuttal. This is in addition to the statement simply being relevant, and its absence would make the story incomplete. They reject the SPS issue because an SPS is not being used to source the claim itself, ie. that Joseph was indeed misquoted; but is being used to source the fact that Joseph made this claim, for which it is reliable.

I myself am on the side of adding the response, assuming TheMarker's report is kept in the article. Some have suggested removing it altogether, which I would also find acceptable, though that removal has been tried and warred over as well. Equazcion 13:47, 24 Jul 2013 (UTC)

• Include Joseph's response Including mention that Joseph has "distanced" himself from the film, while excluding Joseph's own statement that he did not, would be wildly inappropriate. WP:PSTS make it clear that primary sources can indeed be used for things like mere statements made by a person, as long as there is no interpretation, and WP:SELFPUB also says self-published sources can be used, as long as the claim is not unduly self-serving. Contrary to what those wishing to exclude the material have argued, pointing out that you did not say what someone says you did is not "unduly self-serving", since "self-serving" means to not merely address your own interests, but to exhibit a preoccupation with them to the extent of disregarding the truth and well-being of others. Nor would including Joseph's statement, as it has been argued, serve to "promote" Joseph's film, simply because it comes form his website for it, any more than citing the creationist Discovery Institute's website to source their date of founding, or citing their About page in order to source who their president is, as the DI article does, serves to promote creationism. Nightscream (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There is that clause about third parties, though--a self-published source can't be used if it makes claims about third parties. Claiming that he was misquoted is a statement that a third party lied or erred, and as such cannot be used if you literally go by our policy. Although I am more inclined to think that the policy is broken; our policy with respect to self-published sources, especially in the Internet era, is pretty bad. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

My opinion on that is that SPS doesn't guard against the use of statements about other people, so long as we're merely reporting what was said versus claiming those statements as fact. In other words, the SPS point about third parties is meant to guard against the obvious: An SPS is only reliable for information about their author, and no one else. We're not claiming anything about third parties that would need to be sourced though. We're just saying "Peter Joseph said ." That's the only fact being presented -- that he said this. SPS' current wording might invite confusion between the two cases, but even strictly speaking, the statement doesn't actually violate SPS. Equazcion 14:52, 24 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Stating that you've been misquoted is not a statement that anyone has "lied" or erred, in and of itself, and even if it is, how is merely suggesting that someone "erred" a contentious claim? Reporters make mistakes all the time. In any event, stating that you did not say what has been attributed to you can merely be a clarification of your position, without any direct reference to the reporter. Those of us who argue for its inclusion wish only to include Joseph's clarification that he has not distanced himself from the claims he mad in the movie, without any elaboration as to the persons who reported otherwise. Including the statement that he has distanced himself from the claims made in the movie, but not his public statement that he in fact as not, would be wildly inappropriate, and justifying this on the basis that secondary sources stating the former are oh-so unimpeachable, but that his own words to the latter on his website are not because that's a primary source, is not rational. Nightscream (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

^What he said. I'll also just add that there are no actual facts in dispute here -- no specific facts that anyone has pointed out as requiring further verification. The WP:SPS argument is therefore quite vague and unfalsifiable. We're told we need secondary sources, but we haven't been told which fact(s) in particular require them. The contents of the quote is all I can think of, and V doesn't apply to those. Equazcion 19:42, 25 Jul 2013 (UTC)

• Exclude, for three reasons. It's "unduly self-serving" (phrasing in WP:SPS), not notable, and of questionable sourcing. It's the film's web site, not Joseph's. If he did distance himself from the film, it's possible that someone more closely associated with the film is now editing the film's website. Other reasons for exclusion presented in the summary may also apply. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability refers to whether topics merit their own articles. It has nothing to do with reliability of sources.

Joseph wrote, directed, edited and produced the movie, and owns it. Therefore, both the movie and its website are both his. The idea that there can be someone "closer" to the film than him is fatuous. Nightscream (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Exclude per WP:SPS. The material the editors are wanting to include are making claims about a third party by saying the author of the article mis-quoted or lied in a self-published source. The author of the article in TheMaker is a living person, hence covered by BLP. That's the basis for the "No claims about third parties" in SPS - you must have secondary sources for claims about BLP's. Ravensfire (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Include Articles should be accurate and written from a neutral point of view. As a totally uninvolved editor, my perspective is that if an article attributes a particular view to somebody, and the person in question is known to have denied it, that should also be included. How that should be done will, of course, vary. My concern here is that editors are allowing their clearly very strong views on the subject to cloud their judgement, and that reasons are being sought to avoid the primary requirement to maintain a neutral point of view. --AJHingston (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Include for the reasons detailed in the original discussion and above. Sorry I took so long to weigh in. I thought the idea was to leave this to uninvolved editors, rather than drag out the argument to another page. nagualdesign (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Exclude Self published material must be used carefully. In this case there is a claim that the RS reporter took "extreme liberties" with the author's words in an interview. While I am sympathetic to the problem of journalistic mistakes, we have a policy that seems to preclude the usage of a self-published source that makes claims about another, which it does in this case. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That points to a reason to keep the whole thing out altogether, doesn't it? Here we have a dispute between two sides - NPOV suggests either we have both or neither! --AJHingston (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it points to having solid secondary sources for everything. Ravensfire (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Solid secondary sources are only required in order to establish the veracity or notability of a quote. In this case there is no doubt (is there?) that the quote is correctly attributed, and it is automatically notable by virtue of the fact that Peter Joseph is the subject of the article. Before anyone says that the article is about the film, and not the filmmaker, try reading the article. nagualdesign (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the obligation to maintain a neutral point of view is not optional. There are different ways of achieving that, as discussed on the talk page, but nobody is seriously arguing that Joseph is not disputing the view attributed to him so the article must reflect that. --AJHingston (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Include; reasons as follows:

Maintaining neutrality has been problematic on the Zeitgeist article for some time. If the page can accommodate, as it presently does, assertions by Zionist columnists that the film is "anti-Semitic," it seems unfair to exclude assertions to the contrary, even or perhaps especially those made by the film's producer. In other words, to exclude Joseph's own comments would be a contradiction in point; moreover, if we are to exclude his comment, then, we would do well to be consistent and exclude a great many others. While this latter option is indeed feasible, I am not sure if it is desirable. NPOV doesn't mean no POV - or does it? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

On the issue of which comment came from where, can we please take a gestalt view and honestly say "Who cares?" I mean, surely at some point we have to give primacy to the content and not to the source of that content. Misplaced Pages would be deluding itself to suggest it took every single one of its citations exclusively from valid, reliable sources. Resorting to the "necessity" for secondary sources is, in this case, deliberately bureaucratic, an intentional knights-move defence against the threat of a balanced perspective.

