Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:10, 27 October 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.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Jovan Deretić

Jovan Deretić User Bokisanisa has created and added some content to this page, but it is so far unsourced. I have placed BLPPROD tags on the page but Bokisanisa has removed them. After re-placing them I have placed messages on their talk page asking them not to remove maintenance tags. I have now also placed a similar message on the article's talk page. To avoid 3RR, I will not re-place those if they are again removed, but others may want to keep an eye on this page. Eggishorn (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: An IP User 79.101.191.209 is also making similar edits. Eggishorn (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

After waiting 24 hours and seeing that there is still no attempt at providing sources, I reattached the BLP Prod notice ] and notified the article creator ]. The BLP PROD tag was IP User 79.101.191.209 ]. I notified the IP user ] about removing BLP PROD tags. Talk page notices do not seem to be altering this editor's behavior (assuming IP 79.101.191.209 is also Bokisanisa). --Eggishorn (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Eggishorn for your thoroughness and for bringing this issue to our attention. I've removed all of the content and sources in the article as all were non-compliant with WP policies. I've placed a message on the talk pages of the three SPA's (one IP, two accounts) asking them to come to the talk page. Let's see what they do now. If they undo my edits and remove the BLP and Notability tags and refuse to discuss on the talk page, then we'll need to request page protection. Feel free to ping me on my user page if I forget to follow up on this. Thanks again.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If anyone with BLP experience can look at the source I added on the talk page I'd appreciate the help. This looks to me like exactly the type of information that rescues the article subject from non-notability but it is also a problematic source. BLP of persons notable for mostly pseudo-historical or pseudo-scientific reasons are an area I have no experience in. --Eggishorn (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Since nobody has opposed it, I will add this information to the article. I will wait a couple of days, though, in case anyone has objections. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

UK in BLP articles

Is it no longer allowed to include the term "UK" in BLPs about British subjects? If there was a discussion about it, could someone link me to it? Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? What articles have you seen it on? GiantSnowman 19:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems that it's being removed systematically in this way and I was wondering what the directive was. I don't want to waste time arguing about it and risk causing bad feeling with other editors until I know what the official line is. I did ask an admin a while back but he didn't really know. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks more like some unilateral "I must make a point" editing. §FreeRangeFrog 19:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's no policy objecting to "UK" in such occasions - I see no reason why we would have a problem with it. See WP:UKNATIONALS for discussion of the issues (albeit in a slightly different context). Kahastok talk 19:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no problems with the edit in question. We do not need to get that specific - 'England' or 'Scotland' etc. will suffice. GiantSnowman 19:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I was rather looking for a guideline of some sort, otherwise some British BLPs often have no reference whatsoever to the country of citizenship of the subject, e.g. Frank Thornton, the UK being the only country in the world whose name is not to be mentioned. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, apparently just "Scotland" doesn't suffice for this editor, it's just England that gets the "UK" removal treatment. All of this editor's edits are the same, by the way. Either it's supported by a guideline or it isn't, which is what I'm trying to get at. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe the best we've got is WP:UKNATIONALS, an essay, and particularly this bit, which you could make the editor aware of. The section "Do not enforce uniformity" seems relevant. Kahastok talk 20:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There is potentially a problem with systematically removing the UK from articles though. Kahastok talk 20:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I appreciate it. I will probably have a word on the editor's talk page and see what he says. A few times is no problem, but hundreds and hundreds of times with no guideline to back it up is surely not ideal. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As a Brit myself, I'd say that describing someone's place of birth as 'London, England, UK' looks odd. It is clearly redundant, and looks pointy to include it in the first place. I'd be surprised if e.g. the U.S. mainstream media made a habit of referring to 'London, England, UK', and I see no reason why Misplaced Pages should. I've noticed a spate of IPs adding 'UK' without explanation, and I'd suggest that before complaining about it being removed, checking the history might be worthwhile. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. @Bretonbanquet: the UK isn't 'a country'. It is a kingdom made up of several countries... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What I said was "country of citizenship", the actual sovereign nation. There are no English or Scottish citizens. "London" shouldn't have any country following it anyway, like other massive world cities. I'm not sure "New York, USA" is common either. I'd check the history, but checking the hundreds and hundreds of articles this editor has changed would be time-consuming. Part of the problem with removing (or adding) "UK" systematically is that it patently has political overtones. There is no guideline, so what's to stop edit wars? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a whole article about the terminology of the British Isles which attempts to explain the complexities of what is what. I say attempts because it takes well over 7000 words to cover the topic and then there are several related pages that go into more detail. I find it complicated, and I've lived here all my life! It is not incorrect to refer to London, England, UK, but it is not exactly common usage. Both England and the UK are well-known entities, and it is neater to have just the one. But of course, there are political considerations too.. Shritwod (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, it certainly is an insanely complicated and touchy topic when you go in depth. It's only when I find myself trying to explain it to non-Brits that I realise how hard it must be to understand. It doesn't really bother me which system is used in an article, but changing one to the other seems pointy. It's the political considerations that concern me. If someone is removing (or adding) "UK" to English / Scottish / Welsh places systematically for nationalist reasons, that's not healthy. Doing it en masse to Irish-related articles is strictly forbidden, as I understand it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This kinda reminds me of when I was a kid and I used to write letters to people in 'England, UK, Europe, the World, the Universe'. GiantSnowman 08:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Note this was also raised at ANI at the same time, why is Bretonbanquet (talk · contribs) FORUMSHOPPING? GiantSnowman 11:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That first comment suggests you don't take potentially nationalist or politically-motivated editing seriously. I've answered your second comment elsewhere, no sense in repeating it here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Who's not AGFing now? It's to show that we simply don't need that level of detail in infoboxes, otherwise it gets a bit ridiculous. GiantSnowman 21:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If I wasn't AGFing, I'd have accused him on his talk page or reverted him, instead of gauging opinion elsewhere first. It isn't so much the content of the edit, although as Peter James has said below, it's probably unnecessary and has no consensus or guideline – it's more about the extent of it and the singling out of English places and leaving Scottish (for example) with the "UK" in place in the same article. Even AGFing, I don't see how that can not be construed as political and questionable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you mean I wasn't AGFing with your comment above? I wasn't having a pop at you, I understand your point about excess detail, although as I say, there's no consensus and no guideline to cover it. It's one editor's opinion against another. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Maybe the editor was only looking for "England, UK" and not anything else. Peter James (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I might think that too, but he's made nearly 700 edits since 17 July, all of them exactly the same, barring a few posts in his sandbox or on his talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to place it here, I was looking for England, UK and not Scoptland/Wales, so I wasn't actively 'ignoring' them. Narrow Feint (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:UKNATIONALS is about a person's nationality, not about place names mentioned in infoboxes (place of birth: London, England can be combined with nationality: British if necessary), and the UK isn't the only sovereign state (there's also Kingdom of the Netherlands) for which the constituent countries seem to be preferred. The changes don't look like they were done for nationalist reasons, but "London, England, UK" is not wrong (it's what IMDB uses), so they are probably unnecessary, at least not worth an edit specifically for the purpose (or reverting) unless someone can point to relevant consensus (not just that of the UK geography WikiProject). Peter James (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate discussions

Discussion has been started on two pages: this and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#"UK" in articles about British subjects. I suggest merging them and moving to somewhere more suitable, such as Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography or Template:Infobox person. Peter James (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My fault, apologies again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

So, it's been noted that there are duplicate discussions but both discussions have stopped. I think there should be some resolution to this. I think Bretonbanquet has a point, if UK is only removed from England locations but not Scotland or Wales, this is a strange inconsistency. It might not bothered English Editors/Admins not to have UK after the location but the larger issue is that this isn't a decision determined by consensus but by one Editor. If this selective, wide-spread editing was done on another area, it would be nipped in the bud and I'm puzzle by the reluctance to actually address Brentonbanquet's concern.

Personally, I don't care whether there is UK in a location or it is removed but if it is removed, it should be removed from all countries that make up the UK, not just one. This does seem to be some pointy, political statement. Liz 17:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

<edit conflict>

P.S. This isn't a move to forum-shop but maybe this conversation should actually be occurring at Misplaced Pages talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Just a suggestion. Liz 17:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't be being removed en masse at all. Where a change is needed, it's probably going to be a one-off thing and with good reason. In a lot of cases it doesn't matter, but if it doesn't matter there's no reason to change them. Removing them from England and not Scotland or Wales is also troubling.

FWIW, the fact that WP:UKNATIONALS doesn't apply to this specific circumstance but to a similar one does not mean that it is not a useful guide for the general principle. It's not ideal, but it is probably the best we have. Kahastok talk 17:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There's something I hadn't seen at first: unlike in geography articles where the guidelines recommend against "UK", inclusion of "UK" is currently supported by the template's documentation (Template:Infobox person#Parameters). Peter James (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WPISNOTAPOSTALENVELOPE, perhaps. Please, just make it neat and short, with only the items necessary to convey the location. If the city is well-known, "UK" is only required if there's a chance it might be confused with another of the same name, like London, Ontario. Tony (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What have you decided?

So, what is the answer? Narrow Feint (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the answer is there in the documentation of the parameters of the infobox. I would say that, wouldn't I, but there's no guideline. If you want to change the infobox parameters then a discussion there would be required. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake

There's a lot of bad behavior on this article and its talk page. It concerns lots of editors and is being argued about on both the talk page and in an ANI thread. However, I'm here about just one set of edits, by myself and one other editor, today. I've been reverted twice and, while trying to bring the lede of the BLP of a living fringe theorist into some version of compliance with WP:BLP might give me license to go through a third iteration, coming here is the better course.

An editor insists that Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance not be called a theory. That's what Sheldrake calls it in his book, referenced on the page. That's what at least five critics call it, whilst debunking it. But I keep getting reverted, despite making a bunch of attempts to provide the appropriate refs and some talk page back-and-forth. (Our tone is one of exasperation, because there have been earlier skirmishes and the assumption of good faith is pretty well strained on both sides. But it never merited an appeal for noticeboard assistance, in my view, until now.)

First the diffs, then the accompanying talk page discussion

My first try
I'm reverted
my second try, fixing my formatting error and adding a fifth ref
I'm reverted again

Here's the corresponding talk page discussion. I'll now alert the other editor and then try to STFU. David in DC (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a scientific theory, partly because it's not scientific, partly because it's extremely vague to the point that it is whatever Sheldrake says it is, and partly because nobody in academia seems to think it has any merit. Just because some people are inaccurate in their language doesn't mean Misplaced Pages should be. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

to claim that we must call it a "theory" because the creator called it a "theory" is ridiculous. the creators work can only be used to support content that is not unduly self promoting. to elevate this hogwash a "theory" is gratuitously self serving. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a dolt. Looking at a cached page led me to think I'd been reverted a second time. I haven't been. my second edit stands. I apologize to all concerned. I'll go apologize specifically now. Then impose a one-week self-blockDavid in DC (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Examples of Disruptive Behavior, NPOV on page is being violated

I concur with David in DC regarding horrible behavior and a general lack of the spirit of WP on the page. Many editors have a skeptical agenda and only appear interested in biasing the article to the skeptical POV, which winds up framing the BLP in quite a derogatory manner, often in very extreme examples where a valid academic title is denied, an invalid academic is applied, quoting sources that are opinions and using them as facts, etc etc. I am personally appalled by the general lack of concern for BLP. Specifically though, although Dave is correct regarding the ridiculous arguments, the problem with the word 'theory' is more about the reverting of 'hypothesis' back to the word 'proposal' in regarding sheldrakes idea, which Dave tried to clean up with using references to skeptics that editors would approve of to revert it away from a diminishing Sheldrakes bio any more by skeptic editors. There is definitely a reasoned argument as to why we should not refer to an hypothesis as a theory, and I support that. However there is no valid argument to refer to a hypothesis as a 'proposal' or 'idea' because an editor doing personal research decides to claim that sheldrake is not making an educated hypothesis. No references are given for making this change from 'hypothesis' to 'proposal' and although there was clearly no consensus for the change, and many editors spoke out against the change to 'proposal', when a revert was made back to 'hypothesis' it was just reverted back to proposal without discussion. When presented with clearly reasoned arguments and sources to the contrary, the skeptical position doesn't change. These editors are controlling the page and refusing reasonable consensus.

Here is the discussion where hypothesis was changed to proposal and where there is clearly no consensus for the change.

Here is the discussion where reverts were questioned.

Here is another thread challenging hypothesis again, this time with a new bizarre twist, prominent scientists and academic journals skeptics don't like don't count.

Here is the section that addresses the 'theory' issue again.

This editor takes BLP and NPOV very seriously, and I believe that if the rational wikipedia community was aware of the abuse of these principles happening on the sheldrake page, they would be doing something similar to what I am doing now. This article is now getting blogged about due to the controversy. WP does not need to deal with a libelous or claim of libelous situation and all of us are responsible to protecting WP here. The Tumbleman (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The thinly veiled legal threat language doesn't help point the way forward. There is no requirement in Misplaced Pages WP:BLP policy that all biographies of living persons have to consist mostly of praise for or agreement with the point of view of the subject of the article. What is required by that policy is that criticism not be gratuitous and that controversial statements--pro or con--be reliably sourced. So let's focus on the key issue here: what are the best reliable sources on the life of Rupert Sheldrake and his point of view on various issues and his activities? Who is writing about him in professionally edited, published sources of good reliability? Once we know what the sources say, it should be clear enough how to edit the article. (I have just opened a new section on the article talk page inviting all editors to suggest reliable sources for the improvement of the article.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's own language warning of potential libel from violations of BLP are no less thinly veiled than my own, it's why we have to be very careful with a BLP page. And there is not one editor here who is complaining here about 'praise or agreement' regarding Sheldrake's research. We already have the sources, we already want to make sure both sides of the issue have a voice and everything is in a neutral context. the issue is not how to edit a BLP, it's that edit warring from agenda based editors is disruptive of consensus, NPOV, and BLP and a proper edit is being prevented. The Tumbleman (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you suggest to help improve the article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A reason for arguing

There are 77 references, with a quick count, I see that 16 are for Sheldrake's writing, at least one is pro Sheldrake and 60 are anti Sheldrake in some way. Interestingly, four of the negative one are the same reference with different authors (45-48). That means some 78% of the references are negative.

If the Sheldrake articles are discounter, which is reasonable since they are there so that editors can complain about them, then there is a 60 to 1 ratio, 98% of which are negative.

Please see Note A which sports 6 negative statements such as "reject morphic resonance" (5 references), "reject as pseudoscience" (5 references) and "impact on the public's understanding of science" (4 references). To support these, there are 23 references, but some are repeated so that there are actually only 15 references. The net effect is that the statement that "Scientists who have specifically examined the idea of morphic resonance have called it pseudoscience..." appears to be overwhelmingly supported. A quick review of some of these references show the expression of opinion with little reference to the actual mechanics of the hypothesis--something necessary to have an informed opinion.

At the same time, there are no references in the article from Sheldrake's peer group in the parapsychological community. The hypothesis simply cannot be considered without also considering related concepts such as psi and intentionality--both of which are supported by very good science. All of the related publications are not allowed because they are considered unreliable sources.

My point is that the article is absolutely biased and there is no rational for having it that way. Misplaced Pages rules are sufficiently general that a determined group of editors can collectively determine how they are applied. For instance what is a reliable source is decided here based on whether or not the subject is accepted by mainstream science and not on the quality of the science, peer review or academic credentials . That is the very definition of censorship of new ideas.

As it stands now, Misplaced Pages is incapable of hosting a balanced article about Rupert Sheldrake and the article should be deleted. It is fine to address the concepts, but the person should either be treated in terms of basic biographical facts or not at all. Rupert Sheldrake is highly respected in the parapsychological community, and as it stands now, the article has become a lightning rod for negative comment on Misplaced Pages in general. Tom Butler (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur. The article is written as an exercise in discrediting and debunking Sheldrake. Not even the article on the Nazis is written from such a negative POV, yet its style is still NPOV. Sheldrake's article is primarily about an individual, and what he has done. It the duty of the article to tell people what he has written, and where. That includes the spectrum of views, from parapsychology to "mainstream" scientists. Where necessary, simple use of the English language provides weight and balance. Of course we do no exclude criticism, and we don't pretend that any of Sheldrake's work is more credible than the sources suggest. We are not placing Sheldrake's views into any mainstream article, so WP:BLP and WP:DUE (2nd paragraph) apply. --Iantresman (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, Tom Butler (talk · contribs) and Iantresman (talk · contribs), you really have got it backwards, haven't you? At least unlike Tumbleman (talk · contribs) and his socks, you've acknowledged the plentiful references that exist speaking against Sheldrake and aren't ignoring them. However, WP:FRINGE applies because of this. Regarding reviews from friendly sources, I would be in favour of including these, I added two reviews of Sheldrake's book myself. However, sufficient context needs to be provided to them per WP:FRINGE. If as you suggest, most of the friendly reviews are from authors and "psi researchers", there is an inherent problem of credibility there because they will themselves make extraordinary claims. In my experience such people have a lack of understanding of scientific scepticism and their consensus is therefore worthless. It's a bit like arguing about the nature of the holy trinity, while relying entirely on a group of experts - those experts being Roman Catholic cardinals. You won't find such people being taken seriously by the scientific community, even if they take themselves seriously. We don't need to pretend that any of Sheldrake's work is more credible than the sources suggest. We probably need to work in Brian Josephson] somewhere but he has somewhat of a reputation for Nobel disease as well . Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No, WP:FRINGE is a guideline to help us achieve WP:DUE, a non-negotiable policy. This is not backwards. (1) We can't use your experience, or mine, to judge the worth of qualified scientists who chose to investigate "psi research". (2) The suggestion that an understanding of "scientific scepticism" determines the worth of consensus, even if we could assess that level of understanding among so many people, is probably speculative at best. (3) "inherent credibility" is not based on "extraordinary claims". (4) Of course science takes seriously religious people, if they are suitably qualified. Belgian priest Georges Lemaître comes to mind. (5) Parapsychology researchers are typically pyschologist with Ph.Ds affiliated to universities who disagree with your characterisation. (5) Personally, I don't "believe" in the paranormal, but I recognise that people from psychologists to physicists have conducted studies, with various results. --Iantresman (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Barney, you border on insolence! Beyond that, all you have accomplished is further reinforce the unlikelihood that the article will ever meet Misplaced Pages standards, nor will it ever be stable as long as there is a 60 to 1 ratio in pro and con references and editors like you who think that is okay. Tom Butler (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Tell us Tom Butler what ratio would satisfy you? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 01:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

In an article about a minority view, balance has little to do with just the ratio of references for and against. NPOV is about how we describe those views (per WP:DUE). The simple use of adjectives lets us apply the appropriate weight to the spectrum of views, without misleading readers. Otherwise every article on every minority view, would have to contain material predominantly about the alternative majority view. When we write an article about "x", the article is predominantly about "x", with "appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint"WP:DUE. --Iantresman (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The article meets Misplaced Pages standards per WP:FRINGE - if you have a problem with that go to that talk page. I see no point in repeating arguments. Meanwhile, what do you propose? Given numerous sources available from mainstream scientists denouncing Sheldrake's attempts at science, and very few supporting him. Do you want to remove negative sources? Or do you want to add positive sources? If you want to add positive sources, please present these and we will try to incorporate them into the article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles strive towards the WP:NPOV policy, not the WP:FRINGE guideline. I've not objected to the vast majority of critical sources (the one exception being a self-published book). On the other hand, a small group of editors have consistently rejected several peer-reviewed academic sources based on nothing but their opinion. --Iantresman (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Try to think beyond this incessant "wiki rules say". There is no doubt to the rational observer that the rejection of peer reviewed academic journals is only possible because of an arbitrary line drawn for what is and is not acceptable in Misplaced Pages. I am not arguing that point here, however ... and I think you all know it. At the risk of having every skeptic in Misplaced Pages run over and trash the article, I will say that the Dean Radin article is about right for an article about a still living person of little notability in mainstream standards.

It is important to keep in mind that terms about Sheldrake like "libelous" and "defamation of character" are floating around the Internet now. Rupert Sheldrake is an article about a still living person with little notability according to mainstream standards. What is and is not defamation of character is not a scientific measure; it is appearances. Right now, the appearance is that people are piling on with unnecessary skepticism. Keep in mind that surveys consistently show that around half of the people in our society believe in ghosts and other forms of phenomena . The scientists and their one-sided view of Sheldrake's concepts are a very small minority and we have not elected them as our protectors of the truth.

The reasonable thing for Misplaced Pages to do--not the skeptics, but the managers of Misplaced Pages--is to break Rupert Sheldrake up into three articles--Rupert Sheldrake, Hypothesis of Formative Causation and Animals that know their masters are coming home (or whatever that last one is.

Stop assuming we are stupid and stop answering every complaint with wiki lawyering! That is contentious editing. Tom Butler (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

uhh, the "managers" of Misplaced Pages ARE the Misplaced Pages editors who have determined that WP:POVFORKing is not appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Tom, you wrote: "There is no doubt to the rational observer that the rejection of peer reviewed academic journals is only possible because of an arbitrary line drawn for what is and is not acceptable in Misplaced Pages." No, that's not true. It's to avoid OR. Anyone can pick and choose primary sources of the highest quality and make any point they wish, which is a blatant violation of OR. That's why we use secondary and tertiary sources, and for medical/scientific matters we also use MEDRS to guide us. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

As you say, we avoid primary sources to avoid WP:OR. But that is not the same as being required to exclude primary sources, because any competent editor can use them appropriately, ie. without drawing conclusions, and making analysis that is not there (per WP:SYNTHESIS). Attribution is the usual way to use primary sources correctly. Unfortunately, there are editors who exclude primary sources, no matter how they are used, except when they are convenient for them. --Iantresman (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

My gift to any amongst you with a funny bone: David in DC (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Gilligan

I'm very concerned about this edit. This allogation that he "dismissed him because he had forged references" only appears as a mention in the minutes of a small, private meeting. The claim has not been published in any newspapers, or discussed elsewhere (to my knowledge) except in a blog.

Despite this, and the discussion on the talk page, the user insists on its insertion and has repeatedly reinserted it, despite others (including me) objecting.

I don't want to edit-war, so I am not going to remove it again, but I'm asking here for help. I consider this to be a serious violation of WP:BLP. 88.104.19.237 (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverted and commented on the editor's talk page. That's a personal claim sourced off of a primary source, wholly inappropriate. §FreeRangeFrog 20:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

To clarify for User:UsamahWard - This is a primary source (as it is a transcript), where an allegation is being made. In order for this to be acceptable (and the claim is serious) it would have to come from a secondary reliable source with some measure of editorial oversight. Otherwise it's just something you found on the internets, with no clear notability or appropriateness. §FreeRangeFrog 21:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggested the editor bring the discussion here, as the material is not new on the page, but has been there for over 3 years. What needs to be established if it is to be included is that it is relevant and reliably sourced; this is particularly important for BLP material.

As for its relevance, this short quotation is significant in at least three ways: firstly, it is a further indication of Gilligan's connection with the Labour Party in his early life - this is not contested, but is in contrast to his more recent support for Conservative politicians and his post on a leading Conservative supporting newspaper; secondly, it underlines the influence of Gilligan's extensive writing about the political differences in the Labour party in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets - in a meeting of the Labour Party's National Executive Committee (which should not be dismissed as a 'small, private meeting') Gilligan's articles about the competing Labour candidates were a significant source for the meeting's discussion; and thirdly, the allegation that Gilligan 'forged references' has relevance to recurring claims in his career that he diverged from the truth, most notably in the conclusions of the Hutton enquiry mentioned elsewhere in the entry.

Regarding the source, Labour NEC member Christine Shawcroft reports on all the NEC meetings on her official website; there has been no suggestion from any source that her report on this meeting was not accurate.

There is no dispute whether Keith Vaz made the allegation about Andrew Gilligan; the question, which we cannot answer, would be whether it is true. The allegation is in the public domain. There is no record of Gilligan denying the allegation other than on a third party political blog, which is why it was not referenced in the article. Even if he had denied the allegation, it would not change the significance of the allegation and where and when it was made.

I think its inclusion would only be questionable if Gilligan had taken action against the person who made the claim. Gilligan himself has noted in his blog that he would take action against any libel, and indeed has written about his successful action against Ken Livingstone. Despite his extensive writing in his blog, including where others have criticised him, he has not spoken out against this allegation, made back in 2010.

In my view the material should be reinstated as it was, or with any improved phrasing.

Note for User:FreeRangeFrog - my response above typed whilst you added your note for me. Just to emphasise, the source is an established website where the meetings of the Labour Party National Executive Committee are regularly reported; this appears to meet the criteria for a RS. UsamahWard (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The allegation has also been published by the Mayor of Tower Hamlets, without any mention of the Labour NEC meeting: http://mayorlutfurrahman.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/have-you-ever-been-called-an-islamist/ UsamahWard (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The keyword here is "allegations", and the fact that you're deriving all these conclusions from the material. The fact that the subject has not contested that claim doesn't make it true (or false), it means nothing in this context. All this is just original research. Further, a transcript is by definition a primary source because it has no context and no analysis. That's why we require secondary sources, so that someone else out there, a journalist preferably, reads the transcript, performs some fact checking and then publishes it. We're not supposed to do that job, our job as neutral gazetteers is to present the facts provided by those sources. As to your second source, do I need to mention it's a blog? That doesn't mean it's automatically unreliable if it can be verified, but at least it's better than inserting your own analysis (basically) of the original transcript material. That doesn't mean that the transcript itself cannot be included in the article somehow, as a supporting primary source, but it should not be used to support conclusions or claims, or anything else. Certainly not included raw, even to support a quote. §FreeRangeFrog 18:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

(I wrote this before I read the reply from FRF above, and maybe I'm saying the same thing...)

Again, that's not an appropriate reference - I'll try to explain why. That "reliable source" also says that the Daily Telegraph feeds the hate merchants in the British National Party and English Defence league. Do you think it'd be appropriate to add that 'fact', with that source, to the DT article? Of course not.

As I tried to explain elsewhere, it's not appropriate to pull a fact from minutes of a meeting; you'd need to find a secondary source. If you could show a newspaper article stating the fact, I would have no problem at all. But if you can't, it's a form of original research, and inappropriate for a biographical article.88.104.19.237 (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Allegation of sock-puppeting (not the wiki kind)

I removed this part ();

In October 2008, it was reported that Gilligan had engaged in sockpuppeting. Guardian journalist Dave Hill wrote about the allegations. Gilligan stated that one of the alleged sockpuppets was his "partner".

If you read the above, you'll see it is a total non-story. People on commentary-blogs saying he might have posted on other blogs under alternative names.

In the part I removed, it sounded like he'd committed some terrible crime.

It doesn't seem to have been reported in any actual news articles; I don't think it deserves inclusion, especially given BLP concerns.

It's been reinstated by another user who seems to insist we keep controversial material in this BLP while it is under discussion - which is contrary to BLP policy, viz. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced [..[ should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." (WP:BLP).

Please advise what I should do. 88.104.19.237 (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What this anonymous editor fails to mention is that the same issue had been discussed at great length before in the article's talk page (now archived), then retained. Indeed, it has been discussed since. It shouldn't be the case that material is discussed in detail, then retained, then some time later removed again for all the same reasons. It appears that both notabilty and acceptable sourcing had been established, and as you can see above it has been presented in a neutral manner. UsamahWard (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I was unaware that it'd been discussed previously. However, having read through the previous discussion, I can't see a consensus for including it.

Even if there were, consensus can change.

There is absolutely no justification for including this original research from blog-based sources in this bio of a living person, until/unless it is reported in a newspaper or other similar appropriate media.

This 'fact' isn't even tabloid gossip; it's pure speculation on blog-sites. Absolutely, totally inappropriate. 88.104.29.3 (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding BLPCRIME

How have we traditionally handled early reports of a BLP subject being involved in a DUI incident? I would assume any reporting would be beholden to WP:BLPCRIME and we wouldn't add anything to the article unless and until there is a conviction (and even then given only proper weight). I'm raising this specifically given this widely-reported breaking news, but it would be helpful to get feedback as a general rule-of-thumb when DUI issues arise.--Jezebel'sPonyo 18:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

In the instance you cited, WP:WELLKNOWN applies over WP:BLPCRIME. GregJackP Boomer! 18:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can see I should have listed the sources.

1. NBCNews.com
2. US magazine
3. NY Daily News
4. UPI
5. Toronto Sun
6. Fox8.com
7. WWAY
8. KLTV
9. WITN
10. KVUE
11. Charlotte Observer
12. Jacksonville Daily News
13. Edmonton Sun
14. London Free Press
15. WBTV
16. Daily Telegraph
17. ABC11.com

That's why WP:WELLKNOWN applies. Misplaced Pages is not censored, nor do we care if a person's feelings are hurt, so long as there are multiple reliable sources reporting the story. None of those are tabloids that I know of, and all are reliable. GregJackP Boomer! 20:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish. This is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid scandal-sheet. The original source cited for the story seems to be an "Online Photo Library" - a source of questionable reliability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's World Entertainment News Network, not an online photo library. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 18:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, according to this source, TMZ were the ones that broke the news. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 18:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of who broke the story, it is still firmly tabloid 'celebrity news' rather then material worthy of an encyclopaedia concerned with issues of enduring significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

<multiple edit conflicts> Note that I specifically noted "early reports/breaking news" as a factor. Given WP:NOTNEWS, would it not be prudent and more in line with BLP policy to wait until there is at least a charge laid in order to ensure we are not falling into the trap of rushing to add potentially incorrect/damaging information? It seems more encyclopedic to add "x was charged with y on October z, 2013, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to Foo", then to continually update as the news breaks? --Jezebel'sPonyo 18:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• In an ideal world we would wait until charges are actually filed, unless the weight of coverage for the incident was exceedingly high, which I don't think will be the case here. §FreeRangeFrog 19:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Further, a DUI is not something like a murder that would become a permanent part of a biography. This is an ephemeral incident, and should not be included unless a string of DUIs becomes a notable part of this persons identity.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case the article could definitely use some eyes to help determine consensus as to how the developing story should be covered (if at all).--Jezebel'sPonyo 15:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Misplaced Pages would be more than a bit improved if we excised all references to celebrity DUIs absent deaths, serious injuries, and the like. Last time I look, "Memorialize public celebrity embarrassments for all time" was not one of the five pillars. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

☝ This. Lots. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

List of sportspeople by nickname

In an attempt to tidy-up the above and replace part of it (for footballers) with a well referenced article I have remove entries which are either uncited, poorly cited (blogs etc) or just insults, such as Judas for Sol Campbell. My attempts are being reverting as they seem OK to the editor. Surely the normal requirements for BLPs apply here and uncited entries, entries sourced from blogs and insults should be removed?--Egghead06 (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

BLP absolutely applies there, and you should feel free to report this to either WP:ANI or WP:3RR if appropriate. That said, dialogue is important, and they might think you're doing away with everything, rather than trying to at least source most of it. Regardless, in reality anyone is free to nuke anything that is BLP-related and unsourced, without so much as a "sorry dude". §FreeRangeFrog 05:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have gone through and removed (hopefully) every unreferenced entry from this list. GiantSnowman 14:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Bishop Ullathorne RC School

• Bishop Ullathorne RC School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another school article where students have added BLP-problematic nonsense that involves school staff and other students, so I took the hatchet to the whole thing. A few eyes on this would be appreciated just in case. §FreeRangeFrog 16:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Gawd, what is it about school article that think the WP:V doesn't apply to them?

see Talk:Bishop Ullathorne RC School#Large amount of unreferenced info removed 88.104.25.210 (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Vahram Zaryan

• Vahram Zaryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It looks like this article - which has been heavily edited by 83.142.151.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who may or may not be Zaryan - is a bit of a mess. It has language, self-promotion and COI problems. I don't know if there are any problems with the pics but one of them could use some size reduction. I wouldn't even know where to start in dealing with it so I thought I would let members of this project work on it if any of you have the time and inclination. Thanks ahead of time for anything that you can do. MarnetteD | Talk 21:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced entry moved here §FreeRangeFrog 21:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at it.--Auric talk 23:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I shoot harder; (see diffs with reasoning) 88.104.25.210 (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations. You also put a hole in the wall. I fixed it.--Auric talk 02:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the collateral damage. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your efforts. If you haven't already done so you might put the article on your watchlists as the Paris based IP will, no doubt, be returning to edit the article. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 16:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Richard Prebble

• Richard Prebble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MS Mikhail Lermontov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A recent series of edits makes claims of government cover-ups, using inaccessible sources. Perhaps some original research as well. Anyone familiar with the subject, who can vouch for the credibility of these claims, or assess whether these violate BLP guidelines? Thanks, JNW (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added the Lermentov article as related; it goes much further in blending sourced content with original research, with BLP concerns. See, for example, the end of this section . JNW (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Please can you explain and show diffs for the recent edits. It'll make it easier for people to see the problem. Thanks. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm including the entire section 'Cabinet Minister' as it now reads:

In February 1986, as Minister of Transport, after the sinking of the Russian cruise liner Mikhail Lermontov, Prebble asked the Soviets to participate in an inquiry. The Soviets responded that it was unnecessary as they had conducted their own inquiry. Prebble felt this had to be kept from the public and the fact covered up at the time, resulting in a public outcry over the inadequate preliminary inquiry which failed to identify the underlying causes of the accident or any of the many deficiencies existing in the maritime industries of New Zealand and the Soviet Union at the time. He also effectively side-stepped the Official Information Act by having most of the former Ministry of Transport files transferred into the National Archives under his exclusive access control under the guise of "personal papers". No researcher has ever been permitted access to these files despite numerous requests. Included in these files is probably the only existing copy of a RNZN report on the poor state of the life saving equipment which was the subject of an apparently deliberate cover-up, all other copies disappearing, and the contents of which were denied by Prebble and by a Defence spokesman Cmdr Gerry Power.

His performance in this difficult situation remains a model example of dealing with unwelcome media attention. His strategy was outlined in his 1996 publication "I've been thinking" where he admits that in such circumstances he did not allow his departmental heads to front the media, but took on that role himself to isolate the media from the officials directly involved, in this case the Director of the Marine Division, Mr Hugh Jones, who was described as not performing well in front of journalists.

I think it's WP:UNDUE, is based on WP:SYNTHESIS and laden with original research and commentary. I'm going to cut some of the most egregious content, but wonder how much, if any, is appropriate. The best, and only accessible, source used is a 2006 article that deflates the cover up and conspiracy charges . After I'd made similar objections at the Lermentov talk page, the IP account removed all their edits , with the understanding that they did not comply with our guidelines. JNW (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Isabelle Turell

• Isabelle Turell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

69.181.21.48 insists this is acceptable, even though it is a contentious claim supported by non-reliable sources, including a forum and some kind of fan page. This was initially reported (not by the subject but by someone else) to OTRS requesting deletion, but as usual the issue is material in the article rather than existence. I would appreciate if other editors could weigh in. §FreeRangeFrog 22:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've commented, at Talk:Isabelle Turell#"ad-hoc muscle worship" 88.104.25.210 (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Byrraju Ramalinga Raju article -- the word disgraced being repeatedly added

A user (Neil2000; username is currently a red link) insists on having in the Byrraju Ramalinga Raju article the word disgraced to describe this living person (Raju), and in the lead no less. This is not a quote from some news organization or similar; this is Neil2000's personal text. See here and here. I've brought this matter to this noticeboard not only for the obvious reasons, but because, judging by this editor's edit history, he is likely to revert. Also judging by his edit history and talk page, he has proven to be very problematic and not a benefit to Misplaced Pages in the least. Flyer22 (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Posted a note on the editor's talk page and watchlisted the article. --NeilN 15:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that Raju resigned after admitting to the falsifying of accounts on a massive scale, it is unsurprising that he should be described as 'disgraced' - as for example the Daily Telegraph does here, India Today does here and The Indian Express does here, . WP:BLP policy exists to ensure that coverage of matters concerning living persons is fair, and is properly sourced. It does not exist to protect the guilty from fair comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsurprising yes, but Misplaced Pages doesn't generally use such adjectives in the first sentence. Take a look for example at Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson (sprinter), Bernard Madoff and Adolf Hitler. --NeilN 15:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Besides that, as clearly pointed out above, my problem with "disgraced" in the aforementioned instance is also that it is not coming from news organization commentary. It is Neil2000's personal text. If "disgraced" is to be included in that WP:BLP, it should be done appropriately (as in commentary from a news source about the matter) and with a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

In that context, I searched for "Raju Satyam disgraced" and found nearly a million hits, most where the term has been used to describe the individual (though they may not be cited in this article). My sense is that the term disgraced may have a meaning and implication that is different in the Indian subcontinent then in the West, and the reaction of many editors (and WP policy) is based on the Western interpretation. Dwpaul (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Even so, I think the article stands very well without the term, especially since, even if determined acceptable, it is contentious. Dwpaul (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Maryam Kassim

Maryam Kassim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) redirects to
Maryam Qaasim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
also redirected from:
Dr. Maryan Qasim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Maryam Qasim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page (Maryam Kassim) reports a false and incorrect biography of a current Minister in the Somali Federal Government. The authors mixes information for two seperate individuals, Dr. Maryan Qasim (Minister for Social Development) and Ms Maryam Cariif Qasim (MP). Attemps have been made to modify this however the author keeps reverting back to the previous incorrect material. Please either delete this page or report a biography of one individual, either Dr. Maryan Qasim (Minister/Tayo party leader and from Bravanese Clan) or Ms Maryam Cariif Qasim (MP from Mursade, Hawiyo clan). Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhzumurudaa (talk • contribs) 17:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue was introduced by this edit on the part of editor Soman who overwrote the article on Dr. Maryan Qasim with a redirect to the article on Maryam Qaasim on 19 October. Prior to this, they were in fact two articles, as they should be now. Restoring the former article pre-redirect. Dwpaul (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if other editors could review links that may need to be adjusted and/or readjusted to point to the correct article(s) as I lack time to do this currently. Dwpaul (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Also appears that there is a disambiguation issue as as the minister's own Wordpress page refers to herself as Maryam Qasim and other pages used as refs on her page refer to her as Maryam Qaasim in addition to the spelling on the restored page. Probably need hatnotes per WP:2DABS. Dwpaul (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No, both of the articles (Dr. Maryan Qasim and Maryam Kassim) related to the minister. The problem was that in the original, pre-fork, article (i.e. Maryam Kassim) details of the other individual was mixed, and this occured much earlier. The solution is to create a new article for the second individual, Maryam Cariif Qaasim. --Soman (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK then; apparently I misdiagnosed the issue. Feel free to revert my edit, but please work with Fhzumurudaa and Middayexpress to sort this out in one or another Talk page and come up with a strategy. It seems that there is a lot of uncoordinated counter-editing happening here. Dwpaul (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Just as a side-note, Somalis don't have family names (and definately no 'middle names'), so "Qaseem" should not be used for DEFsort, etc.. See http://books.google.com/books?id=vaDkDZmrZmYC&pg=PA79 So, the Minister is a person whose name is Maryam, whose father's name was Qaasim and whose grandfather's name was Axmed. The MP is a person whose name is Maryam, whose father was Caarif and whose grandfather was Qaasim. --Soman (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Very confusing and likely to lead to much mis-editing and mis-direction by non-Somali editors (and possibly even by Somali editors?). Appreciate the explanation here. Dwpaul (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Seth MacFarlane

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

Read online on October 20, 2013: Seth Woodbury MacFarlane (/ˈsɛθ ˈwʊdbɛri mɪkˈfɑrlən/; born October 26, 1973 - died October 26, 2013) was an American actor. . ."

WTF? --Carol M. (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Warned the editor about this vandalism, which has been reverted. Dwpaul (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Vivek Mishra

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

against the wikipedia policy . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukeshacharya (talk • contribs) 08:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This article may be a candidate for deletion under WP:GNG, but it is unclear what complaint you are trying to express about the article. What about it is "against the wikipedia policy"? 14:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've fleshed out the article a bit. I think he probably passes GNG.

But the problem here, I think, is one of mistaken identity. I don't think this gymnast is the same person as this guy whose background is a bit more salacious. David in DC (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Upon further review, it might be the same guy. David in DC (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the same guy. Here's my work . Please note the final edit summary and help if you can. Sources may appear in the coming days that can serve as substitutes. David in DC (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Fasih Mohammed

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

The wikipedia article on Fasih Mahmood is constantly being vandalized by Neelakamala. After refuting Neelkamala claim that a "communal self published site" was used to modify the article I expressly warned Neelkamal to stop vandalizing the article.

On the issue of "communal self published site" Neelkamala has the audacity to call leading dailies as communal. It is not clear if Neelkamala is extremely paranoid or sinisterly communal in vandalizing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.11.162.171 (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I recommend you invite the other editor to discuss this issue on the article's Talk page, rather than attempting to resolve your dispute with them via edit summaries. Thus far there has been no discussion in Talk nor any (apparent) effort to encourage it, which is generally a prerequisite for action against a contentious editor working on an article concerning a controversial subject. Dwpaul (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark Kirkland

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

IP addresses are repeatedly adding an unsourced date of birth to this article. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 15:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Added blp sources template to article. Dwpaul (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Lin Evola

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

This article is filled with undocumented "facts" and what is documented usually refers to the subjects own materials. Can someone fix this?---Mylysol (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific concerning the content you feel is a violation of Misplaced Pages's WP:BLP policies? Obviously, with plenty of time for research, all of the sources can be checked against the content, but perhaps you've already done this and are prepared to identify specific issues, which would save us all a significant amount of time. There doesn't seem to be a specific set of contested edits with which you have been involved, and there is no discussion on the article's Talk page (which is recommended before coming here). Dwpaul (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I do note that a SPA Rpulido7 (talk) created the article in August and seems to be responsible for most of its current content, and that Reddogsix (talk) has had to advise (and warn) the SPA repeatedly concerning BLP and other policies. The SPA seems to be disinclined to participate in Talk about their edits. Would still be helpful if you can advise any specifics you had in mind as you brought this here. Dwpaul (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

This may be the wrong place to post this, but WP:NPOVN seems to be dead as a doornail, so...

This article, on a living person, uses mainly primary sources from Sanger to describe his work. The Citizendium section and post-Citizendium sections are particularly bad, describing, respectively, a failed project in the language Sanger used to describe its aspirations (which it utterly failed to live up to) and Sanger's reporting of Misplaced Pages to the FBI and other controversial actions as if they were uncontroversial - but more or less every section is just about as promotional.

I tried to deal with it, but the article is very clearly WP:OWNed by Quack Guru, who insists there's nothing to even discuss.

In short, this is hagiography. Adam Cuerden 21:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

David Bergstein

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

this article has highly personal views that are unsubstantiated by "any" public source, the career section in this article is trying to use wiki as a authentic source to spread a false information. please google this person and see if you get a single source that says this guy is a investment banker or did any investment banking work. more over this person's article itself needs to be deleted as this person does not qualify under the biography rules and required public sources to validate at all. please delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.156.244.230 (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This IP address is registered to the Pegasus Blue Star Fund and there is a conflict between the fund and David Bergstein, a conflict the IP is now pursuing here it seems. The IP also complained at ANI Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You are correct about this likely being someone bringing an off-wiki conflict here. However, the IP also does appear to be correct about the notability and sourceability of that subject. I have been able to find anything other than stories about the lawsuit. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I was expecting to get some hits in Variety and the like, but found zippo. (outside the legal disputes) Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

IP does appear to be correct about the notability and source ability of this subject. I spent last 30 minutes searching for the movies listed, a lot of them on the list cannot be found as movies and some of them do not even have the subject as associated with the movie. Outside of legal disputes there are no other independent notable references available on this subject. I agree this subject does not meet the standards. I will research more and post my comments later what more if any I find. Initial search turned up nothing not a single notable reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlfestival (talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

Lol. Yes, he may not be notable, but really -- a new editor who has made 3 edits in article space, all deleting material from David Bergstein's article? The article now has one sentence and a list of films. Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just started editing and this is the first subject I have started working on, so I am working real hard to earn respect and do the right thing, after researching David Bergstein for last 3 hours on every public forum, I only come up with law suits and negative press, there is not a single independent article that shows how David Bergstein has done the facts his article claimed, for instance the article claimed he is a experienced Investment banker with over 3b in deals, there is no public source that can validate that claim, it looks like a PR firm has been hired to clean up the image and a positive article with self-proclaiming facts is the only positive article in the public space. Wiki has not become a platform for advertisement, this article should be deleted immediately, I say this after a very through research. Even the movies claimed in the list, when you click on those movies Wiki have negative news associated to David Bergstein for example click on the film “Nailed” in his list and follow the news reference under “Nailed” --Nlfestival (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nlfestival. This guy is a nobody and the investment banking claims are not only false, but completely random and unsupported by any facts whatsoever. His press always seems to be negative when you conduct real research. We want to preserve Misplaced Pages's reputation for legitimacy and credibility, which means deleting this article. Remember: it's not about the quantity of articles, it's the quality.

<- See regarding Nlfestival's connection to this issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Elliott Murphy

• Elliott Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Elliott Murphy (talk · contribs)

A puff piece, largely unsourced. I've begun copy editing, but this could use a lot more attention. One question I've always had is whether long listings of redlinked recordings and publications are appropriate; they provide further evidence of the subject's productivity, but if they're not linked to their own pages they look like promotional listcruft. Any assistance will be welcome. JNW (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've done some clean up but it needs more.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

John Gerzema

Perhaps someone, or some ones, can have a look at this very puffy article which also appears to have key sentences copied from all over the interwebz (I removed the most egregious example, the opening sentence, already). I hate tagbombing, but I don't have the time, interest, or energy to go through this article which appears to be vanispam for a probably notable person. Your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri

Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In order to create a balanced article, we need to add Criticism and Refutation section to this page. Some user called GorgeCustersSabre keeps on deleting it again and again giving reason that it is not sourced well. The source of the paragraph is one of the leading English newspaper published in Pakistan and it can be checked and verified. If user is acting as a proxy for Mr Qadri, I would request him to stop doing it as we need to have balanced approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar Farooq 78 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• I see no reason to believe that The Islamic Post is a reliable source, let alone "one of the leading English newspaper published in Pakistan". You would be wise to take this up on WP:RSN before re-inserting it in the article. If it's not reliable or authoritative, there is no reason to accept its criticism in a BLP. In the meantime, I am reverting your edit. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• I do note that the article (even after I went through it quickly) needs to be cleaned up and checked for neutrality. The same applies to Minhaj-ul-Quran and the associated laundry list of organizations. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• A 'balanced' article would not assert in Misplaced Pages's voice that "On 12 April 2012 Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri was challenged and refuted by scholars of eminent Islamic institute, Al Azhar Islamic University, Cairo, Egypt regarding his self proclaimed title of Shaikh ul Islam." The scholars in question may have claimed to have 'refuted' him (or more accurately, to have refuted his claim to be a "Sheikh-ul-Islam"), but we aren't obliged to take this assertion as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Len Horowitz

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

Information contained in this article is false and defaming. It has been reported in the past, no actions have been taken.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Necrotanic (talk • contribs)

This article needs attention. There is almost no biographical information. Instead editors have made it a battleground for controversial medical issues by citing the subjects writings.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree the article is a mess, but I see no defamatory information there. In fact, I'd say it is, if anything, laudatory of Dr. Horowitz. Can user Necrotanic give an example of the problematic information? --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Legal change of name

I am aware of the Bradley/Chelsea Manning situation but have not really followed the farrago of how to refer to that person on Misplaced Pages. Can someone please confirm that I've done the right thing in moving Dominic Noonan to Domenyk Lattlay-Fottfoy - this guy legally changed his name at some unspecified point in the past and news reports now refer to him under the latter monicker, although they mention his former name also. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your move as undiscussed and controversial. Furthermore, we do not use the legal name, we use the WP:COMMONNAME - hence why we have Jimi Hendrix not James Marshall Hendrix; Malcolm X not Malik El-Shabazz; Peter Sutcliffe not Peter Coonan etc. etc. The Manning issue is entirely different as that relates to trans identity. GiantSnowman 15:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. I would have thought that BLP trumps COMMONNAME. It is scarcely controversial - the change is a legal fact and happened at least a couple of years ago (news reports refer to it as that time) - but what the heck. I'll respond further on the discussion that you have presumably opened, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Calderstones School

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

Earlier revisions of this article (the four spanned by https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Calderstones_School&action=historysubmit&diff=576483178&oldid=576416800 ) include the real names of two musicians who attended the school. As far as I know those names are not public knowledge and per Misplaced Pages:BLPPRIVACY I suggest those revisions be hidden from general view. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Birmingham

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

"== biorgraphy of Stephen Birmingham lists his book The Grandees as published in 1997 but I have a copy (without an isbn number) published in 1971, =="

In the biography of Stephen Birmingham his book The Grandees, America's Sephardic Elite, is listed as published in 1997 and has an isbn number, but I have an edition published in 1971 without an isbn number that you might want to add. Sincerely, Virginia Castro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.177.186.101 (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this falls under WP:Original research. If you can find a citable reference that states the book was published in 1971, you are more than welcome to add this information to the article (with the citation). Without a citation to the contrary, the article must rely on its present sources (specifically ones returned using the ISBN) and place the date of publication at 1997, even if you have a book that states otherwise. Also see WP:Published, which includes a description of circumstances where a book may be distributed on a limited basis but not "published" as we define it here. Dwpaul (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

According to Worldcat, the IP editor is likely correct: http://www.worldcat.org/title/grandees-americas-sephardic-elite/oclc/130038&referer=brief_results --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Very good. Can WorldCat be used as a cited source here? Dwpaul (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

We have a template for it, so I'm assuming the answer is, "yes". I'll add this to the article.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to state for the record that this does not fall under WP:OR. A reliable source for the publication date of a book is... the copyright page of the book itself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Robert N. Rooks

Robert N. Rooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been blanked several times in the last few days by an IP editor who wants it to be removed, accusing another IP editor of sabotaging it with unreliable sources; the editor who removes the content also replaces it with personal attacks against a person claimed to be the other editor. Many of the references appear to be primary sources or not available online, so it isn't clear whether they verify the article's content, and I'm not certain whether this meets WP:GNG - I proposed it for deletion but the {{prod}} template was removed. Peter James (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Replaced prod. We'll see what happens. FWIW, all sources in old versions are apparently court documents, so this seems a clear case of both BLP and OR problems.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And all of the sources that were there appeared to be market wire "pr" releases.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In declining speedy deletion, User:JamesBWatson (an admin) chose to restore the policy-violating material. I have removed it again - and if it is restored, I will continue to do so, regardless of the status of the person restoring it. Crap like that simply doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In its current form it's a non-notable BLP so Afd anyone?--ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed a non-notable BLP, so I have taken it to AfD. I have seen several editors, here and elsewhere, indicating that they think it should be deleted, and more than one of them has specifically mentioned AfD, so I can't begin to understand why none of them nominated it there before I did. However, lack of evidence of notability is the only problem. The essential facts of the negative statements in the article are supported by highly reliable sources, much more so than is to be seen in hundreds of articles on non-notable subjects that are taken to AfD and are not blanked. I see no good reason whatever why this one should be blanked (or virtually blanked) while deletion is being discussed. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I also fail to see why the article should be blanked. The the sources seem perfectly adequate to cover BLP to me, at least for the duration of an AFD. Sources not being available online is not a lack of reliability or verifiability, so that is a non-starter. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you even read WP:BLPPRIMARY? We do not cite court documents as references for convictions in BLPs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have raised this matter at WP:ANI. I have also made it clear in deleting the offending matter again that I will take this to the WMF if necessary - it is worth noting that the supposed 'highly reliable sources' included alleged 'court documents' actually hosted on the website of a business Rooks has been in a legal dispute with... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have thought about this at considerable length, and decided that I was mistaken in declining the speedy deletion nomination as an attack page. I intended to come back and delete the article, but by the time I had a chance to get back on line Drmies had already deleted it. I believe I was reading CSD G10 too narrowly. I also think that I was giving too much weight to some aspects of the BLP policy and too little to other aspects. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Stan Romanek

Please review Stan Romanek -- This page seems a thinly veiled attack on the subject - headings are polemical and lack objective tone (e.g., "===A Jaw-Dropping Inconsistency==="). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:35A0:1B40:F460:19BF:9B8E:9DE (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed some of the more of the worst offending material. GiantSnowman 12:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Frank Spooner

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

The name of Frank Spooner's wife is Mary Louise Flippo not Mary Catherine Flippo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.81.172 (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The name of Frank Spooner's wife (and children) is unreferenced, so I have removed. GiantSnowman 14:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Godfrey Bloom

User talk:92.12.51.89 is repeatedly changing the straightforward wp:rs cited statement that Godfrey Bloom's father was a fighter pilot, describing it as a piece of puffery! JRPG (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not straightforward at all. I could claim in an interview that my father was Superman, it doesn't make it accurate. Both of you are edit warring, please take it to the article talk page. GiantSnowman 16:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Montana Fishburne

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

This article is exclusively sourced to tabloids and gossip blogs. I removed these sources, but another editor keeps restoring them. Please advise.

(Note that I've also nominated the article for deletion as I don't think this young woman meets WP:GNG, lacking the high-quality sources addressing her in detail that would be needed to write an encyclopedic biography. See WP:BLP1E, see WP:NOTINHERITED: Family members of celebrities also must meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative.) Draco 16:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I say let's see what people say at the AFD regarding notability/sourcing. GiantSnowman 16:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles being discussed at AFD are not exempt from BLP, so material that clearly violates BLP should be removed.--ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

B. Lynn Winmill

B. Lynn Winmill is a US federal district judge who recently issued a temporary restraining order in a case alleging a former employee was planning to release the company's source code. The judge took note of the fact that the employee self identified as a "hacker" on his web site in deciding to order that the employee's hard drive be imaged and returned to him without first giving him notice. This was criticized in a blog and picked up on slashdot. An IP keeps inserting a tendentious description of the judge's action, based on the blog, slashdot and the court order itself. None of these meets the requirements of RS and BLP, and, as several people mentioned on slashdot, a careful read of the court order does not support the blog's claims, e.g. there were additional factors supporting the TRO. I've already reverted 3 times, so another pair of eyes would be helpful here.--agr (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The judgement is real, the judge's only decision of public note and concern is this as shown in the headlines generated by this decision. It is a fact that the judgement happened and it is cited. It is a fact that at issue is the 4th amendment and its protection against unreasonable search and seizure is at issue, there is a citation on this that while not "primary" is absolutely valid and describes the issue. It is a fact that being a self-described "hacker" was central to judgement granting the search warrant and this is verifiable in the judgement and the article cited. It is a FACT that this generated controversy in popular online forums such as slashdot's "YRO" - "your rights online" section. This is clearly cited, and citing the actual online controversy is a valid citation of a PRIMARY source by definition, it is a direct link to the controversy regardless of what you think of that forum. Repeatedly deleting everything on this issue on the disputed assertion that this is badly cited is inappropriate censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorbie (talk • contribs) 09:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The jugement is indeed real, here is a link http://www.scribd.com/doc/176684845/Battelle-v-Southfork-Order . Judges issue ruling all the time and quite often they make someone unhappy. We simply can't include every disputed ruling a judge makes in their bio. It is bedrock policy on Misplaced Pages that contentious information on a living person must be based on reliable sources. Blogs and online discussion forums like slashdot are not acceptable for this purpose. The ruling itself is a primary source, and, while usable, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." per WP:PRIMARY. Your opinion that this is a 4th amendment issue is contradicted on the article talk page by someone who claims to be a lawyer, and neither opinion can be a basis for what goes in the article. If this particular ruling gets significant coverage in a reliable secondary source, it may merit inclusion in the judge's bio, subject to WP:WEIGHT. Absent any such coverage, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages.--agr (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

While I generally agree with this, it is my understanding that WP:BLPPRIMARY supersedes the general application of WP:PRIMARY, so the Scribd document is not usable. E.g.: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Am I correct in this understanding? --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If a judge issues a ruling that is notably controversial as reflected by sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources, then I think we can cite the judge's ruling itself as a source for what that ruling actually says. But any interpretation of the ruling requires a reliable secondary source. BLPPRIMARY goes on to say "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." --agr (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY. And I'm fairly sure Slashdot is not a reliable source, so the IP needs one that says exactly what they are attempting to insert into the article. §FreeRangeFrog 16:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

^ "Steven Dorff, Blu-Cigs Spokesman"

why a do follow backlink to blusigs.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.178.205 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean the reference? Seems valid enough. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're referring to. §FreeRangeFrog 16:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:WikiLeaks

Yes, this is about Chelsea Manning again. Template:WikiLeaks has for quite a while included both names ("Chelsea Manning (formerly known as Bradley Manning)"), but User:Yworo has removed it as a BLP violation, and claimed a 3RR exemption. Now, I thought the consensus (after much discussion and arbitration) was that "Bradley" does not in itself contradict WP:MOS and is not a BLP violation. Would we be able to get some clarity on this? StAnselm (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a little disingenuous to claim that merely mentioning Chelsea used to be Bradley is in itself a BLP violation. The name change is not universally known, and it helps people identify the person by the name they know them as in the nav template. And if I were Yworo I'd be wary of testing that 3RR immunity principle in a context like this one. Since the article already obviously mentions it (or should it be removed from there as well?) this is more a case of seeking consensus, not yelling "BLP!!" because you don't like how something is worded. §FreeRangeFrog 02:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Marty Ehrlich article -- WP:Conflict of interest, formatting and sourcing issues

See here and here. Neither version of the article is good, but the one that User:Martyehrlich (who claims to be Marty Ehrlich) keeps reverting to is certainly the worse of the two versions. Flyer22 (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I left some thoughts at User talk:Martyehrlich. Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Including for the revert. Flyer22 (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson

I'm going offline for a while. Could others please keep an eye on this article? An IP is adding the implication that the victim is an accomplice. There has been discussion on this point on the article's talk page. The article's wording may well be improvable - but it's a sensitive BLP issue and needs consensus. I've warned the IP on their talk page and in my last revert's edit summary about the consequences of edit warring. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The edits here have clearly crossed the BLP line, so I've semiprotected the page for three days to prevent further IP vandalism. Lankiveil 08:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC).

This allegation (that the victim was complicit in her abduction and/or the murder of her mother and brother) was exhaustively discussed here and on the article's Talk page weeks ago. There has never been any official statement to support the allegation, and official statements discredit it. Unless this changes, the allegation should be immediately reverted as a BLP violation if reintroduced. Dwpaul (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Manning (rower)

• Patrick Manning (rower) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Defamatory material inserted by IP with (apparently) an off-Wiki grudge. Reported to OTRS. §FreeRangeFrog 17:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Alexis Reich

Upon examining a recent edit to this article I noticed the single sentence discussing Karr's transition that read "Reich began hormone replacement therapy and to transition gender identity in early 2010 including a legal name change" and this had one source. Then I noticed this source was Inside Edition which is essentially a tabloid. I questioned this as being a valid source on the article's talk page, and another editor added several more "sources", all of which (including the original Inside Edition link) are included below.

1. "John Mark Karr Gets a Sex Change". Inside Edition. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
2. Barnes, Ed (May, 24, 2010). "John Mark Karr Re-Emerges to Form a JonBenet Cult". Fox News. Retrieved 24 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. Boone, Christian (July 6, 2011). "The enigma formerly known as John Mark Karr is now a piece of art". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
4. Rossen, Jeff (June 2, 2010). "Ex-fiancee: Karr wants to form child sex cult". Today. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
5. "John Mark Karr Gets Sex Change: Report". Huffington post. May 29, 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
6. Harrell, Ashley (May 24, 2010). "Report: John Mark Karr, Reputed Pedophile, Formed Cult of JonBenet Lookalikes". SF Weekly. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
7. Grace, Nancy (May 25, 2010). "Man Who Claimed JonBenet Ramsey Killing Accused of Cyber-Stalking". CNN. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
8. De Yoanna, Michael (March 30, 2010). "Is John Mark Karr Now a Woman?". 5280 Magazine. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
9. "http://ksfm.cbslocal.com/2010/05/13/jonbenet-ramseys-fake-killer-is-now-living-as-a-woman/". KSFM. May 13, 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
10. Rowson, Kevin (June 8, 2010). "John Mark Karr: New Name, New Troubles". 11 Alive. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
11. Lavietes, Bryan (August 23, 2012). "Pedro Hernandez: Killer, Crazy or Both?". TruTV. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
12. Burke, Alafair (June 8, 2010). "They're Baa-aaaaack!". Alafair Burke. Retrieved 24 October 2013.

However there is a big problem here. All of the sources included either explicitly reference the Inside Edition claim (one article uses a nebulous "it's been reported") or they don't even support the statement being made. If the Inside Edition article isn't reliable, neither are the rest of the sources that refer to it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all of the sources and the information it was supporting.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Narendra Modi

Certain users have blatantly violated the BLP policy by putting some extremely maligning, libelous and controversial sentences to be made appearing as Misplaced Pages voice, although the matter is not proven anywhere. The person mentioned in the article is a highly popular and respected political leader occupying a post as democratically elected Chief Minister of a large Indian state. Link: The last sentence if this para. has extremely hateful content appearing as Misplaced Pages's voice. While discussing it on the talk page, these bunch of users threaten to block/ notify for not towing to their line. These users are Sitush, Darkness Shines, Maunus, RegentsPark. The user Darkness Shines is accused of being a proxy of a banned user T-banned MarshalN20. Many others have raised objections to make certain malintentional sentences to be removed or not made appear as Misplaced Pages voice, but they steamroll everyone, term it as consensus (which is infact discussion among these bunch of users only) and threaten to block the person. One has not seen so much vitriolic, hateful content in any other BLP. Even a news report termed as hoax has been included in the article . Request to please look into the issue and make some modifications in libelous contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True win (talk • contribs) 03:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Larry Klayman

Larry Klayman has earned some press lately for making some inflammatory statements about Barack Obama. On Wednesday, an IP editor added what at first blush appeared to be vandalism to his article -- a statement that he "molested his children." But the IP also cited this Ohio appellate court decision, which appears to bear out the claim, more or less. Amazingly, however, there are very few (or no) reliable sources on the subject, as far as I can tell. The only candidate appears to be this source, whose reliability lies somewhere in a gray zone. I lean toward it being citable with attribution. The author, Terry Krepel, has a declared political bias and suggests his stories are self-edited (see here), but he's a veteran professional journalist with strong creds, he's been cited a number of times elsewhere on WP (without attribution, no less), his website is independently funded, and his language in the article about molestation is arguably overcautious.

My question: Can material from this source regarding the subject's "inappropriate behavior with his children" or "inappropriate touching" be added to this BLP? Talk page discussion at Talk:Larry Klayman#BLP.

I realize this query could have gone equally to WP:RSN, but given the inflammatory nature of the allegations I thought this would be a place to start. I have no skin in this game except that to hope that a consensus is reached. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if it were better sourced, the material does not belong in the article. At the moment, though, neither the primary source nor the opinion piece can be used in support of this material. In my view, it's not even a close decision.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Found a few sources, but I don't think we're at the threshold yet where we could consider inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/09/bradlee_deans_attorney_larry_klayman_allegedly_sexually_abused_his_own_children.php
• http://wonkette.com/485407

The appellate court decision cannot be used as a sole source, per BLP/PRIMARY. The Tripod website is definitively not an acceptable source for BLP. I agree with Gamaliel that there is not enough reliable secondary-source coverage at this time to permit us to include this incident. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all three of you. I'd like to understand why you believe the Krepel source is unreliable (not just whether). As I see it there are factors cutting both ways. An analysis of those factors (and any others) would be helpful. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think , after having read all the links, that these allegations will likely never have a reliable source for their inclusion. Given that accusations of this nature especially require impeccable sources, we have essentially nothing to go on here. Whether we are talking about the blog or the court document, these allegations (and that is all they are) have been leveled in the context of a divorce. The decision makes it clear that the allegations were followed up by the authorities, and no charges were, or are likely to be, filed (at least in regards to those specific allegations). If there were further secondary sources to back it up, the most I say we could use the decision to support would be something like, "Courts have in the past questioned his veracity in serious matters." Unless and until a news outlet reports something more substantial, there's not much I think we can say. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is it unreliable? Because it's exactly what you say - a self-published personal blog by someone with a political bias. That kind of source, regardless of whether it's on the right or on the left, is precisely the sort of source that BLP specifically prohibits from being used for contentious, potentially-defamatory material. The sort of allegations being discussed here are the most damning sort of defamatory material and must have sources that are beyond reproach. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Brian Froud

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

the whole personal life section needs a re-write, persons are not linked nor explained and teh Authors son is getting a listing here when he shuld have another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.88.144 (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 11:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Stone Phillips

I wish to request semi protected, auto-confirmed, or some other assistance for the Stone Phillips article. Over the past few days a person or persons keeps removing valid, properly sourced, information regarding the birth name of Stone Phillips. I believe it may be a case of sock puppetry with one person using two similar usernames as well as an IP. I have attempted to establish a dialogue with the person(s) both on the article talk page and their individual talk pages to no avail. I've explained to them that the source for the information is one thats been used on multiple other Misplaced Pages articles and has always proven to be accurate before and even provided them with a link to the source. Other experienced editors have also reverted the undue removal of the information but the person(s) continue to persist. I don't wish to get myself in trouble for edit warring, so any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Sector001 (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A rep for Mr. Phillips has contacted OTRS regarding this, and I'll update when I have more information. Hopefully because we've replied to them the attempts to remove the (allegedly) incorrect name will stop, but if they don't then feel free to request protection at WP:RFPP. §FreeRangeFrog 19:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've verified that the book does list the name "Lester Stockton Phillips" via Amazon's "look inside" feature. But I've also looked him up in the usually reliable Biography in Context database, and that lists him as "Stone Stockton Phillips". If we find a few other sources with the latter name, maybe we can just ignore the one source listing the former name as an outlier. Gamaliel (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think (fwiw) that it is probably a good idea to remove the challenged detail and put "Stone Stockton Phillips" because I'd bet a pound to a penny it is going to go that way, and it'd be nice to get it right asap. It really does look that the hitherto solid reference source has got it wrong this time. --Roxy the dog (Morphic Message Me!) 20:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If we can get a formal citation for that I'll change it. §FreeRangeFrog 21:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Forgive my intervention in this, I just had a peek at the page history, I have no interest nor reference, just a curiosity. as to what it was about. It seems Mr. Phillips wants to get this corrected, that's all. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm leaning towards the source that identifies him as "Lester Stockton Phillips". It's hard to imagine that his parents gave him the first name of "Stone". It's clearly a nickname. Liz 21:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That was my thought as well, Liz. Mr. Phillips was born in an era when parents usually didn't pick non-traditional names for their children, as so many are wont to do now. As far as it being Mr. Phillips with the two usernames on the article edit summary, well as we all know there's no verification required for any John Q. Public to claim to be Stone Phillips when selecting a username. If an official, verifiable, representative of the real Mr. Phillips has requested correction/change then I have no problem with making it so, obviously. But to have an unsubstantiated username or IP user bend us to their will by just being headstrong is wrong IMHO. Sector001 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. lets just wait and see. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually "Stone" is not that uncommon as a name, and realistically we can't expect to measure its validity simply because we feel he was born on or before a certain date. In any case, I explained to his rep that we need either for the author of the source to disown his work, a competing source (in which case we can fall back to WP:ON), or a primary one for negative verification, but we'll see. §FreeRangeFrog 21:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for real names unless the subject of the BLP objects. After all, if Misplaced Pages can honor a porn star's request to delete her real name, it can do the same for a news reporter. Liz 21:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Seriously, FRFrog, you've heard of another man with the first name of Stone? The closest I know is Rock Hudson but that was completely made-up. L.

Yeah, actually there was a guy at a company I worked for a few years ago. Stone was actually his middle name, but he went by that. I guess it was kewl. §FreeRangeFrog 21:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

@Sector001: Is this something you or other editors are emotionally attached to? Could we remove it on a simple courtesy basis? §FreeRangeFrog 21:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source that gives his name as Stone Stockton Phillips. It's a long Google Books URL, so I had to shorten it: ow.ly/qbRpH Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 22:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

AHA! Thank you! §FreeRangeFrog 22:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

@Sector001: As per the source provided by @Taylor Trescott:, and standard operating procedure in these cases, I've amended the article to remove the "Lester" thing. We can add a note in the lede specifying that there is a source that has him under a different name, but one two conflicting sources plus the communication from the subject's representative tilts this in favor of the nays. §FreeRangeFrog 22:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's another source. §FreeRangeFrog 22:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well done. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey it's all good with me. I try not to get too emotionally attached to articles, especially a news guy I don't really have much of an opinion on either way. My primary goal is always accuracy first. This was just a first occasion that there was some question as to the reliability of that particular source, which I've used on several other Missouri-related articles over the years. Perhaps if it had been another veteran editor things would have been different (for one, we'd have been much more likely to work it out ourselves). But when it was a brand new editor, using multiple names/IPs and seeming to be a bit recalcitrant, I didn't want to simply give up because some Phillips fan didn't like the first name or considered it unflattering. "Warts and all" is usually my motto. THANKS to everyone for all the comments and advice. Much appreciated. Have a great Wiki kind of day, y'all! Sector001 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You did everything right, you had a valid reliable source, and the IPs and/or SPAs were edit warring. It's just that they think that's the way to solve their problem. Usually the second step when they get reverted and blocked is a strongly worded email to OTRS. So everything went according to plan §FreeRangeFrog 23:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

RVIVR

Editors continually reporting a biased statement, citing tumblr.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RVIVR&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/RVIVR

Thanks!

• There is a request for page protection currently active for this page. The statements should stop after a lock's been slapped on it. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 01:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

R. W. Johnson

R. W. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm reposting a request from the Help Desk here:

Dear Wikip33edia

I am writing about the entry on myself - RW Johnson. There is a lot of poor information here, supplied by a small sect of Trotskyites who wish to do me down for obvious ideological reasons. They have supplied you with information citing, for example, the one critical review (by a rival writer) of a best-selling and well-reviewed book I wrote (South Africa's Brave New World) and they also both fomented the agitation alleging racism by me and then supplied you with stuff about it. All the nonsense about baboons.

For the record, several members of my family are black or married to black people. I have a black nephew and niece, black grand-nephews, a black daughter in law, a whole set of black in-laws - and well, need I go on ? The idea that I am a white racist is, frankly, laughable. Also, the biog online makes no mention of the fact that I was a Professor at the Sorbonne, that one of my books (KAL 007) was filmed in Hollywood, that I am the Chairman of the Advisory Board (and also a founder) of Good Governance Africa and that I travel the Continent a good deal trying to set up GGAs in all the major centres. Similarly, no less than three of my former students featured in the British cabinet of 2010 - they all clubbed together to send me a photo of it, signed by all three - Hunt, Huhne and Hague). Perhaps half of the staff of the Economist are also my former students including Bill Emmott, the former editor. Similarly, I have many friends among the French political elite inc. a number of Communists and Socialists and also the Gaullist leader, Francois Fillon. The Vice Chancellor of the University of Cape Town, Max Price, is another of my former students. In the official history of Magdalen College my name features more than any other in the modern period. As Senior Bursar of Magdalen I was responsible for the completion of the Great Tower (then restored), a distinction which I share only with Cardinal Wolsey who helped erect it in the first place. I was also responsible for turning the whole college around financially and then for dramatically improving its academic results. I also helped set up the Stanford University campus in Oxford. 1If you go to my website, rwjohnson.co.za, you will get a far better view of what I do. Frankly, what you have about me at the moment is just a disgrace.

RW Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.227.243.59 (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The article talk page includes an OTRS complain reply and noted action from February 2010. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors are not able to add the product of original research to articles, even if invited to do so by the subject. Any information here must be reflected in reliable sources cited in the article. While your accomplishments are impressive, only those that are documented in/by an independent, reliable source can be included here, with citations of those sources. If you would like to supply links or directives to these sources as materials for editors to work with, you could certainly do so on the Talk page. Conversely, if there are specific, unsourced or poorly-sourced claims in the article you feel should be removed, you are free to point those out, either here or on the article's Talk page; these will generally be removed promptly under the BLP policy (assuming citations cannot be found to support them). Re: the previous OTRS complaint, it is unclear to me what the exact material was that was being challenged and/or whether it has been reintroduced subsequent to the entry in Talk. Perhaps the subject could advise. Dwpaul (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ludwig von Mises Institute

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There appears to be a BLP violation via synthesis of material of David Bernstein on the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

The following has been repeatedly added to the article.

In 2008 George Mason University Law Professor David Bernstein wrote on the The Volokh Conspiracy website that he refused overtures to publish with the Institute because of his view that the Institute "play footsie" with racists, anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.

The actual source contains.

Yet, as Kirchik in TNR notes, there are really two disparate groups to whom the limited-government message appeals: philosophical libertarians (which consists of a tiny percentage of Americans, but something like 10% are at least inclined toward a general libertarian perspective), and those who hold a deep grudge against the federal government based on a range of nutty conspiracy theories, ranging from old chestnuts like a freemason conspiracy, a Council on Foreign Relations/Bildeberger conspiracy, or a conspiracy to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty in favor of world government; to variations on old anti-Semitic themes (ranging from domination by Zionist conspirators to domination by Jewish bankers led by the Rothchilds to domination by Jews in Hollywood); to newer racist theories; to novel conspiracy theories about 9/11, the pharmaceutical industry, etc.

Mainstream libertarian groups like Cato and Reason have nothing to do with the latter types, but other self-proclaimed libertarian groups, like the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, play footsie with them. (I recently turned down an invitation to do a book review for an academic journal published by LVMI because I don't want my name associated with the Institute.) Paul himself seems to have made a career of straddling the line between respectable libertarian sentiment and conspiracy-mongering nuttiness, receiving support and accolades from both sides.

My problem with the addition is that the actual source does not explicity have Bernstein saying that the Ludwig Von Mises Institute "plays footsie" with racists, anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists. The second paragraph of Bernstein (above) throws LVM into a general category with all kinds of possible issues, but does not specifically make the statement being presented. Presenting the opinions of a person is something that should not be taken lightly. If we are going to ascribe a position or statement to a living person we better damn well make sure that that person said exactly what we are saying that they said.

A literal reading of Bernstein would at most imply that he thinks the LVM partakes in "newer racist theories; to novel conspiracy theories about 9/11, the pharmaceutical industry, etc" because he ascribes the LVM to "the latter types", which would appear to mean the last few categories from the 1st paragraph. But even this requires some Original Research on the part of the reader of the section. This section should be removed immediately as a clear violation of BLP in that it ascribes an opinion to a living person that is not explicitly stated in the source. To be clear, this is not an issue about LVM. Arzel (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an attempt to split the finest of hairs. Someone who adheres to "newer racist theories" is a racist; someone who professes "old anti-Semitic themes" is an anti-Semite. Bernstein is clearly documented as holding the view that the edit ascribes to him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Please point to where Bernstein explicitly said that the LVM plays "footsie" with Racists and anti-Semites. Arzel (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be best for the Misplaced Pages article to say that Bernstein thinks LVM plays footsie with people who "hold a deep grudge against the federal government based on a range of nutty conspiracy theories". I do not think Bernstein said (or meant) that LVM plays footsie with that entire range (i.e. with every single person in that range).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how is this a BLP issue? The subject here is an organization, not an individual. There is already a thread on this and some apparent general sanctions mentioned at AN/I. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Bevan Morris

• Bevan Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP seems to have too much minor detail that borders on fluff to my eyes but I'd like a second opinion. Its a short article. Could someone take a look and make changes as needed? Some things in the article that seem non-notable are:

• In 2009, Morris was living in Adelaide, Australia and reportedly spent only a few weeks a year in the Fairfield area
• In the 1990s, he was reported to be the lowest-paid college president in Iowa, receiving an annual salary of $9,000 in 1994.
• In 1994, Morris wrote the Foreword to the Maharishi's book "Science of Being and Art of Living." The 2001 edition, published by Plume (a division of Penguin), contains this Foreword. In it, Morris lays out a historical account of the Maharishi's contribution in the field of knowledge and the technologies for the development of human consciousness.
• During the 1992 presidential campaign, Morris said that "coherent brain-wave patterns indicate greater creativity, intelligence, harmony with natural law and less neuroses" and "We believe that of all the presidential candidates, he has the most highly coherent brain."

Thanks in advance, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Rand Paul

• Rand Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article inaccurately states his views about same-sex marriage. I attempted to change it to comply with our sources, but another editor is edit-warring to keep the violation in. The exact same thing is happening over the exact same sentence in Political positions of Rand Paul.

I'm sure that WP:BLP allows me to revert as many times as I like, but I'd sooner let the community decide this in advance. MilesMoney (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

From the NYT

A fervent opponent of big government, Dr. Paul believes that federal authorities should stay out of drug enforcement, and that same-sex marriage, which he opposes, should be a decision left to the states.

MilesMoney's edit.

Paul opposes same-sex marriage and believes it should be made illegal at the state level.

PrarieKid's edit.

Paul personally opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the states to decide.

It is pretty clear. If anyone is violating BLP it is MilesMoney. Arzel (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Arzel's interpretation. The citation says literally that Rand believes it should be left to the states, not that the states should make same-sex marriage illegal. Suspect that MilesMoney is really trying to say "the states should be the ones to decide on the legality of same-sex marriage," and I would propose that as a NPOV way to express the concept without giving undue weight. Dwpaul (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Paul does want states to make it illegal; he opposes same-sex marriage in his own state. MilesMoney (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think I figured out Arzel's confusion. We know that:

1. Paul opposes any laws about same-sex marriage at the federal level, pro or con.
2. Paul endorses laws against same-sex marriage in Kentucky.
3. Paul opposed same-sex marriage, personally.

What we don't know is what, if anything, Paul thinks of same-sex marriage laws in other states. It may well be that he endorses laws against same-sex marriage in states other than Kentucky, but we have no data so we can't say one way or the other.

I'm going to fix the article now to make this clear. MilesMoney (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you just stick to what he says? The sources do not say what you claim them to say. Arzel (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The source says he supports laws against same-sex marriage in Kentucky. MilesMoney (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT Where in that source does he say that he specifically supports laws against same-sex marriage in Kentucky? He did say that Kentucky did decide what to do in Kentucky and that the Federal government should stay out of it. He does support Kentucky to do whatever it wants to do. Arzel (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Rand said "... I've always said that the states have a right to decide. I do believe in traditional marriage, Kentucky has decided it, and I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise. There are states that have decided in the opposite fashion, and I don't think the federal government should tell anybody or any state government how they should decide this. ..." That does not say that he "endorses laws against same-sex marriage in Kentucky," it says that he endorses the right of Kentuckians to draft and pass their own law(s) on this topic without federal interference or encroachment. Perhaps Rand has said more about his opinion concerning Kentucky's law elsewhere, but not in these citations. Dwpaul (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen a source that says his opposition to same-sex marriage is purely personal, and everything we know points in the opposite direction, so why would we suggest that it is? This looks like a violation of WP:BLP. MilesMoney (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be a violation of WP:BLP to include an assertion not supported by the citations based on your inference that since no source you have seen says his opposition is purely personal, it must be therefore be more than that. Dwpaul (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I can easily show you a source that says Paul "opposes same-sex marriage". How does this allow us to say that his opposition is purely personal? MilesMoney (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me make this simpler. Our sources says he opposes same-sex marriage. Our article says his opposition is personal, not political or legal. But here's a source confirming his support for a federal amendment against same-sex marriage. This makes it obvious that his opposition to same-sex marriage is not merely personal, so the article is currently violating WP:BLP by saying that it is. MilesMoney (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The article uses neither "purely" nor "merely" to describe Paul's opposition. While you may think that something is obvious, the article need not and should not state something only because you think it so (and failing to state the "obvious" is not a BLP violation). The article should only include assertions supported by its citations, not by inferences. Dwpaul (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's exactly what it's implying, and that's contrary to our sources. We should change it so that it has no such false implication. MilesMoney (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Pat Condell

I would like clarification on whether the following statement at Pat_Condell#Atheism is ok to have:

He has been criticised by Christian author Dinesh D'Souza on AOL News, who said "If the televangelists are guilty of producing some simple-minded, self-righteous Christians, then the atheist authors are guilty of producing self-congratulatory buffoons like Condell."

D'Souza, Dinesh (26 September 2007). "Why Is This Atheist So Smug?". AOL News. Archived from the original on 12 September 2009. Retrieved 2009-09-20. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 20 February 2009 suggested (help)

I am thinking it may not be allowed because of WP:BLPSPS.--A pinhead (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure whether AOL News can reasonably be considered a self-published source, but other than using Condell as a poster child to insult atheist authors as a group, I'm not sure what relevancy this specific comment by D'Souza has to the subject of this article. If D'Souza offers more specific criticisms of Condell at the cite than "self-congratulatory" and "buffoon," perhaps those would more appropriate to cite in this article. Dwpaul (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Akahi Nui

This article has major issues. I think it is badly written, sourced and over exaggerated. The subject does appear to be notable as someone making claims to the throne of the Hawaiian Islands but as an encyclopedic article...it seems to be somewhat biased and the wording....odd to say the least. I am VERY concerned that Misplaced Pages is being used for political purposes here and the sourcing seems lacking and the links to off Wiki (I do see the irony in the word...yes) sites in the body of the article are inappropriate, to say the least.

All of the Hawaiian Royal family articles should be a concern to us as an encyclopedia as they are poorly written and sourced. Sadly, it appears there has been a great deal of time put into these articles but they are sadly lacking. Could we get more eyes on this article at least. The claims being made are not well sourced and seem to be a matter of contention. I have contacted the Bishop Museum in Hawaii and have joined Glam to better source these articles. Please...help!--Mark Miller (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution