Misplaced Pages

Derek Smart Derek Smart (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

• Derek Smart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Bill Huffman a long time detractor of video game developer Derek Smart continues to add libelous and poorly sourced material in the article which is protected by WP:BLP guidelines. Time and time again such material has been removed by myself and other editors, but they keep doing it. This is the same behavior they had on the Usenet and which led to a complete breakdown of serious discussions on various gaming threads. It was already established by other editors who created a small history of Huffman's actions, that his only reason for being on the page is to cause disruption, libel this person and prevent the article from being an npov one. The article was recently in ArbCom and the decision was clear as they pertain to following the rules. Yet, those rules are being adhered to by everyone but him. Here is today's episodes, as well as yesterday's and yet another. There are many more like that in which him and another editor User:Kerr Avon repeat these actions. Can someone here PLEASE stop by and set this straight? 208.60.251.161 12:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The above IP address leads to host-208-60-251-161.fll.bellsouth.net in Florida which is Derek smart's own ISP. Hence the above statement is likely from Smart himself and has to be taken with a grain of Salt. Regarding Huffman, Huffman has never edited the article per se as his edits shows. Huffman has joined in the discussion page only which is perfectly permissable. Anonymous IP addresses like the above from bellsouth were banned by arbcom from any editing of the derek smart article due to edit warring.Kerr avon 13:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please stop ignoring the Wiki rules and doing the same that got an RFc filed against you before (by another editor). You and Huffman are attempting to taint not only the article but also the talk page. Which is one of the reasons why the article ended up in ArbCom. That ruling has been largely ignored by your and your friends. It is easy to accuse someone of being Derek Smart just because they oppose you. Fact is, the article history shows that I am not the first and only editor who has raised this issue about the behavior of you and your friends. Quite a few established Wiki editors have in fact done the same and the evidence is right there on the article's archives. 209.214.20.148 14:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The very first sentence of this complaint, claiming that User:Bill Huffman has edited the Derek Smart article, is completely in error. The rest of the complaint, it seems to me, suffers from similar truthiness issues. Anyone reviewing this case should be sure to note Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart, where the arbitration committee held that both Derek Smart and his surrogates are banned from editing the article, although they are welcome to edit the talk page. Nandesuka 19:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the complaint is regarding posts where I have only attempted to respond to issues that the anonymous poster himself has raised. He falsely accused me of making a couple of false statements, I just addressed those items and the anonymous poster then makes the claim that defending myself is violating WP:BLP. I also responded to the anonymous poster's suggestion that Dr. Smart's Ph.D. should be referenced in the article even though there is no reliable source for the Ph.D. validity since Dr. Smart refuses to reveal the school that bestowed the degree. The anonymous poster has frequently deleted my comments and comments from others from the talk page. Whoever, looks at this might consider explaining to the anonymous poster that deleting discussion on the talk page is not a very constructive way of trying to convince other editors over to your views. Regards, Bill Huffman 22:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to comment that not only has Mr Huffman been editing appropriately - i.e. only to the talk page, but WP:BLP is being misapplied here. None of the material is prima facia libelious, and the talk page is the correct place to discuss its merits. The anon editor, who is presumably Derek Smart, is misguided in removing it from the talk page without discussion. --Haemo 20:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• 209.214.20.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 208.60.251.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

As noted by other editors, the COI SPA report was false. There have been no edits to the article since March 27. — Athænara ? 23:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Darius J Pearce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - No evidence of claimed 'attributed legislative change'. No citations in support of numerous comments. No notable reason for page existence. Should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aim Here (talk • contribs) 14:44, April 3, 2007 (UTC)

John T. Reed

• John T. Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I am a bit concerned as I have deleted some slanderous comments from this talk page twice but they've been reverted back in by an apparently serious editor. Also that User:Jscottccre who put the comments in has some personal score to settle. May be safest to delete the page or page history. --BozMo talk 17:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with deletion of the page. --PeterMarkSmith 06:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

T. Padmanabhan (Writer) T. Padmanabhan (Writer) (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

T. Padmanabhan (Writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This BLP swings from one end to another. At one place the subject is called a trend setter and at another place he is described as egoistic. No sources quoted // Weblogan 14:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed both the positive and negative opinions because they were just opinions, and uncited too. Steve Dufour 04:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Antony Flew Antony Flew (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

• Antony Flew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The article for Antony Flew is libelous. See the details at the discussion page under the title "This article is libelous". The article is not objective, gives a point of view (discrediting Antony Flew which is OK but Misplaced Pages is not the place to do this). Moreover, it is poorly written. This is a violation of the Misplaced Pages policy and I would like the article to be rewritten in a more impartial way. finsalscollons 83.53.126.58 09:52, April 8 2007 (UTC)

Some who have edited the article seem to have forgotten that it is a biography, not a philosophy article. The longest section, which needs ruthless pruning, gives undue weight to material which is itself excessive—e.g. that first introduced in August 2005 by and about Richard Carrier, one of those who are most determined to discredit the subject. — Athænara ? 04:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He seems to be 84 years old and 70% to 80% of the article is a discussion of one statement that he made when he was 80. Steve Dufour 10:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As per both the neutral point of view and biographies of living persons policies, I pruned this bio of the philosophical hatchet jobbing, improved upon the references, added a 1984 book which hadn't been listed (though, strangely, one of its chapters had been), etc. — Athænara ? 06:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Purushottam Nagesh Oak Purushottam Nagesh Oak (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

• Purushottam Nagesh Oak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article presents P.N.Oak in a negative bias (associated with Hindutva, etc) and presents critics that only make personal attacks. Furthermore, all supporters are labeled as "Hindu" in a way that takes away from their credibility. Despite attempts to undo this on many occasions and present it in as neutral as possible manner, the changes are constantly undone by
• Paul Barlow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who refuses to support those claims with WP:RS as per WP:BLP guidelines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kkm5848 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC). — Kkm5848 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I made a few changes in the wording to make it more neutral. This guy really does stir up a lot of passions. Steve Dufour 10:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani

• Gwen Stefani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The entire Gwen Stefani entry is filled with offensive language and incorrect information. It needs to be changed ASAP! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.216.182 (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

I think you must have seen the article in a temporarily vandalized state; the vandalism has been reverted. I see nothing obviously wrong with the article right now. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen Barrett#Request for comment: Board certification

? See also: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-05 Stephen Barrett

• Stephen Barrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I have removed a negative, unsourced statement from this article with the edit summary "Remove unsourced statement per WP:BLP and WP:NOR/WP:WEIGHT - in view of the latter, only reinsert if sourced in other than primary sources" (diff). User:Levine2112 then reverted my edit and added two sources. (diff) However, neither source supported the removed statement. I therefor reverted Levine2112 (diff) with the edit summary "rv: unsourced statement per WP:BLP and WP:NOR/WP:WEIGHT - these sources (1) do not support the assertion (2) do not show that this is in any way important. DO NOT REVERT without discussion on talk". A discussion on the talk page ensued, and Levine2112 became very argumentative and claimed that he did not understand my logic. Instead of waiting for a consensus to build, he inserted a slightly edited version of the disputed text elsewhere in the article without adding any sources showing why it is relevant and should be included. (diff). I have asked him to self-revert (diff) but so far he has not complied. I have waited some 40 minutes after that request to self-revert and am now requesting some guidance as to how to proceed. But I'm about to go to bed so perhaps an uninvolved admin can take a look. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 21:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not become argumentative. I only made an argument. There is a difference. I am still unclear of the point AvB is trying to make there and I have requested several times that he clarifies it. He has refused to. I have also provided as a source an entry on the Stephen Barrett talk page made by Stephen Barrett himself, user:Sbinfo. In this discussion, Barrett clearly states that he did in fact fail the neurological portion of his board certification exam in 1964 and never again re-took them. Thus he is not board certified. Furthermore, I have cited BLP#Using the Subject as a source to AvB to demonstrate that Barrett's comments on an article's talk page can be used as a source of information. I welcome anyone to come to the talk page to discuss my and AvB's points. Cheers! -- Levine2112 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The situation has worsened, but there's now a RFC. --Ronz 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Last post here was almost two weeks ago—is it over yet? — Æ. ? 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am the originator of this report and quite involved in editing this article so this is a qualified opinion - but yes, I think it is over. I no longer need the requested assistance or guidance (got myself up to speed by e.g. looking over some of your work here). Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 22:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's close to being over, but we've mediation now: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-05 Stephen Barrett. --Ronz 16:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Peter Dobbie Peter Dobbie (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

• Peter Dobbie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I got a phone call on Sunday from Peter Dobbie. Note that he is User:Peter dobbie, who has edited the article. It needs going over with a fine-toothed comb for sourcing and so forth - he really wasn't happy with the version before his edits. He also uploaded a pile of photos, but Redvers properly deleted them as not free-content images (and I emailed Mr Dobbie to explain we can't use with-permission images - but if we have the proper paperwork, that'll be a different matter). I hope to have time to look at it later (though I haven't since yesterday morning), but if others could give it a severe quality check that'd be really good - David Gerard 16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will do, and I'll maybe get some other people who are good at dealing with this sort of stuff in as well. Moreschi 16:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, he changed very little apart from adding those photos, two links and a brief new paragraph. Did he have any specific complaints? AvB ÷ talk 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing specific. He wasn't too happy to have an article at all, and he was quite unhappy that the photos he uploaded were deleted. I assume the harshest reasonable eye to BLP content should reduce its objectionability sufficiently - David Gerard 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My first impression is that the article is rather undersourced, although most or all of it is probably sourcable. Application of WP:BLP based on some general objectionability would prune the article quite severely until more sources are provided. I'm going off-line now, but will check in later to see what e.g. Moreschi et al. are thinking. AvB ÷ talk 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• User 200.171.98.161 added text verbatim in January 2006 from a speaker bureau website. Most of it had been in the article ever since. That webpage, not cited until today, is so far the only known reference, though user Wikiwoohoo (talk · contribs) (see article history) must have found something somewhere. — Athænara ? 19:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

AvB improved the situation an hour later. — Æ. ? 22:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this article (after edits by you and others) now complies with our BLP standards. AvB ÷ talk 23:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah Muhammad al-Durrah (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

Muhammad al-Durrah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is an unusual case on which it would be good to get some independent input. The subject has been extremely widely covered by the mainstream media. A cursory search of Google news archives suggests that the majority of mainstream sources agree that the subject is dead, though there is disagreement over who killed him. However, a limited number of mostly non-mainstream sources say that he is not dead, that his death was faked and that his continued existence has been covered up for the last 7 years by a wide-ranging international conspiracy. Consequently the article is listed in Category:Possibly living people.

Given the dispute over whether the subject is dead or alive, I've added the BLP template to the article talk page in order to err on the side of caution. However, if the BLP rules are followed, the sources that declare the subject to be alive - basically self-published sources and overtly partisan websites - will be problematic due to the WP:BLP#Reliable sources restrictions on the use of such sources.

I've not edited the article myself; I recall reading about the matter at the time, but that's about the limit of my knowledge. However, there's clearly a major issue about the sourcing. Some tendentious editing appears to be going on, with strong POV statements on the talk page and mainstream national newspapers being dismissed as non-reliable. The tone of the article is problematic and is dominated by the non-mainstream POV - undue weight is clearly an issue. Two thirds of the article is dedicated to the discussion of a conspiracy theory promoted (and self-published) by an professor of medieval history, a physicist and an engineer. The article would clearly benefit from the attention of some independent editors. -- ChrisO 19:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, it's not only self-published and partisan sources who are saying it; here's an article from the Los Angeles Times recounting the story. It's also not an international conspiracy theory, just a Pallywood suspicion. If you look at the Landes film, you can see the original footage, and I have to say it does look very like the boy is peeking out from under his hands at one point. There's also the strange business of the French court fining someone a tiny amount for allegedly having libeled the journalists who showed the original footage, by saying they had distorted it. The court accepted it was libel, strictly speaking, because the accuser didn't prove his case, but fined him something like a dollar to signal that the journalists didn't come out of the case well. I'm writing all this from memory so I'm sure I have some of the details wrong, but that's the gist of it. I'm not coming down on the side of the Pallywood allegation; I'm just saying it genuinely isn't a clear-cut case. SlimVirgin 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reference appears to be an opinion piece. I was under the impression that advocacy journalism was frowned upon as a source for BLP, but perhaps the noticeboard regulars can provide more advice on that.

I appreciate that you and the other editors of the article probably have your own POV on this subject, but let's not lose sight of the fact that biographies of any sort are supposed to "document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject." The article currently falls a long way short of that, as I've indicated above. -- ChrisO 20:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I have no POV on the issue. Second, advocacy journalism isn't frowned upon as a source for BLP. What counts is the reputation of the writer or publisher. If the LA Times considers it suitable for publication, then so do we, because they're a reliable third-party source. SlimVirgin 21:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to hear what others - without preconceptions - think on this issue. -- ChrisO 23:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying I have preconceptions? SlimVirgin 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

He probably was, though you obviously don't. I don't have any, either, and I agree with you. I have no idea why he's trying to delegitimise your neutral point of view of the situation. I decline to speculate about it, but it does offend me. — Athænara ? 01:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You've clearly gone through the sources and formed an opinion of the case, and you've edited the article. I'm simply looking for a view from someone who's not seen or edited the article before. That's all. -- ChrisO 07:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your view of my "preconception" is that I think the boy is alive. But if you look at my edits of the article and talk page, most of it has been to resist people who are trying to imply that e.g. Now that you've commented on my position, please take the trouble to go through my edits there, so that you can apologize. And in general, as several others have asked you to do, please stop commenting on what you think my views on various issues are, because you keep getting them wrong. SlimVirgin 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Gene R. Nichol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

College of William & Mary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A group of editors have been edit warring to add critical and misleading information to Gene R. Nichol and the leadership section of The College of William & Mary. These editors, who have only edited articles in this subject area, repeatedly add several accusations regarding Nichol. Probably their most libelous act is an attempted connection between Nichol and a campus sex show.

The editors insert wording implying that Nichol supported the show when he actually criticized it. The editors also claim that Nichol past presidency of the University of Colorado and UNC law schools resulted in ratings drops and the threat of losing ABA accreditation at Colorado.

None of the links used to cite these assertions support these claims. The ABA's threat regards an ongoing issue (even 10 years after Nichol left), and the cited article does not mention Nichol. The ratings drops are not shown in the citation reference, and another user says there was no drop. The possibly offending editors have ignored requests to discuss the issue on the talk page.--Bkwillwm 01:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Onestop53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Too late gn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hawaiibound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cka3n (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These four three seem to be the main culprits—did I miss some? This has been going on for more than a month. — Athænara ? 17:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Three users (who identically blank warnings from their talk pages) have been adding the same or similar content to articles. User Cka3n has been reverting them. All four have been warned of 3RR. (This post is not a conclusion—far from it—but an update.) — Æ. ? 00:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Paris71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ? BLOCKED

A fourth has moved in since the other three were given 3RR warnings. I suspect that this a sock puppetry issue which needs someone with more experience than I dealing with it. None of them discuss on article talk pages as per BLP policy. — Athænara ? 04:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page. FCYTravis 04:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also reported all four on WP:AIV. — Athænara ? 04:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of pride (and hubris), I want to clarify that I am a culprit of overly eager reversions (since abated), but that I am not a culprit of ignoring requests to discuss the issue or of failing to discuss the changes on talk pages (although I put my concerns only on the William and Mary page, not on both the William and Mary page and the Nichol page). Indeed, some of those requests to discuss were my requests. Just trying to make sure my flaws are clear! Cka3n 05:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Note: the Nichol article has been protected; the College article has not. — Athænara ? 06:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Cat Porter (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

• Cat Porter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The infobox says she was born in Leeds, the text and categories say Pembury, Kent // Corvus cornix 19:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

One issue has been resolved (Porter was born in Kent) but this section will need to remain active a bit longer. The article has been plagued with disruptive editing for weeks. — Athænara ? 00:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing ceased. — Æ. ? 03:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Kim (director) Michael Kim (director) (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

• Michael Kim (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I would like a review/removal of this entry for notable graduates of Palisades Charter High School and also as a notable biography. There is no evidence to show that this individual is a notable individual. Also, there is no evidence to show that he has attended and graduated YonSei University, or has worked in such positions as stated in his biography (eg. Music video director, talk show host). Palialumni 21:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah. You want Articles for Deletion or even Proposed Deletion for reasons of notability. I'll PROD it for the time being on your behalf, and if anyone objects, then it can be sent to AfD. Fieari 21:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Also since there is no reference to those claims in the biography. Palialumni 22:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Irons Jeremy Irons (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

• Jeremy Irons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -

His "private life" sections contains only text from some other article, nothing about him. As I do not have information to correct it myself, perhaps someone can do it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.35.252.194 (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for letting us know. It was vandalism that had sat there for nearly two days, on a living person bio. Ugh. FCYTravis 08:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes Daniel Pipes (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

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

This article still suffers from biased editing. See the talk page and the problems of the article lacking "full citations" (over thirty external links are not identified as "full citations"); the article clearly does not clearly, adequately, and consistently identify the authors, titles, publications, dates of publication, and dates accessed of the sources used in the article. I have pointed this out, but no one has stepped up to correct these violations of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:Citations, Misplaced Pages:Attribution, Misplaced Pages:Guidelines for controversial articles, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, WP:BLP#Public figures, and Misplaced Pages:Manual of style (with links to several of these other articles). I have previously given much of the needed information for providing "full citations"; this information is accessible (see talk page archive pages). There is no reason not to disclose fully the full citations, unless one is engaging in trying to hide what the sources actually are. Assuming WP:AGF, one hopes that that is not what is going on in that article. But the article appears to be trying to present the subject in a positive light but avoiding citing the titles of articles used as sources and showing how much of the material comes from Pipes's own websites . That is not in keeping with Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Articles in Misplaced Pages dealing with subjects relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the parties to that conflict, the Middle East, and living persons whose notability relates to their work on that region and that conflict and the parties to it seem continually to suffer from biases and lack of actual Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. (This is my second attempt to call to this article in this noticeboard. Subsequent editing by others of this article has not assuaged my concerns about it. Please consult the editing history of the article and the current and archived talk pages and the misleading way in which the archive of the talk page was constructed initially. Such obviously-biased and misleading articles do not represent Misplaced Pages in a positive light, in my view. To mislead Misplaced Pages readers, who may be students, is not doing a service to these readers.) --NYScholar 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)-">04:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)]

Tiffany Adler Tiffany Adler (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

? See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Adler

• Tiffany Adler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A couple of editors seem to have jumped on this one as a showcase for LGBT issues. However, currently the woman in question has not be found guilty. The repeated addition of numerous categories and "See alsos" violates WP:BLP. Steve _(Stephen) 23:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Prokofy Neva Prokofy Neva (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

• Prokofy Neva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An entry about my Second Life avatar, Prokofy Neva, contains a number of factual errors and also libelous statements.

It links the avatar in the private world of Second Life with my real-life identity against my will. It actually contains the wrong name, a common error. While this is the Internet, and links like this get made all the time, I would question Misplaced Pages's policy regarding the publication of profiles of avatars from virtual worlds or games, and the linking of such avatars to their real-life persons.

The article falsely claims that I incited or called for violence against another resident of Second Life.

I have not incited or called for any violence against any other person, real or virtual.

I would request that the entire entry be removed. Another entry about Second Life on Misplaced Pages mentions me as one of the prominent people in Second Life, and mentions that my avatar, Prokofy Neva, is controversial and banned from the forums. There is no need for a separate entry, or if one is prepared, it should remove the errors occuring in every line, and remove libelous and tendentious material. Prokofy Neva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.191.201 (talk • contribs) 13:15, April 19 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find Prokofy Neva. It was probably deleted for being non-notable. --Gbleem 04:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I should have closed this - I deleted it. :) FCYTravis 04:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Jasper Johns Jasper Johns (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

• Jasper Johns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hi! Don't know how to edit here, but maybe someone can add to the Jasper Johns bio that he provided a voice as himself on The Simpsons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.237.141.44 (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

This page is for disputes. I have copied your comment to the Jasper Johns page. --Gbleem 10:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

David Hicks David Hicks (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

• David Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Recent material added to this article is probably libel. It is generally based on selective use of sources or sources which consist of hearsay. In discussions on the talk page the editor concerned shows little inclination to stop adding such material, hence my raising it here. John Dalton 04:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC) In evaluating this issue, account might want to be taken of a recent precedent . I'm no expert though. Hopefully someone here is. John Dalton 05:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the "Hicks in custody" section with {{POV-section}}. — Athænara ? 18:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Louise Lanctôt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Completely unsourced, with quite nasty claims. Quick Google search suggests that the article is generally accurate, but I've not the time (nor, for that matter, the inclination) to wade through it all. Jonel | Speak 21:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jonel has blanked the article per WP:BLP and left a note to that effect on the talk page, which seems the right thing to me. AvB ÷ talk 22:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:WAS 4.250 restored the content without edit summary or discussion on the talk page (probably saw it as vandalism). I've blanked the page again, requesting discussion/sources and directing editors to this report on the BLP Noticeboard. AvB ÷ talk 23:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:WAS 4.250 also added nine different sources when he restored it. I have not checked them myself, but since the original complaint was for the lack of sources, wouldn't it be useful to see if the addition of sources has dealt with the problem? - TexasAndroid 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. When I didn't see the required in-line cites (see the WP:CITE guideline) I didn't scroll down far enough to see the list of refs added below the article body. I will self-revert for now on the assumption that the article is fully supported by the provided sources. I can't guarantee though that others will leave it in place since the assertions in the article still need to be linked directly to the relevant (portions of) the sources. Once in-line cites have been added, the article can be reviewed regarding any remaining WP:BLP issues. Until then, the WP:BLPN report should remain open. We don't expect our readers (or reviewing editors) to read through a lot of material to verify assertions, especially not regarding BLP material. AvB ÷ talk 00:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yehuda HaKohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -

http://en.wikipedia.org/Yehuda_HaKohen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.18.214 (talk • contribs) 10:36, April 10, 2007 (UTC)

Scientology Finance

It doesn't name any individuals but it seems to violate the spirit of WP's living persons policies. Steve Dufour 06:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really have anything to do with WP:BLP, but that article could use a trip to another three-letter acronym. --BigDT 00:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It talks about the policies of "Scientology organizations." I think that involves living persons, even it they are not mentioned by name. I have been warned not to nominate any more articles for deletion, after I nominated their beloved Xenu. :-) Steve Dufour 04:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I am putting this section back after it was removed. It seems to me that if the article is saying that these are policies being followed by Scientologists then living people are involved. On the other hand if they are just L. Ron Hubbard's opinions the article should be deleted as non-notable and original research, which is what BigDT seems to be saying. Thanks. Steve Dufour 15:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Steve, this isn't a BLP issue any more than an article containing criticisms of Microsoft would be a BLP violation directed at Bill Gates. Could I remind you that this noticeboard is about biographical articles? Please take it elsewhere. -- ChrisO 21:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Um no it's not. It's for reporting problems with articles with regards to the BLP policy, which covers all articles which reference living people. Check out the policy. I haven't looked into this particular care, but as the issues Steve is discussing are with regards to BLP, then it is appropriate to discuss here. If you don't agree with his intepretation of BLP in this regard, that's fine, but it's still the appropriate place to discuss an article with which an editor has BLP concerns. Nil Einne 21:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. AvB ÷ talk 22:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I did take a look at the article (which I agree isn't very well written) - since the only person named is L. Ron Hubbard and he's definitely dead, I fail to see the relevance to BLP. Hence my analogy to Microsoft. If we (hypothetically) had an article that said "Microsoft does bad things", it would be stretching a point and then some to claim that it was some sort of BLP violation directed at a specific Microsoft employee. Then again, since corporations are regarded as legal persons, perhaps BLP could be construed to cover them too. But do we really want to go there? :-) -- ChrisO 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Like BigDT and ChrisO, I fail to see the relevance to BLP. However, the fact that this material is allowed per WP:BLP does not warrant the deletion of the article per nn or OR claims as suggested by Steve Dufour. Solution: make sure the article is sufficiently sourced where possible, and remove any remaining disputed material. AvB ÷ talk 22:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you all. I tend to think that an article titled "Catholic Finance" or "Jewish Finance" wouldn't be allowed on WP. Steve Dufour 02:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And Steve Dufour just twisted the facts: catholic and jewish are adjectives pertaining to adherents to those religions. Scientology is a noun pertaining to the subject or organization of scientology. Looks like Steve is promoting a tendentious argument.--Fahrenheit451 04:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If reliable sources would report that e.g. the Catholic Church had such a policy, a similar article would be hard to keep out. Not that disallowing one article would automatically also disallow another one. Having said that, I'm not so sure that the article would survive AfD, although Steve's argument re other churches will not be decisive. His earlier arguments (non-notable and OR), however, might. AvB ÷ talk 15:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Only Steve Dufour sees this as a BLP issue. I think this report can be archived. AvB ÷ talk 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Howard Zinn Howard Zinn (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

• Howard Zinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Skywriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Robert Dalziel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After attending a lecture given by Howard Zinn, recently, at UMass, Boston, I added material to the Iraq section to further explain his views. A few days ago, I noticed while Googling "Howard Zinn" that the Misplaced Pages entry defaulted far down into a section called "Criticism" to introduce a very negative remark about the author of "A People's History of the United States" into the Google slug line. Yahoo searches default to eh beginning of the Misplaced Pages article, offering biographical info and thus is neutral, not negative. It was as if this section of Misplaced Pages had been rigged, and Google hacked, to create a negative first impression of Zinn to users of Google and Misplaced Pages.

Coming back to the bio, I noticed that there was talk about whether the Criticism was even valid. I decided to add background explaining Zinn and his critics, in the context of the schools of thought that each represented.

Coming back a couple days later, I noticed that someone named Skywriter had appointed him/herself judge, jury, and executioner to destroy all of the work that I had made trying to elucidate Zinn, his relation to other historians (such as the Schlesinger school of consensual history) so someone, a layman, could understand the context in which Zinn labors, and the mainstream (right and left) that he rows his boat against.

This Skywriter destroyed any contextualization, such as putting the conservative critic who had been mentioned in the context of his relatinship with certain reactionary elements that have flourished recently.

I admit, and expected, someone to read it and recast it in a more neutral light than I, having recently read much of Zinn and being familiar with the man, likely had written it. (That is, I was likely more sympathetic to Zinn and negative towards his critics as I was writing about the man.) In other pieces I've come in on, this is usually the case, and frequently one gets a better, more balanced article out of it.

Here is what Skywriter wrote jusitfying his wholesale destruction of my work:

"The focus of the criticism section is on the individuals other than Zinn. It is not necessary and indeed bogs down this article by including vast amounts of unrelated material to this biographical sketch of Zinn. I intend to delete unrelated material. Feel free to take this material to the pages of the individuals where it is relevant." Skywriter 02:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

My comment: No, the focus of the CRITICISM section is CRITICISM of Zinn, and how it relates to him and the critics, and the field of American history, that is, how it is studied and related to the American people.

This Skywriter made a comment about B.U. President Silber that showwed his ignorance of the issues.

Another comment of Skywriter: "Some folks went far afield writing various essays within this article on subjects unrelated to the topic at hand. Although lengthy, that material also lacked references. It's now been cleaned up. Skywriter 15:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

My comment: This was all referenced, and if there were a LACK OF REFERENCES, that could have been highlighted, and thos references put in. One thing I do when writing is, since there is no spell-checker that I know of on Misplaced Pages, I cut and paste my work to another program, spell-check, and bring it back. Sometimes formatting related to references, and thus the references, are deleted if I'm not careful.

MY ARGUMENT:

While I might be considered pro-Zinn, this Skywriter, I believe, is definitely anti-Zinn (as opposed to someone seeking neutrality or a neutral tone). He just destroyed a great deal of work, and research, trying to contextualize Zinn, and why he would be meaningful, and why he would be relevant in 2007 (as opposed to 1968, or 1972, or 1962, all times when Zinn had influence), and why his critics denigrate him.

I would consider Misplaced Pages a resource that would seek to explain and contextualize the people that are written about, within the limits of an obtainable objectivity. The histories/biographies of the Zinn critics, and contextualizing them and their place within American history since World War II (as the two examples, NOT CHOSEN BY ME, are evocative of the liberal strain of history as exemplified by the late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., someone Zinn mentioned in his recent Boston lecture, and Joseph McCarthy. They and contextualizing them in history are entirely relevant to any discussion of Zinn AS HE SEEKS TO ELUCIDATE AMERICAN HISTORY so people know its impact on the HERE AND NOW and how certain strains, such as the anti-intellectual stain of the Accuracy in Academia/Accuracy in Media crowd (who called Walter Cronkite a fellow traveler) persist. THIS IS THE GIST OF HOWARD ZINN'S WORK, and why the critics have to be contextualized. As this is at the root of his philosophy of history, Santayana's dictum "Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

I believe Skywriter should not be allowed near the Howard Zinn article as he is an editor who cannot see the forest, but for the trees. I also believed he is prejudiced against Zinn, and destroyed the work, the Iraq and the Criticism sections, out of malice.

I ask: Why did he keep the criticism section in, which is utterly barebones and meaningless as he judged these two men not to be representative of two strains/schools of thought antithetical to Zinn, but as something to serve as minor sluglines that fill space. And thus, once again, we can GOOGLE to the negative comment about Zinn.

Let me reiterate, I belive Skywriter is prejudiced, and on the thesis that "If it looks like a duck" is involved in the hack of Google to denigrate Howard Zinn. He/she shold be pulled off the article and forbidden to touch it. A new editor, a more experienced editor, should be assigned, and after reinstating the text of Iraq and the Criticism sections, edit them for the purpose of neturality, and to perhaps compress them to eliminate redundancy or superfulous detail. But Zinn and his critics, and his stance on the war on Iraq (as one of the most prominent anti-war critics and arguably the most popular "populist historian" in US history (as his liberal critics said, need to be part of any article on the man that is aimed at educating the public, so they understand him. Robert Dalziel 05:17, April 16, 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin and won't comment on the other aspects here, but the text that Google displays in its results is entirely dependent on which search string you use. There is no "hack" involved. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Libby Lewis Libby (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

Some intervention is needed by admins to deal with the edit warring on the Lewis Libby page. (I am an interested party, btw). Notmyrealname 18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Page has been protected. Cbrown1023 talk 19:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Dave Brubeck Dave Brubeck (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

• The article Dave Brubeck (living person) doesn't have any ==Sources== section listing the books the bulk of the article came from
• The article had been tagged in November 2006 {{unreferenced}} (identical to {{unsourced}}) as per WP:VERIFY and WP:LIVING
• User:Tony_Sidaway has twice deleted the tag under flimsy pretenses , twice leaving the article both unsourced and untagged for its lacking sources

(Frankly, Misplaced Pages gets worse every time I try and come back...) 62.147.39.198 18:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There are citations but they are under references instead of sources. It could use some more but since there is nothing slanderous it should be handled on the article's talk page and not here. --Gbleem 14:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

David Gaiman David Gaiman (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

• David Gaiman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a small number of users are CONTIUALLY adding to the David Gaiman's page that his son is the fantasy author Neil Gaiman, there is absolutely no evidence that this is true. Gaiman's own website never mentions his father as being called David, similarly the article they use as basis, has no evidence that this is the same Neil Gaiman. I accept that it is possible, but to add something that is merely possiible (even probable) does disservice to wikipedias attempts to be a reputable encyclopedia --90.241.1.65 (talk · contribs) 13:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Another section about that was archived yesterday (see the Neil Gaiman section in Archive 12). It's basically vandalism—if you see it, revert it. — Athænara ? 14:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is in fact true. According to the Contemporary Authors Online database, Neil Gaiman was born to David Bernard Gaiman (a company director) and Sheila Gaiman (a pharmacist) on November 10, 1960, in Portchester, England. A 1974 book, The Hidden Story of Scientology, refers to "David B. Gaiman, Deputy Guardian of the Church of Scientology (World Wide)". David Bernard Gaiman is listed in the Companies House database as the proprietor of G & G Food Supplies, a vitamin shop in East Grinstead (where Scientology has its UK headquarters). The company is co-run by Sheila Gaiman - see http://www.gandginfo.com/en/ . Issue #50 of Scientology's "Impact" magazine lists David Gaiman and G&G Food Supplies as being "Patrons" of the Church of Scientology (), and G&G Food Supplies is listed as one of the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises network of businesses (). I don't think there's any real reason to doubt that the David Bernard and Sheila Gaiman who fathered Neil Gaiman in Portchester in 1960 are the same David Bernard and Sheila Gaiman who were working for Scientology in the 1960s and 1970s, and who are now running a company selling vitamins to Scientologists in East Grinstead. -- ChrisO 23:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is not whether Misplaced Pages editors think there is no reason to doubt this; we need reliable third-party sources to cite on this. Otherwise it's WP:OR which should be removed from biographies of living persons straight away. AvB ÷ talk 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I found this on Neil's own website: "Gaiman is the son of a vitamin-company owner and a pharmacist." It's actually from a CNN article. I'd suggest that was fairly conclusive. -- ChrisO 22:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You may want to check out WP:SYN. AvB ÷ talk 22:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of WP:SYN, which is why I've not rushed off and added the points above to the article. The challenge now is to find reliable sources that can be used to tie the narrative together in terms that will meet WP:SYN's requirements. It's not going to be doable overnight. :-) -- ChrisO 23:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear you're well aware of WP:SYN. I take it you will no longer be arguing here as if it does not exist or disputing a perfectly correct report regarding clearly disruptive policy violations. I fully agree with User:Athaenara: "It's basically vandalism—if you see it, revert it." AvB ÷ talk 22:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

PS It should be clear to anyone who understands the basics of WP:BLP, or human nature for that matter, that the author does not want this info, correct or incorrect, out on the street. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid, we are not paparazzi, and should not be helping anyone, let alone disruptive editors, to create a rumor. AvB ÷ talk 22:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, please explain this edit if you're that well aware of WP:SYN. I've reverted it as a WP:BLP/WP:SYN violation. AvB ÷ talk 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is plainly not a rumour - it's well documented in an extremely reliable secondary source (i.e. The Times). However, I do think we could make use of a primary source - i.e. public records - to verify it unimpeachably: "Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source." (WP:BLP#Public figures). I wouldn't presume to guess what Neil's wishes are but since the information is already out there and documented in the national press, I don't think there's any harm in citing it. I agree that it would be different if it was some wholly undocumented private matter but the question of which schools he attended doesn't fall into that category. -- ChrisO 07:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Times article is just one of the two pieces of information you're joining in typical WP:SYN fashion. Do you know you are referring to a Times article that does not say X is the son of Y or any other permutation to that effect? I see no citations from reliable secondary sources that have this information, only articles about X and articles about Y. Also, you seem to require those assisting here to look up the actual citations you should have been providing. FWIW, for the Times article this is: archived copy, The Times, 13 August 1968, p.2 col. c, Head Bars Son Of Cult Man. I feel I am wasting my time explaining WP:SYN to an admin, on the BLP Noticeboard no less. AvB ÷ talk 10:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than take up space here, let's have this discussion at Talk:Neil Gaiman. -- ChrisO 13:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this was posted here for a very good reason. Others had inserted clear violations of several policies in the encyclopedia. On joining the discussion here you have not only asserted that this can in fact go into the encyclopedia, you have also underhandedly added this information yourself to yet another article while claiming here that you were abiding by WP:SYN and therefore not adding it to the article reported above. You are an admin and should be able to understand the rules. These policies are not trumped by consensus. If you do not agree with my interpretation, by all means ask another admin or ask around on the WP:BLP and WP:OR/WP:ATT talk pages. Don't forget to point others to the full explanation I put on that talk page yesterday and to the warning on your talk page.(diff) Or someone else may want to chime in. I'm logging off now, not sure when I'll be back on line. Have a good weekend everyone. AvB ÷ talk 14:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This boils down to a dispute over interpretations of the policy. We both believe that we're interpreting it correctly. The best remedy, I think, will be to present the evidence and our conflicting interpretations (after Easter!) to other admins and maybe Jimbo and ask for an independent view. In the meantime, I'm logging off too - we can discuss this further on Talk:Neil Gaiman after Easter when we hopefully have some more substantive evidence to discuss. -- ChrisO 15:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This would have remained a discussion about policy interpretation if you hadn't made exactly the same disputed WP:SYN edit to another article during that discussion. In addition to looking like a convoluted type of WP:POINT, it also was a pretty big mistake to make in a WP:BLP context where we remove first, talk later. This is now also a discussion about your behavior. The violation prompted a warning. I will not reward this type of behavior in someone who ought to know better and do not want to encourage contempt of a rule that is becoming more important every day. I want you to realize that. In a BLP, when in doubt, remove. When in doubt, don't add. When disputed, don't add. AvB ÷ talk 18:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that content and references had been added to the David Gaiman article in such a way that the name "Neil" now appears a total of five times, twice in the text and thrice in the references section. Undue weight, anyone? I'd even characterise it as sneaky. — Athænara ? 10:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight, certainly. Which automatically makes it a WP:BLP issue too. It looks like we're a tabloid setting the stage for a scoop. The real information content here is that the subject's son was a Scientologist too when he was seven years old. Which seems non-notable to the degree of its inclusion being an undue weight and WP:BLP violation in itself. AvB ÷ talk 11:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I have now removed that content and placed a pointer in the edit summary to this section of the noticeboard. — Æ. ? 13:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Great. You removed the existance of Neil altogether. He no longer exists. Before you came, David Gaiman had two children. Now he has only one left. --Tilman 15:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This complaint as well as several others were attended to in subsequent edits. Tilman, whose POV regarding Scientology is well known, kept doing full reverts, in the last one once again sneaking in the wikilink to the author (diff, intermediate edits not shown). He also re-added (diff) the reciprocal link to the author's article against consensus on the talk page that a reliable source for this is lacking. I have reverted the two inappropriate wikilinks per WP:BLP/WP:SYN. Someone please keep a close look on this situation (I'm online for a couple of minutes only). UG perhaps? AvB ÷ talk 11:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've found a newspaper article in which David Gaiman (the Scientologist) explicitly says that Neil Gaiman (the author) is his son. This should hopefully resolve many of the difficulties we've encountered here. More at Talk:Neil Gaiman#Possible reference found. -- ChrisO 14:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, here are the referenced and reliably sourced additions that I've made to the two articles: and . The addition of this source will hopefully put this controversy to bed. :-) -- ChrisO 19:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

• Thanks: ChrisO et al., good find; this is certainly an improvement over the totally unsourced assertions made previously and I will not revert.
• Request: I would like to see some tangible evidence, e.g. to allow editors to judge the weight to give this information, and also to help us trust by letting us verify.
• Doubt: I'll of course AGF for now, but it still feels like we're becoming the primary vehicle for the spread of this titillating detail of someone's life and I would like to see some input from other editors.
• Disclaimer: I'd like to caution ChrisO (and to some degree the other editors working on the related text in David Gaiman and Neil Gaiman) that they are personally responsible for any consequences of including this information in the encyclopedia. Sourced in a local paper and previously unavailable on the Internet, putting this up on one of the world's top-10 web sites may still harm Neil in many ways. Note that UK law may take a dim view of this type of disclosure even if true, let alone if not. I'm not only talking about libel here. Also note that the oft-mentioned Barrett v. Rosenthal precedent in the USA may well turn out to apply only to original material distributed verbatim unlike publishing an edited version like you did here. Bottom line - the Wikimedia Foundation, as always, will only protect itself, not individual editors who, as before, remain responsible for their own actions. AvB ÷ talk 09:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned this case has been resolved. I will keep an eye on the David Gaiman and Neil Gaiman articles, mainly monitoring the talk pages for any responses to (1) my request for tangible evidence and (2) a possible consensus that might form regarding my personal doubts as noted there. AvB ÷ talk 09:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Straight, Incorporated Straight, Incorporated (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

? See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Straight, Incorporated

• Straight, Incorporated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Both the article and the article's talk page have some strong criminal allegations against the organization and its members/employees that are not currently supported by reliable sources. I had originally nominated this for deletion but additional sources were provided in the deletion debate and the discussion seems likely to close as "keep" or "no consensus". It sounds as if there is some basis to the allegations (which keeps me from simply removing them) but I'm concerned the article may be considered libellous in its current state. RJASE1 16:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy St. Louis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article contains factually inaccurate information relating to a romantic link between Jeremy and his co-anchor Michelle Lissel. It has been removed twice and re-inserted. Please help to rectify this or remove the bio entirely!! 24.79.130.95 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism Template:Dominionism (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

• Template:Dominionism (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This template contains a list of alleged "advocates" of and "organizations" associated with the Dominionism movement. The term "Dominionist" describes an extreme element of the Religious Right, and is used almost exclusively and pejoratively by opponents of the Religious Right. The problem here is that there is at least one IP user who insists on including mainstream Religious Right figures like James Dobson and Rick Warren on that list. There are only a few little-known extremists who self-label as Dominionist; Dobson and Warren, among others, do not. The IP user is presenting a list of exclusively partisan and mostly non-notable sources as cites, and doesn't seem to understand that WP:BLP does not allow one to use partisan sources to make a factual statement about the membership of an individual in a controversial movement. - Merzbow 19:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Poison the well much? That is not a balanced description of events. The facts are that both User:Yakuman and User:Merzbow have ignored and dismissed literally a dozen reliable sources given supporting the inclusion of these individuals. Notably, Merzbow claims here that Harpers and Slate (magazine) are not reliable sources because they are "well-known left-wing magazines." In that same comment falsely portrays SeekGod.ca, ThePropheticYears.com, ProphecyForum.com as "forums" and "left-wing" and hence not reliable sources. Viewing those 3 sources it is clear they are neither "forums" nor "left-wing," so the misrepresentation and stonewalling by these two (which following their pattern appears to be based on their personal ideologies) needs to stop. An example of a source that Merzbow objects is a May 2005 article in Harpers which described James Dobson as "perhaps the most powerful figure in the Dominionist movement" and "a crucial player in getting out the Christian vote for George W. Bush." Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters (a subscription is required, but it is reprinted here: ). 151.151.73.167 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, there is no Slate cite being presented, you mean Salon, which along with Harpers are partisan left-progressive sources, as their Misplaced Pages articles acknowledge. Listing names of people as proponents of an ideology is stating a fact - a claim of consensus. WP:RS is quite explicit about this situation: "Just as underlying facts must be sourced, claims of consensus must be sourced in the presence of differences of opinion... In the absence of a reliable source of consensus or majority view, opinions should be identified as those of the sources." You cannot use exclusively partisan sources to establish a fact. And WP:BLP comes in because Dominionism is a pejorative term that the figures in question decidedly do not self-label as; the progressive media often equates Dominionism with Fascism. - Merzbow 20:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my mistake, I meant Salon, not Slate. Again, you're presenting and attacking a straw man of my original points, which still stand, and offering a slanted view of the actual issues. "The progressive media"? Your choice of language belies your own motive and bias. Harpers is hardly the Guardian, as you'd have us believe. 151.151.73.164 22:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We do not list people in categories in Misplaced Pages solely on the say-so of their political enemies in opinion pieces. As it seems you have no intention of budging, I encourage those reading to chime in here so we can establish consensus against this ridiculous position and get the template unlocked. - Merzbow 23:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Until you acknowledge that Harpers has long been accepted across Misplaced Pages as a reliable source as an admin, User:FYCTravis, just pointed out to you there, I highly recommend not unlocking the template. The only ridiculous position there is the one that dismisses or ignores reliable sources because they do no align with personal beliefs. 151.151.73.164 23:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Harpers and Salon are both reliable sources (Harpers easily so). There's no BLP issue here. JoshuaZ 23:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Representing negative political opinions about a person as fact in Misplaced Pages articles is not a BLP issue? You sure about that? - Merzbow 23:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a BLP issue when we have reliable sources. Harpers is reliable. Period. That's the end of the matter. You have now been told this by a variety of people and simply don't seem to want to listen. JoshuaZ 01:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And a whole other variety of people, including at least one admin, have said otherwise. "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner... The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view." That is from BLP. It's also similar to language in NPOV. One could argue that NPOV is the more relevant policy, except that a template here is unconditionally listing certain living people as adherents of a fascist ideology, a claim made ONLY by the political enemies of these individuals. But if you want me gone from this noticeboard, then so be it. This can just as easily be argued on NPOV grounds. - Merzbow 03:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, what part of CMummert's comment do you interpret as supporting your assertion? Must be something written in a magic hidden script. The simple fact is that the connection is based on Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists and serious academics. At the same time, Merzbow has yet to provide a shred of evidence that anyone (except him and a couple of his friends) questions. Can the unsourced opinion of a Misplaced Pages editor really nullify the work of serious journalists? 72.198.121.115 04:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to noting that dominionists are such, and saying who they are when there is a broad consensus in the sources. But we should not be carrying water for people who want to advance their own agenda by labeling their political opponents. We don't put Michael Savage in Template:lazy people and cite it to Salon; we say, "Critics such as...Dave Gilson of Salon.com accuse him of fascist leanings, racism, homophobia and bigotry, because of his controversial statements about Jews, Arabs, Islam, homosexuality, feminism, sex education, and immigration." Tom Harrison 23:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Michelle Goldberg as having such a political or ideological ax to grind in her Salon article that it would preclude it being used as source there. Her views are pretty run-of-the-mill for the large segment of society that does not accept the aims of the religious right. As long as the individuals listed in the template are named in published in reliable sources that are not hit pieces or smear jobs, but reflect notable and relevant viewpoints, I don't see an issue here. FeloniousMonk 05:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack Ingram Jack Ingram (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

• 65.216.75.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jack Ingram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Someone keeps vandalizing this wiki, by continually putting derogatory remarks about this person.// 208.49.141.14 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Mindy Kaling Mindy Kaling (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

• Mindy Kaling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - defamatory/unsourced/tabloid-sourced info being added, please watch for reliability of information added. Formerly OFFICE protected. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Sneed Michael Sneed (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

? See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed

• Michael Sneed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Newly created article on a columnist whose initial reportage of the Virginia Tech shootings erroneously identified the suspect as a Chinese national, thereby generating some furore. It seems to be attracting edits from multiple sources inserting direct and even potentially defamatory criticism, which is unsourced and presumably merely the opinions of the contributors themselves- check history & talk pg. It's been cleaned up a couple of times, but given the high profile concerning anything associated with the incident it needs a few more pairs of eyes on it, as these unsourced additions are continuing. Quoting some criticism from notable and verifiable sources is one thing, but making the wikipedia article itself the vehicle of accusation is quite another.--cjllw ? TALK 09:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree some extra eyes on the article are needed to keep possible repetitions of such WP:BLP violations out of the article. It's on my watchlist now. I've also removed some redundant material and added the db tag. AvB ÷ talk 14:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a number of WP:BLP violations, some of which I had removed before but had been reverted by the editor who filed this report, which made it difficult for me to help out there. (I don't want to defend an article against WP:BLP violations when I'm not allowed to weed out existing violations first).

Depending on any responses in reliable sources this incident, and with it, Michael Sneed, may be on its way to becoming notable. AvB ÷ talk 18:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone else take over? I've kept an eye on the article but I'm going off-line (i.e. I'm falling asleep). The current version is reasonable in WP:BLP terms, with mostly well-intended edits, but every now and then unsourced accusations are being inserted. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 00:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi AvB, I am now back online and will continue to monitor developments as best I can, though I would prefer that others also take a hand in watching it. It will probably continue to be a hotspot over the next couple of days.

I have appreciated your (AvB's) assistance in maintaining the article's integrity. Please note, my partial restoration of text you had removed and which you allude to above was intended to restore two sourced (if not directly cited) quotations from other reports; reports which were at the time the article's sole evidence that Ms. Sneed had actually written what the article claimed she had. It was not intended to discourage or contravene your other removals of unsourced and defamatory material.

Since semiprotection was applied to the article, remaining contributors have mostly been adhering to wikipedia policies in respect of BLP, NPOV and sourcing; however the protection I applied was only for 48 hours and it will likely require continual monitoring for some time yet.--cjllw ? TALK 00:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, while working on the article I soon saw where you were coming from there. Such news-type articles remain a balancing act at best, and the fine line that separates guiding editors and irritating them into an edit war is often hard to see. The sprotect was certainly warranted. AvB ÷ talk 10:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and stopped this from pretending to be a biography at all. Michael Sneed is currently a redirect to Chicago Sun-Times, pending a proper, actual biography being written, and the original article is now at Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre. Note, in light of the WP:BLP policy, that we have zero sources that call this a "Michael Sneed Incident". Uncle G 17:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Uncle G, a good call all around, I think. No-one has shown the slightest inclination to add any biog material to her entry (it actually appears to be hard to come by in any case, so there doesn't seem to be much value in an article on her). I'm still of the view that the renamed 'media reports' article has no good reason to exist separately from what is already covered in the main VT shootings article, but we'll see how the astroturfed AfD progresses.

In terms of a BLP alert this one is probably closed, although related articles are worth watching out for further defamatory statements- eg it is now proliferating thru into the paper's article.--cjllw ? TALK 06:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nathaniel Branden Nathaniel Branden (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch)

• Nathaniel Branden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• SteveWolfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FraisierB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Crculver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pia L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.192.55.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 81.169.185.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On the Nathaniel Branden article put the word "unaccredited" in front of the schools name from which he acquired his PhD (about the second paragraph of the article).

I did some research and discovered that the school is approved by the state and that accreditation is fairly complex and that there are 11 other private colleges that the state approves for degrees and whose degrees are accepted for licensing. It is a matter or large state institutions and small private colleges. Using that word, without a detailed explanation that would be inappropriate to the article was a form of implied libel. It creates a false impression that Branden has a suspect degree and therefore might not even be properly licensed - which isn't true.

I deleted the entry and explained on the talk page. And edit war ensued. User Pia proposed a compromise that he would be happy with. Remove the text from the body of the article, but put it in the footnote. He and I and CrCulver agreed on that. Here is a link to the compromise diff.

Then recently someone put the word "unaccredited" back into the article. The edit war started over again. An identified sock-puppet, FraiserB, became involved. The old compromise wasn't acceptable to the sock-puppet and User Pia. That is where it stands now.

Here is my case for treating this as libel:

- "Misplaced Pages articles that present material about living people can affect subjects' lives. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious". taken from the "In a Nutshell" section of BLP

Branden's livelihood as a psychologist, publishable author and public speaker depends upon his reputation. (He is the author of about 18 books and does public speaking)

Because a word or phrase about "unaccredited" could be construed as implying that his degree is from a diploma mill, that would be very contentious for someone whose professional license depends upon a valid degree.

So, as to the Nutshell, if it is implied libel, Branden could be hurt and it is a contentious issue.

But is it libel? The statement that the school is unaccredited is partially correct factually but unless it is given in a full context would always be misinterpreted. The school is accredited by the American Psychoanalytic Society and it is approved by the state and it is not a diploma mill and the state recognizes this particular school for the purpose of licensing. But this isn't known by a reader who sees the word "unaccredited". What is also not know is why the Western Regional Accreditation wasn't given. They require a larger library that a small college is likely to have and they require sports facilities that a small college might not have. But that kind of information is also not available to the reader.

In an encyclopedia article every fact is presented in an order and in a context that results in an impression on a reader. Editors choose the right words and phrasing - judging what is "on topic" and appropriate - Editors choose which facts, what emotions the reader is likely to have, what writing style, and to stay on topic. The use of a phrase or even a sentence about the nature of the school is not fitting for this reason as well. It is information that belongs on the schools article and perhaps in a footnote. But the only reason to put it in the text would be if it were an exception to the norm of having a PhD - a bad PhD. And that isn't the case. We don't say anything about all the scientists all around the world who hold degrees that aren't from an accredited school (unless that is a noteworthy fact - like it was a phony degree or from a diploma mill).

Here is the quote from Jimmy Wales on the BLP page: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

The references are of high quality and they are properly cited sources - that is not the problem. But it is misleading in its presentation and therefore highly questionable.

- BLP policy calls for: "The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity" This is not being shown by those who are edit warring to keep something in the article that can not help the reader in understanding Branden who is the subject of the article. But it could hurt him. The hurt would be unjust since his degree is valid.

- BLP also says, "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone" It isn't responsible or conservative for the reasons given to the point above. The tone in so far as word style, is neutral. The impact on the reader is not neutral.

- The footnote can be a full sentence that describes the school as unaccredited but approved and the school name is a link the school article that describes the various approvals and accreditations the school has and the accreditation is doesn't have. http://en.wikipedia.org/California_Graduate_Institute Footnote: # ^ According to the State of California Board of Psychology, the California Graduate Institute is an unaccredited institution approved by the California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE). See Unaccredited California Approved Schools: A History and Current Status Report. Government, State of California. Retrieved 1 March 2007.

- Libel can be implied. "In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual..." http://en.wikipedia.org/Libel The implication here is that there is something fishy about the degree. And that is a seriously harmful thing to say about someone making a living based upon their reputation.

That is my take on this issue. What I need is some kind of ruling and if it is favorable for Branden some kind of Admin action to put it put it in place since anything I do would just start another edit-war. Thanks. Steve 00:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment regarding the use of the term "libel" for the sourced, factual statements about the school in the Nathaniel Branden article

• "Unaccredited" is not synonymous with "diploma mill" and can therefore not be "construed to imply" anything other than exactly what it states: "Unaccredited" is the established, official term used about the California Graduate Institute in official government issued documents, such as the report "Unaccredited California Approved Schools: A History and Current Status Report" published online by the State of California Board of Psychology at http://www.psychboard.ca.gov/licensing/unaccredited.htm.
• A degree from the California Graduate Institute is officially a degree from an unaccredited institution. The school lacks regional or national accreditation in psychology. (It is not the "American Psychoanalytic Society" as stated by user:SteveWolfer but "The Society of Modern Psychoanalysis" that lists the California Graduate Institute as an "accredited member". This society is, however, not a US Department of Education recognized accreditation agency in psychology and neither is it a State of California recognized accreditation agency.)
• The school's lack of accreditation is a relevant fact when writing about a scholar or a professional who is basically known for his contributions to a particular field, as also pointed out by User:Orangemike on the article's talk page. User:Buridan has stated, "it's cited, and as per discussion, if it could confuse people, it should stay" , User:FCYTravis has stated, "That's not libel - it's referenced fact. Needs the context that it's state-approved anyway" , Special:Contributions/83.171.164.13 stated, "Hiding a significant verified fact would be POV. Sorry, but he just doesn't have an accredited doctorate and nothing can change that fact and Orangenmike stated, "the possibly ersatz nature of his doctorate should not be concealed in the footnote; it is relevant to his claim to academic credentials" .
• Although it is not relevant for this discussion: the Western Regional Accreditation did NOT refuse the California Graduate Institute accreditation because they "require a larger library that a small college is likely to have and they require sports facilities that a small college might not have" as stated by user:SteveWolfer. See WASC's public statement on the reasons for the failed candidacy. Also: The accusation against User:FraisierB is irrelevant, as the user did not seem to have engaged any of his/her alternative accounts in this article or on the article's talk page.

Pia 11:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have placed my comment on the talk page of the article. Please put any further discussion on the articles talk page. The noticeboard seems to work better when the noticeboard is used to report on the status of the discussion and not used for the discussion itself. --Gbleem 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Everett

• Thomas Everett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A high school prankster has totally corrupted Thomas Everrett's biography. Everrett is a former football player for the Dallas Cowboys during their Super Bowl run in the 90's. From reading the biography now, you can't even tell that. The page is all garbled and is nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.128.159 (talk • contribs) 19:11, April 24, 2007 (UTC)

63.215.29.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = serial vandal. Reverted. — Athænara ? 22:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)