Vis-a-vis SPS and BLP, I fail to see any clause which would automatically categorise any comment from an SPS as inherently self-serving. Surely there exist circumstances where temporal constraints mean the only worthwhile comment is found in an SPS, and I think this is one of them. I'm disinclined to counter Rubin's semantics, because there's just no reason why we should even need his magnifying glass. Digressions into pedantic deconstructions of clauses are superfluous and hideously distracting.

Finally, Nightscream is one of very few administrators to challenge the status quo at the Zeitgeist article, and that is a good thing. Capitalismojo, Arthur Rubin and most unfortunately Earl King Jr. appear to patrol this page more or less constantly, and in my view they are untrustworthy (with all due respect to Rubin's admin status). I am not meaning to make an argument ad hominem so if you like, you can consider this a sidenote, but I have personally witnessed this trio consistently reverting edits and starting edit wars on the page, whenever an editor does something they don't agree with. The end result is the page looks much like it did a year ago, with an ever-growing talk page. These three are the principal usurpers in most edit disputes, and throw their weight around in order to preserve a far-right, Zionist presentation of the article. This surreptitious behaviour is heavily disruptive and, in my view, seriously diminishes the worth of their opinions in any matter. I will go out on a limb and guess it's one or more of these three who are responsible for warring over inclusion of The Marker's perspective at all. Correct me if I'm wrong.

While we're at it can we get these three banned from editing the page altogether?

Thank You. sabine antelope 01:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"Zionist"!?! The above is entirely wrong and inappropriate. I have made only two edits ever to this article. One in May, the other after I was asked to get involved in this discussion by User: Nightscream. I have never gotten into an edit war on this article, period, much less "consistently". I am not an "usurper" creating a "far-right Zionist" presentation, and suspect that your accusation says far more about your editing and point of view than it does about me. Why don't you take your theories about other editors and bury them somewhere deep? This page is about policy and content issues not personal attacks and conspiracy theories. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I've frankly had it with you lot. sabine antelope 01:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Your "include" position notwithstanding, Sabine, the remarks about "Zionist" columnists is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as is the remark about "excluding assertions to the contrary", as that is not what the conflict is about.

As far as patrolling the article constantly, well, I don't know if they do or don't, but I myself do keep it on my Watchlist, and have never noticed any edit wars by them, or any other questionable behavior, until now. I'm not saying that they haven't been involved in previous editorial conflicts on regarding that article (I'm not well-informed on that question either way, so I don't have an viewpoint on it), but this is the first I can recall encountering any of them, and Capitalismojo only participated in the consensus discussion because he was one of the many people I contacted for doing so.

While I don't disagree with that they have employed intellectually dishonest arguments and other behaviors in the course of the discussion, Capitalismojo, I would point out, at least had the decency to point out at ANI that Earl King's false accusation of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry was inexcusable, and warranted a apology. I think your assessment in summary is a bit overreaching, Sabine, and in any event, it doesn't belong here. At the very least, I think we should relegate such complaints to the article talk page, ANI, or some other avenue like RfC or ArbCom. I would suggest that we narrow the scope of t his this discussion to the strict Include/Exclude BLP discussion. Nightscream (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose Mojo is a rung above the other two when it comes to honesty. I guess Zionist is strong wording, but I'm only using it in a discussion. Aforementioned troublemakers have no qualms hurling around "anti-Semitic" on the page proper when it suits their peculiar (some would say odd) requirements. Anyway, I've given my five cents. I'm not alone in asserting the afore-named tend to cower under policy umbrellas they themselves invoke when someone challenges the anti-Semitic flag they themselves import (from columinists I would have no hesitation calling Zionist). My assessment may be overarching, even base, but I think there's a crux to the matter. sabine antelope 02:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Exclude, for three reasons. It's "unduly self-serving" (phrasing in WP:SPS), not notable, and of questionable sourcing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Need some further input on an article

Hi all,

The subject of the article (R.A. the Rugged Man) has been in touch with the OTRS response team (ticket 2013070710000468 for those with OTRS access). He has claimed that among other issues, there are two significant inaccuracies in his article - that the lede section has his name as "Richard Andrew Thorburn" where "Richard Andrew" is his middle name, and his first name is not public knowledge, but due to how article is written, it looks as if Richard is his surname. He addressed this in a radio interview at 31:45 that the information is incorrect (along with his DOB being incorrect, and this too being non-public info). I am thinking we should consider changing the lede section to either omit the real name as the first name is not known, or detail in the lede that the names we have don't include first names (but that doesn't make much sense to me). In regards to the DOB, he is contesting that the year is incorrect, however in the article a passage says "In 1992, at the age of 18, Thorburn signed with Jive Records, then in the mid-1990s signed with Priority Records/EMI." This info largely seems to have come from this reference and if you take this tweet from the subject, their date of is on Jan 10, in either 1973 or 1974, most likely 1974. The subject is stating this is incorrect and that he has spread misinformation about his actual date of birth, so it may be possible to note an approximate DOB and further down note that the subject has provided conflicting information about their DOB. Can I get some input on this one please? Steven Zhang 14:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm one of the editors who's been restoring the repeatedly deleted content.
On the name issue, just a slight correction to the above: the linked interview on the Combat Jack Show is where it was first revealed (to my knowledge) what "R.A." stands for. Prior to that interview I had attempted to find out and all I could find were rumours that it was something embarrassing ("Reginald Arbuckle" was one of the rumours). So, in that interview he doesn't claim that the info on Misplaced Pages about what his initials stand for is incorrect. Now, yes, the way the lede is written does make it seem like "Richard" is his first name, but frankly I don't think that matters. Because even if his name in the lede was written as "R.A. Thorburn" it would equally imply that his first name was whatever the "R" stood for. He is personally and professionally known by the initials "R.A.", which stands for "Richard Andrew", so whether we write his name as "R.A. Thorburn" or "Richard Andrew Thorburn" in the lede, either way we suggest that his first name is something other than what it is. Did anyone who ever wondered about the initials ever think that the "R" wasn't his first initial? I think it's safe to assume that everyone has been assuming that his first name was something beginning with "R" since the early 1990s. So we're going from a situation in which everybody thinks R.A. the Rugged Man's real first name begins with "R" to a situation in which everybody knows that the "R" stands for "Richard" and that is isn't his first name. On what basis would we exclude this information from the encyclopedia other than by violating neutral POV and WP:PROMOTION? Sure, the subject may not like it, but I don't see how there's anything wrong with putting up his actual name.
On the DOB issue, I'll just copy-paste what I wrote on the talk page: "The subject of the article claims that the year of birth we have listed is incorrect, but he refuses to correct it; he just wants it removed. This means that he doesn't want people to know his year of birth. We therefore have reason to believe that he is lying in the interview referenced above. The date is fully referenced. The subject has not taken issue with the claim that he signed to Jive in 1992 at the age of 18. If he was 18 in 1992, then he either turned 18 or 19 that year, which means he was either born in 1973 or 1974. His birthday in on January 10, which means that unless he signed to Jive in the first 9 days of the year, he turned 18 in 1992 (he was either 18 for 9 days of the year or for 357 days of the year). This means that his year of birth is 1974. This is also explicitly stated by XXL magazine. For the subject to simply say the information is incorrect is not sufficient to contradict or undermine the secondary sources we have, since the subject refuses to correct the information and we therefore have reason to believe he is lying when he claims it is incorrect." -- Wetdogmeat (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right: We have no impeccably reliable sourcing about either the subject's birth name or the subject's date of birth. We have a request from the subject at OTRS to remove the information, but an editor calls the subject a liar and wants to keep it in. The lead of the article includes uncited harsh criticisms. Here's my recommendation: Remove the claimed birth name and DOB, remove the harshly critical language, and stop calling people liars unless you have rock solid proof. Cullen Let's discuss it 20:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, if there is no public knowledge of the actual name there can be no public knowledge of the birth which would be a matter of public record. We just can't verify it with no name. First we have to come to a consensus that if a true name cannot be found it should not be referenced at all. We can only go by the reliable sources, however if there is a question on the accuracy of the name and the DOB, it might be best to just note that it is not a confirmed name or DOB if any such information is included.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Historically by simple virtue of courtesy and privacy we have no problem removing DOBs, family names, middle names, etc. from articles - most personally identifiable information that has no inherent value in the context of a biography. The subject has been quite adamant here and via OTRS that he does not want this information in the article, and I have no problem whatsoever with removing it once and for all. "Sure he may not like it but we are going to include it anyway" is a valid argument when dealing with sourced, non-defamatory criticism or controversy, but not in this case. I say let's just get rid of all that and move on. A lot of time has been invested in this issue that has served no purpose whatsoever. We're not talking about the President of the United States or the Pope or some truly important historical or contemporary figure where the birth date is of true encyclopedic value. Mr. Rugged Man (or anyone else) does not have to 'prove' his true DOB to us, he merely has to request for it to be removed. §FreeRangeFrog 20:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here and my assessment of the article, I have gone ahead and removed the DOB and name from the lede, and amended his year of signing to Jive as "early 1990s" as this is what is stated in most of the references. You can see my changes here. Regards, Steven Zhang 21:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Shekhar Gurera

Shekhar Gurera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Recent edits have been by the subject of the article (example), and it's now heavily self-promotional, WP:NOTRESUME. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I started some depuffing and I will warn the editor.-- cyclopia 17:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect that socking may now be occurring. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yasin Bhatkal

Yasin Bhatkal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No citations given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.46.9 (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed most of the bio that was poorly written, sourced, and probably copy right problems to boot. It looks like there is one citation, article. Can this please be worked on or improved? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Robin Hunicke - Notability

Subject person does not appear to meet the WP guidelines for notability. A review of the Talk page shows virtually unanimous consent for this understanding. Additionally, this person's photograph appeared as Picture of the Day on her birthday. This does seem to be some sort of childish prank which dilutes the credibility and seriousness of WP by gerrymandering the consensus system.

First question: what is the appropriate approach for starting the deletion process in this case? I looked at several help articles and found varying methods, e.g. Speedy Deletion, but am not clear what is best here.

Second question: despite the clear consensus on the talk page, the deletion process may well generate self-serving protest, fake voting, further gaming of the system, etc., from the same people who managed to vandalize the POTD process. Is there a proactive way to avoid, detect or otherwise stop this? Skilled and attractive as this person may be, the article belongs on LinkedIn–and the pic belongs on Tumblr–not in WP. Misplaced Pages is the greatest collaboration of notable knowledge ever undertaken. It's too bad this discussion even exists, but hopefully WP's integrity will benefit. Thanks, Marquess (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussions about whether an article meets Misplaced Pages inclusion criteria belongs in the articles for deletion process, unless the article does not contain any reasonably-construed claim of encyclopedicity. A quick glance at the article shows a number of reliable sources are cited, meaning that it would survive a facial challenge through the Speedy Deletion system. You need to start an AfD discussion.

I would further note that article talk page discussion is not a supportable justification for deletion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Kent Ekeroth

The wording of this Misplaced Pages biography about a Swedish politician is very negative, extremely suspect and highly inflammatory. Sourcing isn't very solid. Portions of the article are unsourced. Most recent additions were done by an IP editor whose address traces to Sweden. A previous, even more inflammatory and completely unsourced edit, reverted as vandalism, was done by a previous IP editor from the same Swedish IP range. I've already reverted the most problematic recent edits — but I think a little light protection for the article is in order. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed some of the unsourced material, not the really negative stuff that do have links, not saying if they are RS or not, but stuff about his mother and brother and some categories. --Malerooster (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree, there's enough negative stuff about this guy that's well sourced, no need to start plunging into poorly sourced territory. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hal Rogers

I'm in an edit war with an IP user here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hal_Rogers&action=historysubmit&diff=565917520&oldid=565897390

My contention is that simply noting the living (last I checked) Congrescritter's vote against a certain measure does not rise to the level we should notice, absent some comment from or about him specifically as to why he himself voted this way. Hcobb (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed it. Unless there is more to this "story", we shouldn't cherry pick votes or be the news. If this turns into "something" in 6 months or a year and is widely covered, then yes, more discussion would be warranted. --Malerooster (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Grant Cardone

Grant Cardone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone should take a look at the new Scientology-related material added to this article. I've tried to keep it out because, in my view, it has too many BLP problems and related sourcing issues. However, a second editor (who's professed interest is only Scientology) has joined the fray.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you removed this citing BLP and sourcing concerns, the editor who reverted you on the basis that you didn't discuss it first should not have done so and I have removed the material myself pending further discussion. January (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, discuss such large scale edits on the relevant page before deleting. Thimbleweed (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

As January notes, you've got it backwards. These kinds of edits are presumptively problematic. It's up to you and any other editor to justify their inclusion. As an aside, I spelled out in great detail what's wrong with the material on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thimbleweed and I have reached agreement on part of the material. The sticking point is one paragraph. I was going to suggest some sort of dispute resolution, but really the best forum for resolving a BLP dispute is this board. So, if anyone wants to mosey on over to the article talk page and offer their opinion, it would hopefully provide a clearer consensus. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Roger Waters

Roger Waters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After reading the sources and others the Israel section seems POV. The symbols on the pig included hammer and sickle, dollar signs, Shell oil symbol etc. The article calls them 'symbols of fascism'. Another RS I read stated (by a Jewish notable) that he didn't consider the Berlin show as anti-sematic. The subject is honoring the performance boycott in Israel but that should make him anti-Israeli government not anti-people. This would be similar to calling those that boycotted performance in South Africa as anti-white and not anti-Apartheid. I don't know how many other subjects we have that are boycotting Israel but some of them may be tagged as anti-Semites as well. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if he has been called an anti-semite describing him as such in the first sentence doesnt strike me as balanced given what he is notable for, ie not for anti-semitism but as a musician and lyric writer. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead isn't supported by the source (it doesn't mention anything about the Simon Wiesenthal Center even keeping a list of anti-Semites). Formerip (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I have re-worked the bit in the opening and put it near the bottom, its now balanced and supported by refs. Personally I cant see anything wrong with the Israel section so havent edited that. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

There is significant undue weight and recentism issues with having a single, hotly-disputed claim by one organization made only days ago, placed in the lede section of an article about a prominent person. We need to wait to see if this really becomes a significant issue in his life worthy of inclusion in the opening section, or if it remains a minor footnote in his biography. If all there ever is, is a claim by one group about one piece of art in one of his concert tours, that hardly seems to justify giving the highly derogatory claim that he is anti-Semitic the significant positioning in the article that it held before I moved it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this boycott issue is carrying on to our articles. The sources I looked at were bias toward Israel. Mainstream sources don't usually mention counterpoints to the bias source claims. Performer boycotts Israel, bias source smears the boycotter, source is used in Misplaced Pages, no NPOV source cares enough to balance the POV. It happened differently in this case, a little, when the subject got upset at the label but it is still in the lead. I don't think it has anything to do with anti-Semitism just the boycott that most Israeli sources are labeling as anti-Semitism. Do we want Misplaced Pages to be a smear campaign from both sides? We could just say that subject X honored the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign by doing Y and Israelis responded by stating Z. Name calling and countering is school kid stuff and doesn't belong here, IMHO.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It was in an even more prominent position before I moved it, you were just being bolder, NorthBySouthBaranof, and its initial position in the first sentence seems to me to have been politically motivated. I agree we should be very careful of calling ppl who oppose the Israeli govt as anti semitic on wikipedia. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Misplaced Pages gone wild. I haven't edited this bio, but that section should be greatly reduced, way overweight. The whole thing about the lericks get them up against the wall was being critical of racism, but know it reads like he supports it or something. this is a totally face to palm situation, where is that graphic when you need it. --Malerooster (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I just removed some categories and also mentioned on the talk page about this board. --Malerooster (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• I see that there is a Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Allegations_of_antisemitism section as well in the main article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Joachim von zur Gathen

Joachim von zur Gathen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - contained what seemed to me appalling BLP issues after this started. I don't know about the allegations but I do know that they were (like the rest of the article) wholly unreferenced. I've put it back to what I hope is an acceptable state but there's clearly at least one recently active campaigner wants this content in, and the article might benefit from BLP-aware people keeping an eye on it. I am assuming it doesn't need diffs hiding for legal reasons but again I'm sure others will know better than me. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The allegation (such as it was) was completely unsourced so it was perfectly right to remove it. Article is now protected. §FreeRangeFrog 20:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Art Bell

Art Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some editors (including User:Tommyofcoast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User:Georgesnoory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are adding info indicating that Bell has died. Nothing online yet indicating that he has. --Auric talk 19:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

As always in such cases, there is little we can do other than delete any unsourced material, and wait until it can be sourced. I've watchlisted the article, and suggest that others do the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What I was hoping for. Thanks.--Auric talk 19:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet (Internet)

At least two (or possibly more) living people currently in this list do not qualify as "sockpuppets" in my opinion. More input would be welcome. My very best wishes (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the sexting politician. Using an alias is not the same as using a sockpuppet to deceive. §FreeRangeFrog 20:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe Figes should also be excluded, however there are two participants who claim false consensus and edit war to keep this part in article: and . Curiously enough, one of them was caught as sockpuppet himself right here. Unfortunately, I have to leave for vacation right now, and wash my hands, at least for the time being. My very best wishes (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Amir Taaki

The statement that Amir prostitutes girls for Bitcoins, sourced by a forum post, is being added and removed from the article repeatedly, over a dispute about whether a forum post is an acceptable source for it or not. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no question that a Web forum post cannot be a reliable source for derogatory information about a living person. Such claims may be removed and reverted without limitation and if the person persists, they ought to be blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

eugene blair

• Eugene Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

this article biography of eugene blair need a references. Strongvibration (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The article does have a single reference. Just so you know, this notice board concerns living people and Eugene Blair died in 1942. GB fan 12:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

waje

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

there is no Evidence of notability on the article of WAJE. there is no relieble references that proof the Awards or her Nominations... this article need a relieble independent source.Strongvibration (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Recommend posting Waje on WP:AFD -- which is a better place to resolve the threshold question of notability. – S. Rich (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Gary North (economist)

Gary North (economist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is the section title

Support for executing homosexuals and other sinners

proper in the BLP Gary North (economist)? Alternatives were proposed for "Biblical punishments" and "Using biblical standards for capital punishment" as being valid per WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and covering the actual content of that section. Is the wording of that section proper per the requirements of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in general? There is another issue concomitant which is whether a primary source should be used to back a claim made in Misplaced Pages's voice concerning this controversial person. Collect (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's POV. What about "Support for executing homosexuals and others"? Coretheapple (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Highly doubt that North is calling for the death of people who eat pork chops or shrimp. or for those that wear polyester-cotton blends. Like most of his ilk, he is selective as regards to what he considers sin, so "Biblical" or such would be misleading. Agree with Coretheapple's point, though. "Sinners" should not be in WP's voice. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As "homosexuals" are the minority of those in the category, why specify "homosexuals"? I would note one editor added a comment that North viewed stoning as "cheap due to the plentiful and convenient supply of stones" despite the fact that the source was clearly not asserting that such were his words or direct sentiments at all -- which I also find problematic no matter how loony North is, Misplaced Pages requires that WP:BLP be followed. --

I agree, why specify homosexuals? Why not simply, "Support for capital punishment", and let the paragraph speak for itself about the 'biblical' nature of his beliefs? nagualdesign (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Conservative Christians have a particular antipathy toward gays and lesbians, to the point that it even is offputting to younger conservative Christians, according to the Barna Institute. North is no exception. I don't see what the BLP problem is. North clearly holds these views, and whether you or I or anyone else considers them "loony" is beside the point. He himself doesn't, nor would he consider them himself to be embarrassing. The material about stoning is well sourced. Again, you seem to be whitewashing in order to increase the palatibility of the subject for public consuption. As I told you just a couple of hours ago, that is not what WP is for. There are other places for that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Am I reading your post correctly? You know that conservative Christians hate gays, therefore WP:NPOV and WP:BLP cease to apply to their biographies? Gosh, I think that, if anything, it is more important to follow policies, even if we "know" someone is an axe-murderer, much less a "conservative Christian"! And as for your claim that changing the section title is whitewashing -- that is simply an idiotic argument here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, your snarky link to "conservapedia" is idiotic, asinine, and totally put-of-place on this noticeboard. Redaction is recommended for such totally off-the-wall remarks to other editors. Collect (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"Homosexuals" was highlighted because there was a specific (primary source only) quote about it. There is no other reason for doing so. The rationale (such as it is) is that all the capital punishments in the Old Testament should still be used today. There seems no good reason for emphasising the punishment for homosexuals, and the comments here ("he is selective as regards to what he considers sin" / "Conservative Christians have a particular antipathy toward gays and lesbians") show how misleading it has been. Also, I have no idea why "sinners" was in WP's voice. The heading is appalling, and I can't understand why people are arguing for it. StAnselm (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap did the same thing in the Hans-Hermann Hoppe article emphasizing in two topic areas that he mentioned homosexuals while ignoring other groups of people also mentioned; (this was regarding time preferences and who might be excluded from a private community). But Steeletrap obviously is singlemindedly promoting one group's agenda, while ignoring the need an NPOV Misplaced Pages presentation. See the talk page, it's disgusted ad nauseum in several sections. User:Carolmooredc 20:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by S.Rich – Introduction:

The particular section title posted by Collect is but the latest of a continuing series of BLP problems.

IMO, much of the BLP problem in Gary North (economist) comes from editing efforts by User:Steeletrap. "Steele" has made 79 edits to the Gary North page. See for the stats. Of these, 20 have been to section headings (section titles) and 2 or 3 have been to remove the BLP template. This listing of edits (below) focuses on the section heading changes by Steeltrap. They are listed as follows:

• 'Date'
  • 'Edit by Steele. Only the diff is provided as these edits are focused the section heading changes by Steele. If more info is pertinent, it is listed after the diff.'
    • 'Edits by other editors. Pertinent info is listed before the diff. (Most of these diffs are section heading changes.)'

As stated, these diffs focus on the section headings/titles in which Steele has added, IMNSHO, they are POV. Steele has made repeated reverts to non-appropriate headings. Much discussion has taken place on the article talk page (and on User_talk:Steeletrap#North_RFC) about the need to follow NPOV, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, WP:NDESC, WP:HEADINGS, WP:BALANCE, etc. So, this listing of headings does not include problems in article text where Primary Source into is used (improperly) and templates such as quote, verification, OR, etc. are removed without resolving the problems. In many cases, Steele is responsible for the addition of this material.

Steele has been less than cooperative with very experienced (and previously non-involved) editors who have come in recently to edit the article. E.g., Steele has reverted their edits and argued about the rationale cited by these editors. Indeed, much of Steele's response as been WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. (While I have cited WP policy and guidance, the response has been that I have misquoted policy. And when I've asked for examples, I have not received any meaningful responses.)

• 24 April 2013
• 16 July 2013
  • • User:OnlySwissMiss Changed "Support for murdering nonviolent people" to "Support death penalty for specific sins"
  • Edit by OnlySwissMiss reverted
  • • User:OnlySwissMiss Changed "Support for stoning to death homosexuals, other nonviolent people" to "Support for stoning sinners to death"
  • Edit by OnlySwissMiss reverted
    • OnlySwissMiss changes to "Support for stoning to death homosexuals, and other sinners"
• 23 July 2013
  • Adds "North Americans as savages"
  • Copy edit of "Support for stoning ..." heading
• 25 July 2013
  • Restores Savages, Stoning, Homosexuals headings & text which had been removed for lack of secondary source support
• 26 July 2013
  • • User:DiligenceDude modifies "Opposition to religious liberty" heading
    • DiligenceDude modifies Savages heading
    • User:Carolmooredc removes various headings, citing BLP issues
    • User:SPECIFICO changes "Controversial views" to "Societal punishment of blasphemers"
• 27 July 2013
  • • Carolmooredc removes Societal punishment heading and different portions of text citing BLP
    • Srich32977 restores Carolmooredc material, citing the ongoing RfC
    • Carolmooredc replaces {{BLP sources}} (which had been posted in the past, but removed).
  • BLP template removed.
    • Srich32977 restores BLP template
    • User:DiligenceDude adds to "Opposition to religious liberty" heading
    • User:StAnselm modifies section headings
    • DiligenceDude modifies Native American heading
    • StAnselm removes disputed Native Americans heading & section, citing BLP
  • Restores "Executing homosexuals" & "Opposition to religious liberty" headings
• 28 July 2013
  • removes {{BLP sources}}
    • User:Collect modifies section headings
    • DiligengeDude modifies "Opposition to religious liberty" section heading
    • Collect does ce & modifications on headings
  • Restores "Execution" & "Opposition to religious liberty" section headings
    • Collects reverts "Executing" heading change, cites NPOV & BLP
  • Reverts edit made by Collect
    • StAnselm modifies "Executing" heading, keeping the term Support etc.
    • StAnselm restores "Religious liberty" heading w/o "Opposition to"
  • Restores "Opposition to" change by StAnselm
  • Self reverts previous edit
    • StAnselm changes "Support for executing homosexuals etc" to "Support for capital punishment"
    • User Dominus Vobisdu reverts StAnselm edit
    • User:Binksternet removes primary source material (latest diff provided, but not the current version)

– S. Rich (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• The matter is pretty simple—if there is reason for Misplaced Pages to report that someone is a fruitcake, there will be reliable secondary sources to make that assertion. Editors are not free to pick sentences from past statements and add them to Barack Obama, and they are not free to do something similar on other BLP articles, no matter how worthy is the recipient. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

@Srich - Srich, this board is to discuss application of policy to content, not editor behavior. Please consider hatting your log of editor actions and your comments about editors, above. Please share your BLP concerns in specific terms that relate WP content to policy. I believe that it's clear that there's been excessive and unresolved revision of these problematic section headings. Part of the problem with this article seems to be that editors have differing understandings of the relevant WP policy statements. Let's try to be clear and specific about our understandings of policy and how policy applies to the text in this article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This board is free to act against an editor who continually violates the BLP policy. The discussion is valid. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

First it's necessary to specify the policy violation. That was my concern. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Per above: User:SPECIFICO and USER: STEELETRAP have repeatedly been told that cherry picking primary source quotes to make BLPs look bad (plus things like WP:OR/Synth, using hostile self-published sources, etc.) is against WP:BLP policy; policy links and quotes have been given to them. Yet they continue to insert and even revert back such material. They were repeatedly informed at Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.(They do sometimes recognize the policy as being valid if someone tries to use proper Self-Published CV or other material that is neutral or makes the subject look credible.)

See also these BLPN Discussions on other BLP issues a few of us have had at BLPN discussions in May 2013 and June 2013. The editors don't seem to realize that a BLP subject's having obviously absurd views - or views that editors personally think are absurd - is not a license to go to 700 page documents and take a few sentences (which may be partially or entirely out of context) and throw them in the article. Both have an extremely strong negative POV against certain economists which has been discussed this ANI (as well as several previous ones) and and this NPOV notice. User:Carolmooredc

This discussion is regarding the section titles for North. Let's not get distracted by problems/discussions on other articles. If the section title issue can get nailed down, then the subsections can be addressed on a case by case basis. A proposed, 'carved-in-stone' article outline is below. – S. Rich (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You are confused, Srich. Read the above: This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. BLPN also can be used to ask editors to come to a discussion on an article talk page and/or b) clarify some policy dispute. I was responding to its main purpose. User:Carolmooredc 19:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not confused in the least. This notice started off focused on the heading question. I've provided information that focuses on the headings and I've proposed a solution. Endorse the solution, and we can implement it. Then we can move on (perhaps on the article talk page) to the other issues. I strongly recommend against expanding this BLPN to include edits beyond the Gary North article. Worse yet would be to expand the scope of this BLPN into the general pattern of any particular editor. – S. Rich (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed section title revisions

Presently the article has the following structure. Headings subject to revision are italicized:

Contents

1 Education and background

2 Career

2.1 Ron Paul curriculum

3 Christian, Bible-based economic methodology

4 Political, economic, and religious beliefs

4.1 Support for executing homosexuals and other sinners

4.2 Religious liberty

5 Y2K catastrophe prediction

6 Publications

6.1 Institute for Christian Economics

6.2 Books and newsletters

6.3 Documentary and educational film

I propose that sections 3 & 4 be combined and revised to read:

3 Political, economic, and religious views

3.1 Christian, Bible-based economic methodology

3.2 Capital punishment

3.3 Religious liberty

The "methodology" section is one paragraph – a subsection covers it well. The "capital punishment" and "religious liberty" section titles are WP:NDESC. – S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are correct to get out the specific mention of "homosexuals" but the section heading should make it clear this is capital punishment per the Old Testament. It's hardly typical of advocates of capital punishment in general. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not really "capital punishment" but more about "capital crimes" or "capital crimes and modes of punishment" right? SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"Capital crimes" fits the bill by definition. Nobody gets executed for having committed a non-capital crime. (We gotta leave out any section heading description that attempts to parse Old Test. definitions of capital crimes vs. modern views.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There is another issue concomitant which is whether a primary source should be used to back a claim made in Misplaced Pages's voice concerning this controversial person.

The other question presented at the top of the thread is repeated above. There have been differences among various editors' understanding of WP policy concerning primary sources in BLP. The article talk page discussion is here.

It appears to me that some editors are conflating the prohibition on "primary documents" written by third parties with "primary documents" written by a BLP subject and expressing only the subject's own views. This question should be discussed and guidance sought here so that the same dispute does not arise repeatedly on the article and talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 17:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. Much as individuals may disgust us we can't read through their 700 page books looking for those one or two sentences that can be used to support our mere wiki editor point of view on the individual. User:Carolmooredc 20:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You have just made exactly the error which I described above. The link you cite refers to primary documents such as public records, commercial records, and other primary documents not written by the subject of the article. It does not refer to the subject's statement of her own views in her own words. If you don't understand the distinction, seek guidance here. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

And cherry-picking "embarrassing quotes" which have not been reported by reliable secondary sources is also quite clearly covered by BLP - sorry -- primary sources so cherry-picked make for very poor pies. Collect (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

All I did on this thread was to copy the second point you raised in your notice posting above, in the hope that the discussion could be separated from the question of the OR headings. I don't recall having added any primary-sourced text to the article, which I have edited rather little over the past 7-8 months. I would be interested however to hear your take on the distinction I raised to carolmooredc concerning the two different kinds of reference which might be called "primary source." SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Omitted facts as to why title is appropriate

I am very distressed to see that my peers Carol, Collect, and Rich have decided to focus on the alleged personal flaws of editors rather than engage in an even-handed policy-based discussion as to why the title may or may not be appropriate. The case for the current title is threefold: 1) that North, as confirmed by numerous RS, supports executing gays and 2) The secondary RS are responding to this very point in their criticism of North. 3) The section as written focuses on North's views about homosexuality. I am deeply disappointed that OP did not note these facts at the top. Steeletrap (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding misleading description by OP OP implies that my title fails to "cover the actual content of that section." This is an apparent untruth, insofar as it falsely implies that either North does not favor executing gays or the section does not focus on his views on gays (it does). I ask OP to explain why his statement isn't an untruth? Steeletrap (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Outside party here. "Capital punishment" seems like weaksauce to me, but could you briefly let this noticeboard know why you think other proposed alternatives are insufficient, such as, for example, the "Using biblical standards for capital punishment" suggested by User:Collect above. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think my proposed title is better because it is more specific and descriptive. People know what support for executing gays is; views on "capital punishment" is hopelessly vague and support for "Biblical standards for execution" is just an abstract way of saying what the current title says.

I am happy to have a discussion on these issues. (if you look at the talk page, all you see are vague, unspecific (unquoted) references to policy and erroneous allegations that this does not represent North's views). Despite the regrettably misleading remark by OP and regrettable diversions by other users from the subject at hand, some good points have been made regarding use of a term like "sinners." Steeletrap (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. User:Carolmooredc 20:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity for editors outside this conflict, can we keep this section of the discussion limited to the title of the disputed section only? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed my quote only because I temporarily got confused and thought this was another paragraph based entirely on primary sources.

The problem here is POV pushing. Steeletrap thinks the most important issue anyone can focus on is wrongs to homosexuals. Other people think the NPOV way to put it is all people who fall into the class of sinners. This kind of narrow focus on wrongs done to only one class of people, downplaying that done to others, does not make for NPOV editing, looks like an attempt to rouse certain groups to hate and/or action, and is extremely disruptive of the encyclopedia. We had the same problem repeatedly with Steeletrap at Hans-Hermann Hoppe. And it's insulting to everyone else who nutty Xians might want to execute.

As a woman who had an abortion I'm quite offended myself. But I'm not suggesting we call it Support for executing women who had abortions and other sinners. Because I care more about[REDACTED] NPOV than pushing the abortion rights agenda. User:Carolmooredc 21:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ana Ivanovic

Ana Ivanovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per Misplaced Pages's policies regarding biographies of living persons, we are under strictures to make their biographies adhere precisely to severe guidelines, including legal accuracy. Has Ana Ivanović changed her legal name from "Ivanović" to "Ivanovic"? Could anyone provide a source, that this has happened? Can someone quote Ana Ivanović from a reliable source on this subject? She is a resident of Switzerland now, so perhaps this occurred when filing for residency there? If not, we would seem to be breaking the strictures of WP:BLP by inventing rationale to spell her name other than her actual name.

I also remind everyone that other Serbian (former world no.1 Jelena Janković who resides in Dubai, or Ana Jovanović who resides in Munich, Germany), Czech (eg., nearly the entire content of Category:Czech female tennis players), Slovak (e.g., nearly the entire content of Category:Slovak female tennis players), Polish tennis players (including world no. 4 Agnieszka Radwańska and her Top40 sister Urszula Radwańska), or even Australian player Jarmila Gajdošová -- are consistently spelled in their BLP articles with their actual legal name spelling. At most, we provide redirects from names without diacritics to facilitate search for those who simply are unaware of these precise spellings, thanks to WTA, BBC, CNN, etcetera. Right now, as I am typing this, the 2013 Bank of the West Classic singles final is being contested by Agnieszka Radwańska and Dominika Cibulková. I am sure that hundreds of news dispatches in the English-speaking world and WTA publications online and elsewhere will omit both player's diacritics, but we are an encyclopedia, and I don't see us doing it. So why is a group of editors doing it to Ana Ivanović (redirect since 2012, spelled correctly on Commons)?

My attempts to copyedit Ivanović per this reasoning earlier today have been forcefully and repeatedly reverted by one of those editors.

Thoughts? --Mareklug 22:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Mareklug has posted the same question in two places. As there are replies at talk:Ana Ivanovic#Duty to accurately spell Ana Ivanović's name per WP:BLP, I suggest that all additional replies are posted there to avoid repetition and confusion. -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I posted the requisite template on the talk page, below the question there, directing discussion here, to a wider community. It is you and one other persistent advocate of misspelling Ivanović who chose to write below it, and now you are squirreling the discussion once again, away from the mainstream. This is a BLP issue, and should be decided on the BLP noticeboard, if not elevated to Jimbo himself. --Mareklug 12:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If the first reply had been here then this would have been a convenient forum. However as the replies are on the talk page of the article, anyone who has read this thread will know that the discussion is going on there and can read the discussion there and reply there. Nothing is being hidden, but trying to encourage replies in two places is disruptive (see forum shopping). -- PBS (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What additional citations does Lilith Love need??

Lilith Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't understand why the page http://en.wikipedia.org/Lilith_Love needs additional citations for verification. To my concern there are no links missing. The controversity of Lilith's work has a link to the newspaper that wrote about it, and as far as I'm concerned that's the only part of the article that needs citation - or am I wrong? Please let me know how to complete this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CortezNL (talk • contribs) 10:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

See Help:Referencing for beginners. The sources need to be inline and most material in the article should be sourced.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Georgian mafiosi

This list states that certain people are members of organised crime. This is in direct contravention of BLP issues. For such claims to be made the people so listed must, surely, self identify as members of the organisation, if, indeed, organisation it be. Nominated for AfD, but I think there is an urgent issue here. Fiddle Faddle 14:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Huma Abedin

Huma Abedin has been the subject of Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories advanced by a fringe group of right-wing activists and politicians. Their claims have been widely discredited in mainstream media and are considered false and pernicious. User:BingNorton is attempting to whitewash this fact by removing well-sourced rebuttals and rejections of those conspiracy theories from the Washington Post and Anti-Defamation League, which has the effect of making the conspiracy theories seem more credible and important than they really are. Omitting the mainstream consensus (that the claims are evidence-free, politically-motivated attacks) gives those claims undue weight. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the comments of NorthBySouthBaranof ("NbySB") are simply not true. NbySB demands that the Abedin article state that one of the groups that have been critical of her is as NbySB states "Need to make *absolutely clear* that these Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories are fringe nutjobbery". You can review that POV pushing statement from NbySB here. That statement is very indicative of POV pushing. Also, the wording that NbySB wants is not supported by a reliable source. I have removed the commentary because there is no reliable source to support the claim. NbySB has removed it and makes many different comments similar to the one above--POV pushing comments. Finally, NbySB's claim above that I removed "well-sourced rebuttals and rejections of those conspiracy theories" is simply not true. I removed a statement by a Misplaced Pages editor that one group was a MB conspiracy theory (without RS) and I removed one very, very long from John McCain, that was not needed. I did not remove all of the information, I merely trimmed it down. The substance of the Abedin's defense remained in the article. However, the goal of the editing is to provide a NPOV; however, NbySB's belief that the group quoted is "fringe nujobbery" has led him to believe that his POV must be pushed into the article. The article needs a NPOV, not POV pushing and POV pushing is exactly what NbySB is doing and he is attempting to use this BIO Noticeboard to intimidate other editors from disagreeing with him.--Bing Norton 19:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

For example, Sen Grassley sent a series of questions to Abedin to answer. He also sent a series of questions to the State Dept. Both Abedin and the State Dept responded to Grassley. This is verifiable fact and it is supported by a reliable source by me (the RS is CBS News). NbySB reverted my edit which indicated that there are two responses to Grassley. This is factual information. This is NOT opinion. NbySB. Unfortunately, NbySB has a goal of pushing his POV onto the article and he does not even take the time to review my changes he just reverts them without reasonable comment. The only comments that one gets when he reverts is similar to the the quote of above where he flat out states that he is going to impose his POV on the article. Yes the BIO noticeboard is the correct place for this discussion, but the editor that needs to be watch is NbySB. He is a POV pusher.--Bing Norton 19:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs)

The difference is that my POV is supported by a wide variety of reliable sources as being the mainstream viewpoint. NPOV does not require that we treat all claims with equal weight - in fact, a specific part of the NPOV policy directs that Misplaced Pages articles should reflect viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Overwhelmingly, the most prominent viewpoint in this "debate" is that the Muslim Brotherhood claims are scurrilous, politically-motivated conspiracy theories lacking any substance or veracity. They have been refuted, rebutted and dismissed by people and groups ranging from the Anti-Defamation League to John McCain, and an editorial from the Washington Post calls the allegations a "baseless attack" and a "smear." That you do not like the fact that the vast majority of reliable sources consider the claims to be nonsensical and false is irrelevant. Misplaced Pages ought to and must reflect the fact that those claims are fringe theories rejected and given no credence by anyone outside a small group of extreme right-wing conspiracy theorists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Standard 3rr warning issued to Bing Norton. Gamaliel (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Alice Walker

Alice Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Some extra eyes on this BLP may be necessary. Walker has complained about inaccuracies in the article in the past and she is already controversial figure to some. However, to makes matters potentially worse, the BLP is now being targeted by blocked user AndresHerutJaim via sockpuppetry. Their latest sockpuppet User:Silmeter has been blocked, but given their extensive history of block evasion they are likely to return. I think it is necessary to add that judging from a trivial search, AndresHerutJaim appears to be a pretty fanatical Israel supporter who refers to Arabs and Iranians as apes. So, a blocked user with extreme views who uses sockpuppetry extensively and is probably not a fan of Walker. Exactly the kind of person that needs to be kept away from a BLP. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a month and watchlisted. Gamaliel (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Burstein, Jon. "Artist pleads guilty to passport fraud", "Sun Sentinel", March 14, 2012
2. Franceschina, Peter. "Plantation artist avoids prison for stealing man's identity two decades ago", "Sun Sentinel", May 29, 2012

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution