Misplaced Pages

:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:37, 26 July 2009 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive67.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:16, 9 January 2025 edit undoJFHJr (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,095 edits →Sami Zayn: blocked 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Misplaced Pages noticeboard for discussion of biographies of living people}}
{{NOINDEX}}
<noinclude>{{Pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{/Header}}
]
::]
]
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|WP:BLPN}} | archiveheader = {{NOINDEX}} {{archivemainpage|WP:BLPN}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K | maxarchivesize = 290K
|counter = 67 | counter = 365
|minthreadsleft = 1 | minthreadsleft = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d) | algo = old(9d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d | archive = Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
}} }}
{{Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Header}}
__FORCETOC__
__NEWSECTIONLINK__


== Citizen Cope ==


== ] ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/Citizen_Cope
The last line of "Use in media" is vandalism. However, I can't remove it because it doesn't appear when I try to edit the section. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Looks like someone already removed it. ] (]&middot;]) 07:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
::{{Resolved|seems resolved ]<sup>]</sup> 00:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)}}


Full of BLP and NPOV vio's, unencyclopedic language and unreliable sources. I removed a couple. &nbsp; Much of article reads like it was copied from a blog post or tabloid, and lack of proof of Native ancestry (and/or or not being enrolled in a tribe) is repeatedly conflated with lying. --] <sup>]</sup> • <sub>(])]</sub> 18:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
:... and the two diffs above got reverted , restoring some really poor prose and sources. This is a very sensitive topic area and I don't want to ] anyone, but clearly the article needs more experienced editorial eyes and existing editors need to review ] (and hopefully realize the difference between editing an encyclopedia and human rights advocacy). --] <sup>]</sup> • <sub>(])]</sub> 11:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::Unless a published '''reliable''' source specifically describes the person as a "pretendian", they should not be on that notable examples list at all. BLP is clear on this - any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately.]] 12:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


:One problem is that while the article is about people who falsely claimed Native American heritage, its title is from a pejorative slang term, which it begins by defining. Perhaps a change of title along with moving information about the term Pretendian further down would help.
* {{La|Rasul Kudayev}} - The information presented in are not unambiguously supported by the given sources. "Pentagon claim he had "returned to the fight" and "Department of Defense officials claimed Rasul Kudayev was one of 74 former Guantanatmo captives who "are engaged in terrorism or militant activity" are not unambiguously supported by the NYT's sources or any other source. The section should be removed ], ], ]. I have tried this but have been reverted two times. I think this needs attention here because of ], ]. ] (]) 07:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
:Listing any notable people who have pretended to have native heritage is a recipe for imbalance and unwieldy length. Instead, we should find sources specifically about the topic to determine which persons are significant to the topic. It's more important to understand why this happens, how frequent it is and what damage it causes than to provide a hit list of perpetrators.
:*I am curious what the concerned contributor means by "unambiguously supported". In other, related, talk page discussions the concerned contributor has indicated they have concerns over the basic credibility of the DoD's claim. But the ] specifically opens with an explanation we aim for '''"verifiability, not truth"'''. Those of us who have a concern over the credibility of assertions in our legitimate, authoritative, verifiable ], are plain out of luck. Those sources, and several others, do report that the DoD claims "returned to the fight" after his release from Guantanamo. The DoD's own press releases clearly state this. ] (]) 20:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
:] (]) 15:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::*Stop attacking me. That's wrong! I have no concerns over basic credibility of DoD claims. If you have sources, add these sources to the section and possible rewrite the section so it can meet our policies. By the way to use a DoD press release as a source for the DoD claim will not meet ]. If you have other sources that makes this section meet our policies just add these sources and we are out of here. But as it is now, it is something that should be clearly removed now and not reverted back until it meets ], ]. ] (]) 00:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
::{{tq|1=It's more important to understand why this happens, how frequent it is and what damage it causes than to provide a hit list of perpetrators.}} Well said! ]&nbsp;] 15:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::To use a press release from ] to reference that ''"Burger King claims..."'' is perfectly acceptable. It is not acceptable to say it as an unmitigated fact. In this instance, and all others to which you have pointed, it is clearly used to say ''"The DoD claims..."'', and thus its use is legitimate. ] <sup>(]) </sup> 01:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
::::That might be the case for some articles but not for an article under ]. The section in it's current form does not meet ], ] and it should be removed first. Also editors should not simply revert the controversial material back. ] (]) 02:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC) :*The title strikes me as violating ]; I'm skeptical that the term is common enough to pass ] for the phenomenon. If the article is going to cover the phenomenon and not the neologism (and currently, most sources in it don't use the term), it needs to be renamed to a descriptive title. The hard part is coming up with one. --] (]) 16:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
A lengthy requested move discussion already occurred and nothing has changed with the term to warrant a title change in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pretendian#Requested_move_21_December_2021 ] <sub>]</sub> 16:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::*Iqinn, I am not "attacking" you. Rather I put effort into conducting a meaningful dialogue with you.
*It seems fairly evident that the neologism and the phenomenon are both notable, but we shouldn't be covering the phenomenon under the neologism: I don't see evidence that "pretendian" is the dominant descriptive term even for high-profile cases of falsely claiming native ancestry. And it goes without saying that an absence of evidence of native ancestry is insufficient to list an individual on that page. ] (]) 17:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::*Iqinn, I don't find what you wrote above clear. You ''say'' you don't have any concern over the credibility of the DoD claims -- but then you say those claims don't meet ]. Why, because being described as someone suspected of supporting terror is damaging? When OJ Simpson was suspected of murdering his wife that too is damaging. Madoff is suspected of swindling a gazillion dollars. We don't suppress coverage of this material because it is damaging to OJ or Madoff.
::I mean, if the article is titled "Pretendian", the ''only'' sources that could justify putting someone on the page is a source using the term "Pretendian" specifically. It's a sufficiently emotive neologism that we can't really ] someone into that category - any source that doesn't use the word "Pretendian" is useless. If we want a list of BLPs who fall under the broader concept, we would need a separate article for that; we can't label people with a neologism without a specific source using the term. --] (]) 16:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::*Could you please clarify what kind of additional sources you think are required? ] (]) 17:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
:That discussion is three years old, but more importantly, it doesn't address the ] / ] issue. We can have an article on a neologism, absolutely; we ''cannot'' label individuals with a negative neologism unless we have a source using ''that precise word'' to refer to them. Any living person named in that article must have at least one high-quality source calling them a "Pretendian", using that exact word. Anyone who doesn't have that source backing up the fact that they have been called a "Pretendian", specifically, needs to be removed immediately until / unless that source is found - sources that use other words are useless (and ] / ] in context.) --] (]) 16:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::**{{cite news
::The term "pretendian" is used frequently in news sources (some Canadian news outlets have dedicated reporters on a dedicated "pretendian beat". The term is used in academia (, , to weed out the Spanish-language discussions). ''Indigenous identity fraud'' is used but not nearly as often. If you want to suggest a name change, the talk page of ] would be the place to do it. ] (]) 16:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
| url=http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/20386137d8bb223bf368999b8c49d4be.htm
:::In order for a BLP to be included in the notables examples list though, the derogatory term "pretendian" needs to be used frequently and widely published in high-quality reliable sources describing that individual as such, in order for the BLP to be included in that section per BLP and LABEL.]] 18:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
| title=At Least One "Recidivist" Tortured to Confess to Terrorism
::::I agree with Isaidnoway, Aquillion and others. It's one thing to have an article on the concept and under that name. That might very well be justified if there are sufficient sources referring to it. However it's another to list living persons as pretendians. That needs sufficient sources establishing it's a common enough term used to describe this person. These sources needs to clearly use the term and not simply say other things such as the person has claimed Native American ancestry but it appears to be false. Likewise in others on the person, it's fine to mention controversies over any claims, but they should not be called or categorised as pretendians without sources. ] (]) 07:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
| date=2009-05-21
:::It's not a matter of what the article is named; the problem is ]. For an emotive, negative term like "pretendian", we need, at the absolute bare minimum, at least one source actually describing someone as such ''using that precise word''. Going "well these sources accusing them of indigenous identity fraud are essentially the same thing" is ]; in other contexts it might not be enough to worry about but in the context of applying a highly emotive label to a living person it's unacceptable. We can have an article on the term, but we can't use it as the general list for people accused of {{tq|indigenous identity fraud}} because of that issue; all we can list there are people called "pretendian" ''specifically'', using that exact word. --] (]) 15:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
| author=
::::That's valid. Some people have been described as "pretendians" in published, secondary sources. I'd be fine with a separate list for Indigenous identity fraud since that's a more neutral descriptive term that is increasingly being used in scholarly writing. I've been slammed IRL but can find citations in the near future. ] (]) 15:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
| quote=The former detainee, Rasul Kudaev, has been held for more than three years in pretrial detention in Nalchik, a city in southern Russia, where he is accused of participating in an October 2005 armed uprising against the local government. Human Rights Watch's investigations into Kudaev's case found that he was severely beaten soon after his arrest to confess to crimes.
:::::I've had a read of the Pretendians Talk page, having previously raised some concerns re BLP sourcing, and I share the concerns that the term 'Pretendian' is being used as a neutral descriptor. It's clear from the various discussions on the Talk page that it is a contentious term. I would also be in favour of moving some of the content to a list named something akin to 'Indigenous Identity Fraud' and reframing the Pretendians page as an explanation of the neologism.
| publisher=]
:::::I'm concerned about some of these BLP issues being raised previously on the Talk page and dismissed in each case - e.g. ], ] and ]. It looks to me that this page may have multiple BLP violations that need further attention. ] (]) 09:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
| accessdate=2009-07-15
:This is a complicated issue (especially from a BLP perspective) and it seems like a lot of the long form sources note just how complicated an issue this is. I think that others may be right in saying that there may be multiple overlapping notable and perhaps less notable topics here which can be organized in a number of ways. ] (]) 20:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
}}
:::**{{cite news
| url=http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/18676
| title=Bush's secret Gitmo diplomacy
| quote=The most se­verely abused was Rasul Kudaev, who was picked up in October 2005 for al­legedly participating in an attack on sev­eral government buildings in southern Russia. (Kudaev says he was wrongfully accused.) According to Kudaev's lawyer, who visited him in prison shortly after his arrest, one of his legs had been broken and his face beaten to the point of disfigurement.
| publisher=]
| accessdate=2009-07-15
}}</ref>
:::**{{cite news
| url=http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/21911/
| title=US Sent Guantanamo Detainees Home to Torture in Russia
| date=2007-03-27
| author=
| publisher=]
| accessdate=2009-07-15
}}</ref>
:::::*The law in many countries for example Germany distinguishes between "Well-known public figures" and "People who are relatively unknown" OJ and Madoff are Well-known public figures and you can almost publish everything even it may damage their reputation. But Rasul Kudayev falls under the category "People who are relatively unknown" and for these people there are a lot of restrictions, to protect there privacy and reputation. Yes being described as someone suspected of supporting terror is damaging to them. And generally not allowed under the law of many countries. Misplaced Pages could be possible sued for that. That's why we have to be very careful to meet requirements of ]. I had a short look at the sources you have provided and do not have much hope they are suitable for the section we are speaking about but i will have a closer look tmw. I have put more information .] (]) 20:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::*"Multiple, highly reliable sources" are required. You may can use some of your provided source after rewriting the section. But even you provide sufficient sources there are further requirements for inclusion under ]. Some of them are not met now. I have put information about that on the . I have also removed the section from the page and i hope now you can agree that it should not be re-included until controversies have been solved. ] (]) 04:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

:Multiple users have chastised Iqinn for removing references including the New York Times, the Pentagon and other notable sources who can be assumed to be trustworthy enough to at least report that "The Pentagon claims that..." or "The New York Times reported...", which is the case here. He has a history of removing all footnotes from an article, and then calling for the article's deletion on the grounds of no footnotes, and otherwise seems to demonstrate questionable-faith actions specifically related to these sorts of articles. Attempts to resolve the issue on article talk pages, and his own talk pages, are just met with standard "Stop attacking me!" remarks and playing the martyr. FWIW, my opinion suggests this is a case to be decided on the talk-pages of articles, not a BLP noticeboard. ] <sup>(]) </sup> 01:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
::] what you say here is a good example. This board is not there for the same people who resist the removal to come out and try to disturb the process. It is there for uninvolved editors and administrators to have a second look and possible remove it, if it does not meet ], ] what is clearly the case here. ] (]) 02:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
*Having reviewed this situation as an uninvolved editor, I tend to agree with Geo Swan, et al here. I'm simply not seeing the concerns with ] and ] that Iqinn cites above. As such, I've restored the section, and I would implore Iqinn not to remove it again without clear consensus to do so. ] 19:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

I would welcome a quick look by someone of a dispute emerging at the ] page. I do not not normally write at Bio pages but I think I started this article and have contributed to it on and off and now a dispute has emerged with another editor deleting material citing BLP SYN and OR. It seems some third editor had been adding POV and weasel words and these were used to make more sweeping changes. I have added back the main text without the problem text but now I am being told that the material breaks BLP.

Comments welcomed.--] (]) 20:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My issues originated with these edits by ] which seemed to me to remove material which rightly belongs in the article. They did however contain some very strong worded elements which I think have been added recently by another editor. I reverted the deletions but took out the objectional elements as I saw them. However ] has deleted again claiming breaches of BLP POV and OR.


] claims there is a synthesis of sources. However, in the earlier reference, Gratzer points out that Goodman had made the connection and the element which has been deleted merely traces one example of this. This is not really a criticism of Gratzer but somehow backs up what he has been saying. I personally believe that this is worthy of retention in the article and does not constitiute WP:SYN. I don't think that it really matters WHICH earlier piece by Goodman made the connection but I think it is fair to show that Gratzer was being honest when he said that Goodman had made the same connection.

] claims is about the use of the term "embroilded". However, the element that has been added back is that the issues below are all about his alleged misuse of statistics. But the first dispute in the article is not about a medical dispute and indeed Gratzer was not the source of the disputed statistic. The second dispute listed is again about another person's misuse of a medical statistic. Guilliani is not an expert but his people have Gratzer as the source. Gratzer did not deny this but said Goodman had made the same connection. (my previous point refers). The third dispute was about Gratzer allegedly misleading a congressional committee. For these reasons I think "embroiled" is a good word to cover all three incidents as it does not imply that Gratzer was misleading in all three disputes even though he was personally involved in all three.

] deletes the entire substance of the dispute about misleading the congress. The reason stated was "transcript of a cable news exchange is not encyclopedic". But we have the words in the video. Again, the words when orginally put in the article were substantially from the video. It seems that someone else has modified them since I orginally placed them in the article .

It seems that another editor ] has been making edits which seem unhelpful such as which removes relevent material from a lead paragraph, and this one which is ostensibly about whether the article was peer reviewed. However, I had already addressed the point with which put the text in without reference to "peer review". ] again deleted the para again , now claiming WP:OR.


A pair of neutral fresh eyes to reviiew what has been going on here would be welcomed.--] (]) 09:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
:I don't have time to go into detail now, but the Allegations of misuse of statistics clearly has ] problems (most obviously with the long media quotes), and the list of "selected" publications is far too long. It may be that Grazer is particularly known for this episode, but it still has to be summarised appropriately in a reasonably brief way, not ] to death. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article may have lingered too long on the dispute about prostate cancer survival but because the error was pointed out by experts and Gratzer continued to defend his position it seriously calls into question his value as a source of reliable information. Similarly in the argument with Kucinich, he clearly tried to present a false picture to the congressional committee and answered questions he was not asked and failed to answer properly the questions that Kucinich put to him. As he was there as an EXPERT WITNESS it is clearly important that his testimony should enlighten and not mislead. Now ] has removed any reference to the reliability of Gratzer as an expert witness and the Kucinich accusation has been reduced to the single word "clash". IMHO that is in itself a clear distortion of what happened. And the reference to Goodman as a source for the identical source has gone altogether and the only reference to Goodman is a puff piece from his book on the people who helped him write his book. --] (]) 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The changes made in the last 2 weeks have completely transformed this article, mostly for the worst. --] (]) 11:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{La|The Rush Limbaugh Show}} - Repeated insertions of poorly sourced partisan material. Cited sources include comedian ] and the progressive (a political viewpoint at odds with the views of the show's host) group ]. --'']''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
:This is more appropriate for ]. Although you're right, the added notations have a good deal of . 01:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
:Wait, you're kidding, right? You think people aren't allowed to use sources that are opposed to the show? What version of ] policy did you read, because that makes no sense? Articles are not for presented the views of the topic being discussed, it for discussing all major views, and the sources you are trying to complain about are highly respected on these topics. ] (]) 14:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
::DreamGuy, the report to this page was based upon a reading of ] and ] instead of ]. Are you arguing that ] has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by these policies? --'']''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 19:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

* {{la|Mike Duke}}

Mike Duke is the CEO of ]. The article had a poorly sourced "controversy" section which was referenced to a blog post and a piece on ]'s website which talked about the blog post. According to the blog, Duke had signed a petition in support of placing ] on the ballot. The implied bias is that Duke is homophobic. The section seems to clearly violate ], and ] guidelines about sourcing contentious material. I and removed the section from the article. An editor has , including one which merely replaced a dead link with a functioning one. Since I have a pre-existing conflict with ], I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at this. Thanks. ] (]) 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

:I removed the content from the article. IMO, it doesn't belong there as per ]. I'll mark this as resolved but continue to watch the article. {{Resolved|]<sup>]</sup> 01:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)}}
::Thanks, but take a look at the references. How can I put this? There has been an ''extremely sneaky'' effort made to use the Advocate article as a reference for Duke's starting date, rather than any number of business articles, and to use a copy of a petition from the previously mentioned blog post as a reference for Duke's birthdate, which is ] in itself. Can I suggest that you restore the article to the last version I edited? It also has a fix for a broken link to Wlamart's official bio of Duke. ] (]) 01:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

:::{{Resolved|I've changed those as well ]<sup>]</sup> 01:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)}}
::::Thanks! ] (]) 01:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for not informing of this discussion. There is no BLP vio in the content. It's sourced, validly, to a national magazine, a national web site, and a government document signed by Duke himself. '''- A'''LLST'''✰'''R<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>'''] '''</sub> 05:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
:I posted my intentions and rationale on the article talk page. You simply reverted without discussion (or apparently looking closely at what you were reverting since you restored a broken link). You have just done the same again. If you were any other editor, I would have reverted and asked you to discuss on the talk page, but given our history I brought it here so that you wouldn't feel like I was "harassing" you. <s>Unless you were solely responsible for the addition of that section -- I haven't looked -- the issue is with the article, not with you.</s> Two editors have now disagreed with your contention about BLP violations, and there are other issues as noted above. ] (]) 13:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
::Actually, it's two editors and . ]<sup>]</sup> 13:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

:The petition source can NOT be used as per ]. The reason, as I pointed out in , is that even though it is a certified legal document, it was not PUBLISHED by a reliable source. It was published by a BLOG. If you can get the same document from a reliable source, I think it's ok. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
::Even if we have a source that verifies he signed it, is there a source to say that there is a 'controversy' over it? --]]] 14:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Since people don't seem to getting it, here's what's wrong with this section - the Advocate's website (which is a fine magazine and reliable source) is simply reporting what the blog (an unreliable source) said. The blog is using a copy of a petition to include a on the ballot. We can't know if Mike Duke was the signer, even if the address and birth info appear to be correct, hence the ] problem. Even if he was the signer, we don't know that how he voted on the ballot. Even he did support the inclusion of the initiative on the ballot ''and'' voted for it, this isn't controversial. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the measure, according to the WP article on it, the initiative was agreed to by a majority of voters in Arkansas. Including these suppositions, even if it were possible to prove them, is clearly in violation of ]. ] (]) 14:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the most asinine flaunting of BLP just to whitewash an article I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages. It's a certified petition for christ's sake, it doesn't matter if it was pasted to a toilet stall wall, it's an official document accepted by the State of Arkansas. I'm not even going to discuss this because this is so absurd, I'm just dumbfounded by the ridiculousness of it all. '''- A'''LLST'''✰'''R<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>'''] '''</sub> 20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
:We're all trying to do the right thing here, and I'm hoping that there's still hope in keeping this civil, so I'm trying again. I've done something to illustrate my point. Take a look at . Look familiar? Now look at signature number 6. You see, anybody can manipulate an official document. So since the petition was PUBLISHED by a blog, just like my version was published by me at my picasa site, it cannot be relied upon. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

::(cross posted to the article talk page) The "original source" of a ] is not our concern. We could not have verified the accuracy of what ] was claiming forty years ago, and it wouldn't have been our job... It was the job of The Washington Post. When The Advocate, a reliable source, reports on or publishes something, we rely on their editorial judgment, not our own. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 00:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Is it established that The Advocate is a reliable source? ]<sup>]</sup> 00:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
::::I would say that it is, but it's a moot point. Simply having a generally reliable source say "this blog says..." doesn't magically make it acceptable. In any case, as I took pains to point out earlier, it is a clear violation of ] and ]. ] (]) 02:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
::Allstarecho, in what way is this "whitewashing" the article? Why is it important for WP readers to know that Duke may have signed that petition? ] (]) 02:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
:::The idea that including a verifiable, notable position (in either direction) of the chief executive officer of (one of) the largest corporation(s) in the world is certainly not ]. It would be preferable if we had a much fuller biography of Mike Duke, but that is not grounds to remove a notable, verifiable, and reliably sourced biographical fact. We have a ''reliable source'' reporting his position, using whatever fact checking they have in place. Once we establish that the publication is a reliable source and is verifiable, it isn't our job to say "Well, that magazine didn't use good editorial judgment in covering a blogger's opinion." That's ''not'' our job. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::There is no ''"notable, verifiable, and reliably sourced biographical fact''" being removed here. Re-read what I wrote earlier. We actually don't know anything about Duke's beliefs or actions based on the blog report, even if we accept it as fact. Someone signed a petition supporting a ballot initiative. We cannot know that it was Duke.
:::::You seem to have a misconception about sourcing. Reliable sources often report on what unreliable sources have said. This doesn't lend any validity whatsoever to the original report. The Advocate isn't "fact-checking" or taking responsibility for the information, it's simply saying "that blog says...". Feel free to take the discussion to the RS board if still you don't see that this is a very common situation (please post the links). ] (]) 14:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::"We" don't ''ever'' "know" anything. The only thing "we know" is what reliable sources tell us. ''The Advocate'' is a reliable source, ''nobody'' is disputing that (at least thus far), so ] would be an unnecessary bounce of the discussion elsewhere. You're attempting to expand ] to cover the editorial discretion, on a piece by piece basis, of a reliable source, and there's nothing in the policy that supports that. Can you directly quote something at ] that supports your position that we can question the editorial judgment of reliable sources? ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 22:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::<small>(See below for follow-up.) ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 23:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)</small>
::::<small>Post appearing on ]:</small> There's of course nothing wrong with disagreeing. As I wrote in my previous post, the problem I see here is that there are editors who feel that this content could violate ], and other editors disagree and proceed to just put the info back in. All I'm saying is that while there is such a disagreement on any article, especially on a BLP, we all must be patient and wait until the matter is resolved. I never said that we have to be unanimous ... I wrote ]. And since part of BLP is "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic," we need to keep the content out of the article until the consensus is reached either between us or through some kind of ]. Here's what I propose that I think might be helpful. Let's work on two things: 1. Try to find at least one completely neutral source for the petition, and 2. Let's try to build more content about other things to address Delicious carbuncle's ] concern. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
::Allstarecho, in what way is this "whitewashing" the article? Why is it important for WP readers to know that Duke may have signed that petition? ] (]) 13:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(←) I decided to go back to both ] and ] to figure out if there was any specific direction for an issue like this, and, indeed, there's this helpful test at ]:
#''Ask yourself whether the source is reliable,''
#''whether the material is being presented as true; and''
#''whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject.''

There has been no suggestion so far that ''The Advocate'' is anything but a reliable source, and I don't believe there's been any suggestion thus far that this would not be a relevant issue for the biography, so I think there's a general consensus on one and three. The question is with the second point: some editors believe that there is a possibility that the "]" in question might not have been the person to have signed the petition that created the "controversy." The issue here is whether or not we accept the reliable source in question relying on public records as indicative of the "truth."

Forging or signing a petition, or making a political contribution, in a name other than your own is a crime. Typically speaking, newspapers and other reliable sources regularly report on the political contributions of notable living persons... I don't know of any instance in which we have ever said "Oh, well, that might not be true" in any other case. Which brings me back to the fact that ''The Advocate'' vetted the story and believed the underlying facts to be truthful (it seems unlikely that they would have published it otherwise). ''The Advocate'' is a reliable source. I'll accept that the underlying "fact" is either truthful or fraudulent, but we have no evidence to the latter, and a reliable source reporting it as the former. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 23:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
:I don't know which parts of this you aren't getting. I'll give it one last try.
: (1) In my opinion, ] is generally a reliable source. (Let's ignore the fanciful idea that newspapers, magazines and other news media can be counted on to vet or fact-check information, just for the sake of simplicity.) The Advocate is not reporting that Duke signed the petition, it reporting that a blog ''says'' that Duke signed the petition. In the very first sentence of it says ''"...reports the group KnowThyNeighbor.org"''. The Advocate reporting on that blog posting does '''not''' make the information reliably sourced.
: (2) People forge names on petitions all the time - that's why in cases like this someone "officially" certifies them by checking a sample of names against voters lists or addresses, etc.
: (3) This is a clear violation of ]. I've said it several times, and other editors have said it also. Even if it were reliably sourced, this would still be the case. That Duke may have signed that petition isn't something that needs to be included in the article.
: (4) The implication of the "controversy" section appears to be: "Mike Duke, CEO of Walmart, is homophobic (and therefore so is Walmart)". Read the comments on the Advocate article. Look, I'm not one to defend Walmart or its CEO, but there's some obvious POV-pushing going on here.
:That's my last ride on this merry-go-round. I hope someone else will step up if required. ] (]) 02:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

::"''I don't know which parts of this you aren't getting.''" That would be these parts... The Advocate is a reliable source, the rest of your argument on point one is grandstanding. On point two, people forge names like "Mickey Mouse." Forging the name, signature, and address of the chief executive officer of a company would be a much bigger deal; nevertheless, the Secretary of State and The Advocate accepted the petition as accurate and truthful. As for ], we include things like poor HRC diversity rankings on company articles, controversial positions on politician biographies, and so forth all the time. Finally, on your last point, the assumption of whether Mike Duke is or is not homophobic is up to our readers, we can only write about what reliable sources report. As for Walmart, the company has an extensive non-discrimination policy, so your assumptions are your own. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 03:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

:::And I'd like to drive what ought to be the last nail in the coffin of this concept that we get to judge the journalistic and editorial standards of otherwise reliable sources on a piece by piece basis... Know Thy Neighbor is an organization. They reported on something on their blog. At least two third-party, otherwise reliable sources picked up the story. This is no different from when Focus on the Family or the ACLU harp on something... We typically would not accept either as reliable and verifiable, but once a third-party, reliable source pick it up, we can then consider including it. Blogs, themselves, are not (usually) reliable sources. Once a third-party, reliable, and verifiable source ''reports'' on whatever that blog is saying or doing, it becomes reliable. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 03:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to address another issue ... why is this material included in the first place? Assume for a moment that it's true, does it warrant inclusion in the article? Is it really important that the CEO of WalMart signed such a petition? It's not like he signed a petition that supported re-instituting slavery. Suppose a big CEO signed a petition supporting gay marriage. Should that necessarily be in his article too? Again, assuming that he really did sign the petition, I haven't seen anything that shows that his position on gay marriage is anything but his own personal opinion. It's not like he fired employees for supporting gay marriage. (If he did, it would certainly be relevant). If we include this, then there's no reason why we can't include the positions on affirmative action, gun-control, the Palestine/Israel conflict, stem cell research, abortion, global warming, etc. on every single bio on WP. Maybe this is why we still have not produced even a MENTION of this in any mainstream media news source. While the Advocate might be reliable, it's stated purpose is to provide news relevant to the LGBT community. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

:I'm not sure we differ between "mainstream" or, umm, "non-mainstream" reliable sources... In any event, it's not uncommon to include notable political or personal positions of chief executive officers... It's relatively rare for chief executive officers to take controversial political positions of any variety (on either side in this case), executives tend to be relatively apolitical, at least publicly... But, for example, see articles like ], ], and to a lesser extent, ], ], or ]. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 03:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
::Ok, I'll bite: what's the "notable political or personal position" here? ] (]) 04:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

:::That would be a position on ], among other things. You can see the article there to better understand why it's a notable political or personal position. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 18:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Here's where you may start to understand the problem - what is Mike Duke's position on LGBT adoption? ] (]) 21:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::According to a petition accepted (and heretofore unchallenged) by the Secretary of State of Arkansas, and as reported by at least two reliable sources, his position was that the voters in Arkansas should consider prohibiting cohabitating LGBT couples from adopting children or serving as foster parents. Did I miss something? ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 06:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::We don't actually have '''''any''''' reliable sources for this, let alone multiple sources. Even if we did, the most that you could infer from Duke signing the petition is that he signed the petition. That isn't a statement of his beliefs. Are you spending all this time arguing so that we can include in the article that ''"Duke signed a petition for a voter initiative indicating that he believed the voters in Arkansas should consider prohibiting cohabitating LGBT couples from adopting children or serving as foster parents"''? And this was labelled "controversy"? ] (]) 12:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::The tone of your questioning could best be described as "incredulous"... Do you have a personal viewpoint on the matter that might be preventing you from being objective? The reliable sources say what they say. You believe the underlying sourcing for those reliable sources is questionable, but there's really no basis in Misplaced Pages policy allowing us to decide that on a case by case basis, as I've stated before, and as I'll state again until you show me where -- ''anywhere'' -- ''in our policies'' you find support for your position. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 14:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::J, the onus to make a valid argument would seem to be on you, not on me. You been told by multiple editors that this is a ] violation. I don't think anyone has agreed with your contention that this is reliably sourced. If your question about my personal viewpoint is really asking if I'm homophobic or anti-LGBT then the answer is no, I'm not. Neither am I pro- or anti-Walmart. I believe I ''am'' being objective here. ] (]) 02:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::The onus is on every editor to make a valid argument. I am, by no means, the only editor advocating the inclusion of this content, but most people have given up trying at this point, I believe. Not because they agree with your position, but because they aren't willing to engage in a revert war with you to include the content (and, neither am I). I've made numerous points, none of which you've refuted; instead, you've posed numerous rhetorical questions, and you've yet to quote any policy supporting your position. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 21:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::I've refuted all of your points multiple times now, but you just keep repeating your assertions about reliable sources as if nothing had been said. If you don't want to take my word for it, go and ask at the RS noticeboard, as I suggested much earlier. My questions weren't rhetorical. When I asked if you were spending all this effort arguing to include in the article that ''"Duke signed a petition for a voter initiative indicating that he believed the voters in Arkansas should consider prohibiting cohabitating LGBT couples from adopting children or serving as foster parents"'', I actually hoped for an answer rather than an attack on my motivations. If you're done arguing, so am I. ] (]) 03:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::I've always viewed ] as sort of sacrosanct. If folks believe there's even the hint of a concern along those lines, then I'm going to try to figure out what the motivation is behind it, which I tried to do here with you... Do I believe this is notable? Yes. Do I believe the source is reliable? Yes. Do I believe including it would be overly undue? No. Still, you have shown you'll use undo to keep the content out regardless (admittedly from trolls hijacking the discussion). But, here, we're at a standstill. I may bring up the issue at another appropriate (and more trafficked) noticeboard (and I'll mention that on the article's talk page if I do), but I don't think ] is the proper venue (given that most folks, excluding yourself, have accepted that ] is an unquestionably reliable source). It is safe to say, though, that yes, I'm done "arguing" with you. :) ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 03:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Been watching this debate, and I have to say that Delicious Carbuncle is way off base in his reasoning. If a person signs a petition it is implicitly understood that they believe in the measures being petitioned for. Either that, or they are mentally incapable of understanding said measures. If there were a petition for the withdrawal of Pepsi from store shelves, I would not sign that petition. Why? Because I enjoy Pepsi. If I were impartial on the subject, I wouldn't sign the petition to begin with, as it would imply that I have an opinion on the matter. When high-profile figures are thrown in the mix, they would be careful not to put their name to anything they did not believe in as it could blow up in the media (as indeed this has). Thus, Mike Duke would not have signed that petition if he did not believe in and support its cause. ] (]) 00:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Drew, there are two problems with your argument - first, we cannot verify that it was Duke who signed the petition. Second, at issue is a petition to include an initiative on the ballot, not a vote on the initiative itself. Your assumption is not an unreasonable one, but it is just that - an assumption. Duke may have signed the petition because he felt that voters should be heard on this particular issue, not because he agreed with the initiative itself, but I'm not suggesting that was his reason because I don't know. And neither do you. It's a moot point, given that we don't have any reliable sources for this. ] (]) 02:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Except the one included in the revision history? The Advocate is a reliable source. Multiple editors above, including those advocating your position, agree. I'd encourage you to review ] if you're not familiar with what is or is not a reliable source. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 21:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::''I'' have said The Advocate is a reliable source, 3 or 4 times now. It's not a source for this particular story for reasons which I've also repeated about as many times. Feel free to get the last word in, but please don't use it for any more attacks, thanks. ] (]) 03:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I can't speculate as to what you've misinterpreted as an "attack" (but please do see ]). However, again, ] doesn't support your theory for piece by piece subjective treatment of the editorial decisions of reliable sources. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 06:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: This is an insane forecast! Are you genuinely suggesting that ol' Dukey (we went to high school together) should be branded a homophobe in a significan section of his article because he may have signed a petition?! That is the reason Wikilapediataia has the BLP policy in the first place - to prevent people from making unsourced (or badly sourced) allegations! And to lead from the signing of this petition to make him out as anti the gay, that's the actions of a crazy man! I'm sure many people sign a lot of peti-t-itions, sometimes contradicting each other - I'm sure politicians do! Just because someone signed a petition deploring the act of murder (or even requesting an inquiry about murder), this does not mean they are in favour of eg: stiffer sentences for murderers, hanging's too good for them! I'm so full of ink right now I'm swelled up like a balloon! Or say if a little chinese guy came up to you and wanted to put a tube in your ass and fill you full of custard? Just theoretically. You'd be shocked. But it doesn't necessary make you distrust the chinese - especially all chinese! That would be the act of a froth-mouthed madman. Seems we're dancing round in circles here - and I'm the one who's going to break through the steely walls and push forwards to a true resolution - like I said, I knew ol' Dukey when we were at school, and he never made any kind of advance on me, and I never made any advance on him. Like I said, we were friends - not "special friends", especially not in a gay way, but I won't have him treated like some kind of "burn the gays" "god hates fag sweden" church burner! He's a good businessman and the idea that you're making this kind of slur about him is sheer brutality. And it would be fine if it was written in a newspaper that he hates the gays - but SIGNING A PETITION?! This is goof-loonery of the highest treaty! I am disgusted. I will be discussing this with my wife and some of her friends. ] (]) 15:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: Oh and I might also say that this is why I have signed up to the Misplaced Pages. I used to think it is a fine reference but now the idea that it can be used as some system of slander disgusts me. Please be assured I will not rest on this issue. ] (]) 15:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Eh? I don't know of anyone that's called him a "homophobe," and such language has never appeared in the article. At least two reliable sources say he signed a petition, that's all we can say. On the other hand, the company he leads has a very progressive non-discrimination policy. If you (or anyone) believes the reliable sources published "unsourced (or badly sourced " against Mr. Duke, you should contact those publications and ask for a correction. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 21:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::Seems I'm Swamilive :) Did you miss me? ] (]) 03:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Seems you are now blocked. :) ]<sup>]</sup> 06:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

== Sarah Palin ==

During her time as governor, Sarah Palin had eighteen ethical complaints filed against her. We are having a disagreement about how to describe one of them. This source says (http://www.adn.com/palin/story/841059.html)
<blockquote>
The reimbursement, which was due today, stems from a Feb. 23 agreement filed by an Alaska Personnel Board special investigator that resolved an ethics complaint '''alleging Palin abused her power''' by charging the state when her children traveled with her.

'''The personnel board found no wrongdoing''', but Palin agreed to reimburse the state for costs associated with trips found to be of questionable state interest.

The board's investigator, Timothy Petumenos, said in his report '''there is little guidance under state rules to determine ethical standards for travel by the governor's immediate family'''. But he interpreted the law to require that the state pay only if the first family serves an important state interest.
</blockquote>

Some of the editors believe that the allegation that Palin "abused her power" should be included in the article. Some believe that the finding of "no wrongdoing" indicates that the Board threw out the abuse allegation, and that it should be omitted from the article as prejudical and contrary to BLP policy. Do you have an opinion about whether or not the abuse allegation should be included in the bio?] (]) 08:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
: The judgement should take precedence; the listing of unfounded parts of allegations isn't helpful and is confusing.] (]) 09:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The only material that can reasonably appear in the artiCle are the final findings, which were "no wrongdoing". All the rest (allegations subsequently dismissed, unsubstantiated claims of "abuse of power") confuse the issue, and are a potential libellous violation of ]. ] (]) 23:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

::That isn't quite accurate. If allegations are covered by strong sources, such as major newspapers, they can be discussed in the article, although not at such length as to give them undue weight. ] (]) 00:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Palin herself has cited the allegations as part of the reason for her resignation, so can we really claim "undue weight"? Also there has been a lot of strong sources to give these allegations a lot of attention, so again, does "undue weight" really apply? I would think no. ]<sup>'' ]''</sup> and<sup>'']''</sup> 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

:::*The allegations are covered by secondary sources and are available as public records, so the strength of the sources is not an issue. "Undue weight" is certainly an issue, since the allegations were made by a single individual and disproven in court. Elevating unproven allegations by an individual to the same level as judicial proceedings gives them undue weight. The issue is that some editors are attempting to use the allegations themselves as evidence of wrongdoing, not the outcome of the proceeding. That causes a POV problem and in my opinion should not be part of a BLP.] (]) 06:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::These never went to court. There is no court case. We must have comments that are informed about the way the process works in AK, we should not have all these falsehoods which only serve to confuse other wikipedians. To repeat there is no court case. Furthermore ethics complaints have been filed by multiple individuals. Yes, each individual complaint has been filed by only one person, but again that is the way the system works. ]<sup>'' ]''</sup> and<sup>'']''</sup> 10:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

::::::The complaints were adjudicated by lawful authority, one configured to protect the rights of the accused. Such issues should be weighted towards those rights, as set forth in BLP policy.] (]) 23:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The phrase ''abuse of power'' is the most egregious problem with the passage, since there's nothing even in the allegations, as described, to justify that kind of phrasing, which is normally used when someone in power is hurting a specific party who is not powerful. The allegation, from what I see of it here, is closer to tax cheating -- something that anybody could try, no official power needed. Palin cited the fact that she was getting ridiculous ethics complaints as one reason for stepping down -- that hardly justifies even this much treatment of allegations that were dismissed. Prominent allegations that are dismissed may still be used in an article because they've been prominent, but that prominence is obviously very limited once they're dismissed. It would be better to try to stick to facts -- say a representative allegation or two which are described in factual terms, not in phrases that are fraught with loaded meanings. -- ] (]) 18:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

* {{La|Roland Perry}} - brief explanation // Am novice user. A very experienced user {{Userlinks|YellowMonkey}} - is deleting all new material see and leaving only an out of date living person bio stub (of internationally published book author, Roland Perry) and half a dozen negative criticisms of the author's work. Have attempted to engage more experienced users and invite discussion to ] -- all with no real progress. Have also attempted to have information which maligns Roland Perry removed from Misplaced Pages -- also to no avail. See Would appreciate help of experienced editor to help navigate the dispute. // ] (]) 13:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

:] has done some extensive work on it since your last edit. Does that deal with your concerns?&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 19:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

:] That's a great synthesis. Appreciate you bringing to bear your objectivity and higher-level editing. +I have updated the first para; author Roland Perry is onto his 23rd book now. Would also appreciate following up with any questions on how to improve the content and if any further disputes brewing. ] (]) 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

Problems with the Roland Perry page have returned. The very experienced user {{Userlinks|YellowMonkey}} has deleted the content extensively, with these actions including: loading up the Cricket Book section in a very unbalanced way with purely negative criticism and removing positive reviews; cutting away all of the subject's career overview except to wrongly emphasise a related political article in Penthouse and leaving one para on a minor Guam project (rendering the career section bizarre); and willfully adding a paragraph which directly maligns the subject :


I would appreciate any ideas and assistance to resolve these problems.

Balanced content and sources can give a fair view of the subject; but only if there are the conditions for genuine discussion and development of the content.

Despite many invitations, the YellowMonkey user has not used the ] to discuss content changes to date.

This is all very disappointing.

] (]) 13:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

Attempted this DIY Reversion: . Hope YellowMonkey user will take editing proposals to ]. ] (]) 14:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
:This SPA is an autobiographical spammer ''']''' ('']'') ] 03:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{resolved}}--] 19:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just declined a speedy G10 as it is sourced, but I'm off out in a minute so fresh eyes would be welcome. '']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 17:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
*I've worked on his a bit, and I think it's more acceptable now. I'm marking it resolved, but feel free to revert that, if you think there's still some issues there. ] 19:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{resolved}}--] 19:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Is his religion adequately sourced? Second paragraph says he "is Jewish." "Personal" section, based on Q&A with the man, says he is "half-Jewish." I'm out of patience with an editor who keeps reverting back the contradiction, so a fresh viewpoint would be welcome. --] (]) 18:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
*I've moved the section "Personal" to the talkpage, as it reads more like a list of trivia than an actual section. Hopefully the discussion there will be productive. If not, please leave another note here, and we'll see what we can do. ] 19:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
::This has not been resolved, as the issue that I raised remains. To recapitulate, it says in the second paragraph of the article, unequivocally, that Fuld is Jewish. But in that section that you moved (correctly) to the talk page, it says he is of Jewish-Catholic extraction, based upon statements Fuld himself made. For all I know, the sports publications cited in the second paragraph could have been assuming his religion based on his name. I think that, in the absence of better sourcing such as Fuld himself saying what his religion is, we should not take it upon ourselves to make that statement based upon contradictory sourcing. There is no earth-shattering need to declare this person's religion, and I believe that BLP requires that we deal with such things cautiously.--] (]) 20:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
::*I have made series of edits to the article, based upon your concerns. Does this take care of the problem, in your view? I've marked this unresolved, until I hear back from you on this. ] 15:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, definitely resolved now, assuming these changes <s>(and one's I'm about to make on categories)</s> are not reverted. Thanks very much. --] (]) 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Marking as resolved, and reiterating (from my talk), that I don't bear strong opinions as to the removal or retention of the categories. ] 15:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::My mistake. The categories were previously removed. Definitely resolved now. --] (]) 15:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{la|Alex Sink}}

There's a persistent anon editor who's continually adding a half-the-length-of-the-article hit piece about this gubernatorial candidate. Can a few people keep an eye on this one? ] (]) 15:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

:I don't know if the alleged transgressions are worthy of inclusion, but to have half the source of the article about this seems to me to be ] weight on the issue. ] (]) 16:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

::Well, yes. I don't know if they warrant mentioning either, but I'm concerned with the clear BLP violation. ] (]) 16:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
*I have slashed the section down to the basic facts, well-referenced and neutral. I'm declining to mark this resolved as yet, but if the others involved here feel like it is, please mark it as such. ] 20:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

There are a number of SPA repeatedly adding in personal details about the individual's family including the names of the children and salacious details about Lancaster's divorce. There may be sockpuppetry issues with the SPA. I've been dealing with this on and off for a few days but having more eyes on it might help (especially since I'm not going to have much internet access for close to 48 hours). ] (]) 18:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
:{{Resolved|article has been semi-protected ]<sup>]</sup> 00:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)}}

== Reality TV series ==

There have appeared several articles about reality TV show series, such as ] (since deleted), and ], and, presumably ], ], etc., which are supposedly real showings of people going about their lives, and appearing on TV. When the articles discuss bad things which the people involved in these series do, and they're totally sourced to the shows themselves, do these edits violate ]? ] (]) 00:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
:No. ] (]) 15:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
::Why not? ] (]) 18:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Of course they do. Absent some verification, the claims are nothing more than editors' first-hand accounts of having watched the show and interpretations of whatever was said. At best, original research into primary sources. There's in practice a limited exception to the no-primary-source rule in ] applying to sources for in-universe references in articles regarding fiction, including television shows, and some editors are smashing trucks through this "loophole" by applying it to all television episodes, whether fiction or nonfiction (applying that term rather broadly to reality TV). ] says "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject," and the broadcasts themselves are primary sources. ] (]) 18:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Thank you. My concern came up when reading the season descriptions at ], where it uses terms like "player" and "been around the block". ] (]) 19:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{resolved}}--] 20:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
{{La|Katja Shchekina}}

This biography is continually being edited to include poorly sourced information regarding the model's ethnic background. Both of the sources cited in the article are basically soft core pornography sites with low journalistic standards. There is also absolutely nothing in either of the articles which establishes which parent is of what ethnicity, and the page is being edited to intermingle poorly sourced information with the personal opinions of the editor. The issue of this model's ethnic background began as internet speculation and it continues to persist in that vein. It has already been established in the discussion page that there is evidence elsewhere which completely contradicts a mixed Somali-Russian background (i.e. the model's own claim that she is not part Somalian). The article is also being persistently edited to include subjective phrases like "in demand model", "top designers" and "is a favorite with". I think the article should avoid remarks about parentage and race entirely.
*I've cut this down quite a bit, and -- I think -- addressed the concerns you raised here. I'm tentatively marking it resolved, but feel free to remove that tag, if you feel there are additional issues. ] 20:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

In Response to a "BLP unsourced" notice requesting help at the top of the article, warning that the article did not cite references as required by BLP policy, I added two references, and noted that on the talk page.

The article now seems to comply with the policy, particularly as it applies to "Well-known public figures." The subject is a well-known musician in South-Asia, and there is nothing inaccurate, controversial, or inappropriate in the article. I would like to remove the "BLP unsourced" notice, and just want to confirm it's OK before doing so. --] (]) 07:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
:It is now "partly sourced" -- at such point as the major claims are sourced, the tag departs this vale of tears. IMHO. ] (]) 00:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
::The article now includes a reliable biography reference, but could still use improvement. The tag was modified earlier by a bot to unsourced (the bot doesn't seem to change the date, or change the tag back after improvement, as far as I can tell). I changed the tag back to unreferenced, which now seems more appropriate. I assume the bot will correct it or that someone will advise if that's not so. Hopefully all is well, and I believe this issue is resolved.--] (]) 18:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

] keeps removing a reference to an article in '']'', on the grounds that it is "defamatory". I believe it is a reliable source, though admittedly only secondarily relevant to the subject. The article is a commentary on another article (in the ''Daily Telegraph'') about the subject. &mdash;] 08:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary:

I'm thinking this might be in violation of ]? &mdash;] 22:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

:Sure sounds like a legal threat to me, I would alert an admin at ]. -- ]] 23:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

::Sounds like a legal threat, but a pointless one, as it is citing something in a national newspaper, and not even commenting on it in the text - unless they have retracted anything about him subsequently (doubtful, as the article would eithe be unavailavle, or edited with the retraction. Thing is though, what is the point of citing it? It is about the media's coverage of something, rather than him - using the media coverage of him as saying something about the media, rather than about him. ] (]) 23:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

:::The user has now been blocked. I've rewritten some of the bits in the article to use the references properly, but strictly speaking some of the included cites shouldn't be there, and they certainly shouldn't have been where they were placed. --''']]''' 23:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

::::This is playing out like ], which bothers me. &mdash;] 00:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

:I've removed the source in question from the article. Not because of the legal threat, but because we already had another, better source for the statement it was nominally supporting in the article. The source was an opinion piece that included a rather insulting description of our article's subject, but was written to address a different topic. The opinion piece didn't add to our article, so I pulled it. (For U.S. readers, it would be like sourcing the statement "Barack Obama is President of the United States" with a link to Rush Limbaugh's blog.) Just-the-facts-ma'am newspaper articles are preferred over opinion pieces for establishing basic facts. ](]) 00:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

::My concern is partly that the Telegraph cite is undated and unfindable online, and the Independent cite proves it exists and includes some of its information. The other is that the Independent cite helps establish notability to some small degree. &mdash;] 00:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Slight problem - the Independent, if it establishes anything about him, is saying that he is not notable enough to warrant a headline in the Telegraph. So, his main claim to notability is his title, which was used in a report about a more notable event (a bombing in India where 17 people died), and the title was referred to by the Independent criticising the Telegraph for doing so. It establishes his non-notability, and I can't see why he warrants an article. ] (]) 08:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

::::A source can ''argue'' non-notability, but by discussing a subject, it inevitably ''adds'' to notability. &mdash;] 08:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::Sure, but in this case, it adds notability to the title, not the person who holds the title: ]. ] (]) 18:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::Actually, no, because the Independent article discusses him as a person, with the suggestion that he specifically is not notable enough for the Telegraph headline. &mdash;] 09:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::: So, if a newspaper notes somebody's lack of notability, that makes them notable in their own right? ] (]) 09:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::: ]: '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.' ] (]) 09:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: It's not enough to establish notability (we have the other sources for that), but it certainly adds a little bit. In any case, it's a reliable source that refers to the subject, so it's a relevant link. &mdash;] 04:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

*If he has a problem with a newspaper article, he can sue the newspaper... ] (]) 19:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{la|Gianmichael Salvato}}

I'm not at all concerned with the apparent vandalism to the page as it seems to be reverted fairly soon after it's discovery, however I am concerned that the page does not meet the guidelines for notability.

Upon going through the history and finding pages that were not actually vandalism, most of the text took on the feel of a personal advertisement rather than a biography. None of the information contained any real verifiable information as to education, business dealings, notability, and the such which violates ]. In fact, many of the references are ]. It was filled with ] and ].

There was even a claim that he was a well known and notable author (or some such thing), however, searches on all his names for books written produced only two books on-line through Lulu.com (goto storefront for dharmadude it will come up with Mr. Salvato's information.) from information provided at shows his diplomas are from a ] and are not notable at all.

It further seems as if there are personal interests involved with this page and it is requested a third unbiased person step in to make a determination if the page should actually remain or if it should be deleted. I've not yet marked the page for possible deletion and since I've never done so before, felt I should get another perspective on this before I make such a drastic suggestion.

Thank you in advance for whatever help may be offered. ] (]) 17:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

:With a total of 15 G-hits on his name and order, none of which appear to be RS, it appears to be at best ] and at worst eminently deletable. ] (]) 00:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

::I have ] it.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 19:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Thank you all for the help. I'm rather new and still learning, but taking many notes. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;">] ]</font> 20:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

So, we now have a nude video, apparently, of this very pretty woman. It's made its way to Misplaced Pages with a flurry edits. It is referenced at the moment, and her lawyer has admitted it occurred. My reading of BLP says the only reason to remove it would be "right to privacy" - apparently we're observing this policy on ] for some revealing cellphone photos last year. Thoughts? ] (]) 01:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

:Taped without consent or permission equates to clear violation of privacy from the start. IMHO, it has no business on WP ever. Not even a close call. ] (]) 13:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

:Linking to or referencing the video itself is obviously inappropriate. Whether the incident itself should be mentioned in the Misplaced Pages article depends on the way the incident is covered by reliable secondary sources and its significance in relation to the subject's career/notability as a whole. In most cases, incidents like this fail at least one half of the test (for example, the paparazzi photos of Jacqueline Onassis in Hustler or wherever were widely reported, but were no more than a flyspeck from the perspective of her entire life; in contrast, Vanessa Hudgens's cellphone photos were both widely reported and were generally considered to have significant potential to affect her career. Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to be a place to document every embarassing moment in a celebrity's life -- there are way too many mentions of DUI arrests,, etc in celebrity articles, for example -- and the idea that anything that can be sourced should be included is just plain wrong. We don't have "Delinquent Tax Payments of the Rich & Famous" sections in articles, or "Child Star Bedwetting Incidents." (We do seem to have "Acts of Drunken Stupidity by Rock Musicians and/or Busty Female UK Celebrities" but I've been working on eliminating that one. But now I'm just ranting.) ] (]) 19:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

Isn't the title of this article POV in the extreme? It was originally at this title, then it got moved to ], which seems more NPOV, and then it got moved back again. ] (]) 20:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
:{{Resolved|Absolutely. That page was semi-protected AFTER it was moved by a vandal. I have placed an unprotect request on the talk page of the article for an admin.}} ]<sup>]</sup> 21:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

== Professor Carl Hewitt ==

Professor Carl Hewitt has again been attacked in the article about him on Misplaced Pages.] (]) 22:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

] is another amazing Misplaced Pages scandal. Does Jimmy Wales know about it? ] (]) 19:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

:It looks like Misplaced Pages needs a new policy: '''Don't be evil!''' ] (]) 21:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

::Is there '''any''' Misplaced Pages policy (including "Don't be evil") which has been violated here by anyone other than Carl Hewitt and the Students (which sounds like a good name for a rock band). — ] ] 21:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

:This incident shows that Misplaced Pages needs a code of ethics for Administrators and Arbitrators. ] (]) 21:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

::Even if what Carl says is accurate (which is not a forgone conclusion), there doesn't seem to be any policy '''or''' "code of ethics" which is violated, by anyone other than Carl. — ] ] 22:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

:If Arthur Rubin speaks for Misplaced Pages, then the situation is far worse than most people imagined.] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 22:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::Explain what policy, guideline, or proposal that has been violated by the people Carl thinks are opposing him? I can name a number of guidelines which have been violated by Carl. — ] ] 00:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
::And I clearly don't speak for Misplaced Pages, nor do they speak for me. — ] ] 01:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

:I don't understand what the anon is asking be done here. ] (]) 07:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

::I think he wants Charles Matthews removed as an arbitrator, or perhaps the subject's restrictions against editing Misplaced Pages removed. Most of this rotating anon's comments on ] seem related to that section of one of CH's essays against Misplaced Pages. — ] ] 14:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


The complaint in ] seems to be that the following section of the article violates NPOV:

:'''Hewitt's changes to the "Logic programming"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/Logic_programming</ref> article sparked some criticism by ] and the logic programming community.<ref>{{cite journal|journal=Association for Logic Programming Newsletter|volume=20|number=2|date=May/June 2007|title=Logic Programming in Misplaced Pages Update|author=Robert Kowalski|authorlink=Robert Kowalski|url=http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~dtai/projects/ALP/newsletter/may07/content/vol20no2.pdf}}</ref>'''

::Well, it seems it was accurate at the time, but Kowalski didn't understand Misplaced Pages (either; I don't think it's a violation of any BLP to say that neither Kowalski nor Hewitt understood the Misplaced Pages model at the time they edited.) What '''specific''' change would you suggest? — ] ] 22:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

::The facts as indicated in Kowalski's ALP newsletter article seem to be as follows:
::#Kowalski was involved in an edit war with Hewitt from 30 March through 11 April 2007
::#:(Perhaps about the definition; it wasn't entirely clear).
::#Kowalski proposed a definition fork, with Kowalski's preferred definition being in ].
::#"The administrator enforcing the ban" decided against the fork.
::This seems to have left the article in a confused state, as neither Hewitt (because of the ban) nor Kowalski (because ...?) feels able to improve the article.
::Does that seem an appropriate analysis of Kowalski's article? If so, Hewitt's changes ''did'' spark criticism by Kowalski and the logic programming community, but so did the admin's action in locking the article. — ] ] 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

:::The above is not a bad account although it needs to be augmented with information from <ref name="Corruption">Carl Hewitt Google Knol.</ref> and <ref name="Middle">Carl Hewitt ArXiv 0904.3036</ref>. Also it needs to be put in the context of the larger story (see ]).] (]) 15:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

:According to <ref name="Corruption"/>:
::A recent example of Misplaced Pages libel occurred when Hewitt became involved in an academic dispute with Robert Kowalski over a Computer Science research area called “Logic Programming.” Kowalski appealed to an Administrator of Misplaced Pages to intervene in the dispute. Thus Kowalski was in effect promoting his own side of an academic dispute by participating in Hewitt's censorship by Misplaced Pages. (See <ref name="Middle"/>] for a detailed discussion of the dispute.)

::Although lacking expertise in this particular area of Computer Science, Charles Matthews (a very high level Misplaced Pages official) favored Kowalski’s side and using his Misplaced Pages power enforced it by censorship with the justification of “Neutral Point of View.” Furthermore, Matthews “tipped off” a reporter (who he had successfully “cultivated” to write stories favorable to Misplaced Pages) to enlist her in writing an article that libeled Hewitt. Matthews then became the principle unnamed source for the resulting Observer hatchet job appearing under the false guise of an independent “senior academic” in Hewitt's field of research casting aspersions on him. Kowalski confided in Matthews. As a result, Matthews sent the reporter off to interview Kowalski. Consequently, the reporter has tape recordings and emails of Kowalski saying some harsh things about Hewitt. (Kowalski has subsequently made amends in his emails to Hewitt; see <ref name="Corruption"/>.)

::When Matthews applied to be reappointed as an Arbitrator, Sarah McEwan (AKA SlimVirgin) raised the issue that "you discussed this story with the committee prior to publication , and they either encouraged you or didn't stop you. The point is that it's an odd thing, in my view, for an ArbCom member to do." However, Mathews was "unrepentant" about his behavior. His justification was that his instigation of the libelous Observer attack on me resulted in continued favorable publicity for Misplaced Pages by the same reporter. Also, the article served as an object lesson intended to intimidate other academics from challenging censorship by Misplaced Pages Administrators less the same thing happen to them.

{{reflist|2}}

== ] ==

* {{La|Fight Club (film)}} - At ], there was a recent addition about 17-year-old Kyle Shaw trying to carry out ''Fight Club''-esque acts of vandalism. I do not normally edit BLP articles, so I was not sure if this addition was appropriate or not. I can see how the headline is relevant since articles about real-life fight clubs are cited, but since he is under 18 years old and his name is used, I wanted to get opinions of those more familiar with the policy. Perhaps the best approach is to remove mention of his name and leave it to the citation? I also started discussion at ], so feel free to respond here or there. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) 01:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
::I think you're right that the name should be removed from the article; none of the individuals involved in the other copycat incidents mentioned in the article are named, even though at least some of them have been convicted, and one is the son of a prominent government official. So I've done that (and condensed the discussion a bit). ] (]) 05:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

Our article on the ] confirms what common sense tells us: the term implies, to most readers, "that someone is an extremist." When numerous reliable sources exist that offer all sorts of descriptions of a judge, thereby allowing us to choose between several descriptions of that person for which a citation can be offered, should we choose the needlessly inflammatory one ("far right"), or should we select a more accurate (and more NPOV) description from among the available sources (such as "conservative")? <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 13:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
:There are several reliable sources calling Clarence Thomas a member of the "far right" of the Court, and many more calling him the "most conservative" member of the Court. The WP article doesn't say he's far right in general (though he is); it just says he's on the far right of the Court. ] (]) 15:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
::And there are other reliable sources that describe him in other terms. You and MastCell want to present this into a dispute about sourcing, but it isn't: it's about content. You want to describe Thomas as being an extremist, so you've found a reliable source that describes him as being "far right," but the existence of other reliable sources means that it can't be the end of the debate that such a source exists. You have to defend your preference in terms of ''content'', and that means defending your desire to have the article insinuate that Thomas is an extremist. <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 16:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Thomas' description should reflect what all RS say, with careful attention paid to weighting using reliability. I have less of an issue with describing someone as "far right" (or left, or up, or down) if enough good sources say so than with the idea that the article on the term Far Right might have too much soapboxing/OR in insinuating extremism. I know my opinion doesn't count as an RS, but I can think of people at both far ends of the political spectrum that I would not consider extremist, in the sense you (SD) are objecting to. Rafael's comment regarding scope of far rightness (within the Court) would significantly temper the problematic connotation of extremism. ]&nbsp;(]) 17:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
::::As an involved party: let's be clear on what the sources actually say. ] summarizes Thomas' position on the Court: PBS on Thomas: I know of no serious contention that these are unreliable or unencyclopedic sources. I don't think that reliable sources should be excised simply because their wording offends the sensibilities of one editor, but yet this is a recurring theme at the article. I will refrain from further comment here, and I'm not willing to be quite as free with imputations of malice as Simon has been above, but to cast this as a BLP issue is seriously misguided. I invite any and all curious parties to ], since I think there are serious quality issues with the article that can probably only be resolved with additional eyes. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
:When read through the lens of the article on Far Right, then you are correct. The problem is, however, that I think the article on Far Right is wrong in many of its connotations. Reading that article, you get the impression that "Far right" means the next coming of Naziism. This is not an accurate portrayal of what Far Right now means in the US. The articles needs to be revamped and updated.---''']''' '']'' 18:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::(ec)"Far right" is obviously an inflammatory phrase. Common sense tells you that. Simply because we can find normally reliable sources who happen to have shown their bias on occasion, that does ''not'' mean that "far right" is the commonly accepted, widely accepted, consensus term for Thomas' philosophical stance. It isn't. Anyone with any familiarity with common coverage of the court already knows that. It doesn't do Misplaced Pages or its readers any good to take a source's inflammatory language and use it as if it were the uncontroversial mainstream view. And doing that is offensive. It is certainly a BLP issue because it is an attack on Thomas, who's been attacked -- rabidly -- quite a bit over the years, a situation that should make us more sensitive to bias on Misplaced Pages's part. There are dozens of alternative descriptions that would avoid inflammatory phrasing, and yet one of the most inflammatory is put into the article. It's simply bizarre to think that the inflammatory nature of "far right" is drained away by being cute in referring, on the surface, only to the court. To say "far right wing block" or "far right of the court" somehow makes it fine to treat the phrase this way in the article just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The court is a controversial, politically sensitive topic. When we run across those, we need to take extra care to not only be neutral, but to look neutral. If I put a phrase like "child lover" into the ] article, claiming I was only talking about his well-sourced ''affection'' for children and not referring to the pederasty allegations against him, it would be obvious that I was either stupid or trolling. ], according to a reliable source (which I believe Misplaced Pages still cites), was one of the three most left-wing members of the U.S. Senate. That would not justify a Misplaced Pages article stating that "After he was elected to the upper chamber of Congress, Obama aligned closely with the far left of the Senate." or "Obama was a solid member of the far-left block in the U.S. Senate, commonly voting with Socialist Bernie Sanders." No one trying to be neutral would write that way. -- ] (]) 18:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::You're making a content argument, and one to which I'm somewhat sympathetic - I'd rather we have a more rounded reflection of what reliable sources actually have to say about Clarence Thomas in our article. But a content argument isn't a BLP violation. Believe me, I take BLP seriously - but citing multiple independent, entirely reliable secondary sources, verbatim, with in-line attribution (e.g. "The Oyez Project described Thomas as..."), to describe a major public figure's political orientation is ''in no way'' a BLP violation. In fact, it's reasonably good editing practice. Perhaps we should add additional reliable sources, or alter our presentation of them - that's an issue for discussion on the talk page, but not a BLP issue.<p>As an aside, if an independent, reliable source has described Obama as a "solid member of the far-left block in the U.S. Senate", then that might be reasonable for inclusion, verbatim, with in-line attribution, as I've argued here. That would be an issue for discussion at ], but not a BLP violation. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
(redent) It is absolutely a BLP violation. Reporting on ''criticism'' of subjects who fit into ] is justified, even a duty for Misplaced Pages under ]. But "far right" is just name calling. Please read through the WP:BLP policy again. Here are the relevant passages:
* From the "i" box: ''If you are concerned about the accuracy or appropriateness of biographical material in a Misplaced Pages article '' You're treating this as if accuracy is the only issue. That isn't the case with BLP. Appropriateness is also an essential aspect of BLP policy. My Michael Jackson and Obama examples had nothing to do with accuracy.
* First paragraph: ''biographical material about a living person requires a high degree of sensitivity'' Except when you're dealing with people who are '''''widely''''' called "far right" that is a phrase to be avoided in any BLP -- because using it elsewhere will obviously violate the requirement of a ''high degree of sensitivity''
* Writing style section: ''The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.'' "Far right" is quite obviously overstatement. Adjectival phrases are not supposed to be exaggerations, especially in BLPs, and especially when the idea is "negative". The policy is clear.
* Criticism and praise section: ''Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article.'' Where is the evidence that describing Thomas as "far right" is either (a) a major (never mind "mainstream") opinion about him, even in relation to "far right of the court"? (b) an uncontested, uncontroversial label that a large proportion of the reliable sources would not object to? If it's controversial, even if it were worth mentioning, the phrase should be presented as controversial. Just look at it in the article: It's presented as fact, and it's not even ''necessary'' in the passage so lovingly quoted at length. If the sentence with the phrase in it were dropped from that passage, ''the purportedly neutral idea behind that phrase would remain'' because the rest of the passage says the same thing. You're arguing over an unnecessary phrase that's simultaneously offensive. Does that sound like a ''high degree of sensitivity'' to you? Does it sound like ''written conservatively''? Does it avoid ''overstatement''? Does it reflect the careful approach WP:BLP tells us is needed?
* Well-known public figures section: ''If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.'' Note that this is basically the only difference between a BLP subject who fits into the WP:WELLKNOWN provisions of the policy and a BLP that doesn't. This is in the "Privacy" section of BLP and is concerned with scandal coverage, but it also addresses the broader idea of appropriate material (''notable, relevant, and well-documented''). How is it ''notable'' or ''relevant'' that Thomas be called "far right" when you could just as easily remove that short sentence and the passage would make the point that he is in the most conservative group in the court? How is it ''well documented'' when the article presents "far right" not as an opinion held by biased, left-wing court observers but as a phrase that is widely considered perfectly acceptable in describing him (much as its widely acceptable to characterize a Klansman or a neo-Nazi as "far right")? Here's the passage in the article, by the way (I defy anyone to tell me what is essential in the first sentence that isn't adequately communicated in the rest of the quote, or even in the article's lead-in to the quote):

::Upon his appointment, Thomas was generally perceived as joining the conservative wing of the Court, voting most frequently with Chief Justice ] and Justice ]. The Oyez project reported:
:::Since becoming a justice, Thomas has aligned closely with the far right of the Court. He votes most frequently on the same side as the conservative camp of Rehnquist and Scalia. When Thomas began his tenure on the Court, many observers perceived him as a junior version of Scalia. Since then, Thomas has emerged from Scalia's shadow offering hints at his own conservative thinking.
:-- ] (]) 19:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

::Let's be clear: I would never write, as a Wikipedian, that Clarence Thomas was at the "far right" of the Court. You can see, in your blockquote, the wording I chose: Thomas "was generally perceived as joining the conservative wing of the Court." I think I ''have'' respected BLP, and chosen neutral, respectful, and reasonably sensitive language. On the other hand, when quoting an actual reliable source, I feel somewhat constrained to do so in a way which honestly reflects its content. Why should we bowdlerize specific sentences out of reliable sources because we don't like them? By deliberately leaving out the parts of the source that you find overly "inflammatory", you're altering the meaning and content of the source, and actively misrepresenting it. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Agree. We have numerous reliable sources saying Thomas is on the "far right" of the Court, and we phrase it as such. The article in general, if anything, is biased in favor of Clarence Thomas, relying heavily on using his own words and frequently letting him define himself, so using some reliable sources to characterize his position on the Court relative to others is completely acceptable. ] (]) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Rafael: ''We have numerous reliable sources saying Thomas is on the "far right" of the Court'' my point is that this one is presented as providing neutral reporting or analysis, a point which you're not addressing. As a matter of fact, you've ignored all of my points. -- ] (]) 21:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec):::MastCell: Misrepresenting it? How so? If the factual, neutral reporting that this source is presented in the article as providing is the only thing being conveyed by the sentence ''Since becoming a justice, Thomas has aligned closely with the far right of the Court.'' then what ideas are not conveyed by starting the quote with the next sentence rather than with that one? In addition, the article language just before the quote also conveys the idea. Again, if this were presented as one of the important ''opinions about'' Thomas, I'd be fine with it. But it's presented as reporting from a neutral observer, and it implies that the conservative wing of the court is "far right" in American politics, when that phrase is reserved for (a) mainstream accounts of people to the right of the Republican Party and (b) use by opinion writers to stigmatize people they disagree with. Do Google News searches of "Clarence Thomas" and "far right" or "Sotomayor" and "far left". All you find are opinion pieces in the first hundred results. Normal news coverage doesn't call SCOTUS justices "far right" or "far left". MastCell, you can be unfair and violate WP:BLP in other ways besides the words you write in an article. This is one of them. ''when quoting an actual reliable source, I feel somewhat constrained to do so in a way which honestly reflects its content.'' As I said, the only "content" reflected in "far right" is the source's biased opinion-mongering, apparently masquerading as neutral reporting or analysis. What you should feel constrained to do is avoid misrepresenting to our readers someone's opinionating for reporting or neutral analysis, and protecting living persons from unfair attacks from Misplaced Pages. Those come first. Anything you owe the source is a distant third, and exercising editorial judgment over what's ''notable'' and ''relevant'' to include in a BLP article won't violate any duties you have to the source. I'm all for reporting major opinions or criticisms held by any but a tiny minority, but that doesn't include simple name calling or presenting those opinions as neutral analysis or reporting. I've said everything I need to say, so I'm going to walk away, at least for now. I respect your motives, but articles on controversial subjects are difficult to edit neutrally. So please take some time out consider what I've said. -- ] (]) 21:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
:Here's the problem - liberals think that all conservatives are "far right". Conservatives think that all liberals are "far left". As liberals vastly outnumber conservatives in the media, there will always be an abundance of MSM sources happy to brand conservatives with the "far right" moniker. --] (]) 21:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
::I haven't found ''news reports'' from reliable sources that do that with Thomas. If they exist, they're such a tiny minority that we don't need to cover that. Of course there are plenty of opinion pieces that call various people "far right" and "far left". As long as it's labeled/treated as opinion, and as long as it represents a significant point of view, there's no BLP violation there, either. The problem is treating opinionated statements as acceptable factual reporting or neutral analysis. That's biased and, when it involves a BLP, against BLP policy. I think I saw "left wing" twice in the Sonia Sotomayor nomination article, both times labeled as opinion. -- ] (]) 22:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
:::I don't want to belabor this any further, but perhaps the quote bears repeating in full. It states that Thomas has aligned with "the far right ''of the Court''" (emphasis mine). The Court is 9 people. At any given time, someone will be at the far right and someone (probably John Paul Stevens at the moment) at the far left. That doesn't mean that Clarence Thomas is a neo-Nazi, or that Stevens is an anarcho-syndicalist. It simply reflects their relative position on a Court of 9 individuals. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Clarence Thomas be labeled a member of the "far right", only that his position ''on the Court'' has been characterized as occupying the far right of that particular spectrum. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
::::The full quote exacerbates rather than ameliorates the problem: it implies that there is a far right group on the court with which Thomas caucuses. Now, of course, one can make the argument that the description is merely relative, that we are simply describing the position of Thomas vis-à-vis the other Justices. But that isn't how the article will be read. It's a strained interpretation of the phrase, and for good reason: That just isn't how that phrase is used or understood. No one would describe Hillary Clinton as being on the far right of the cabinet, or Olympia Snowe as being on the far right of Maine politics. And it is an ''interpretation'' of the phrase, one that we cannot explain in the article without raising ] problems. The simplest answer is to use the source I proposed the other day: say he's on the right of the court and be done with it. Your insistence on retaining that one word is the stumbling block here.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 00:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Simon Dodd is right. The way I'd put it is that "far right" could reasonably be understood to mean "Thomas is far right in terms of American politics and one of the representatives of the far right on the court". We don't need to use words with emotional undertones like this because it isn't the "conservative" language that WP:BLP wants us to use. On a court of nine members, "far right" and "far left" just aren't appropriate. Something like "most conservative faction on the Court" (or the language that's on the page right now) does the job without the pejorative implications, which are always coveyed when we read "far right" and "far left".
::::Incidentally, discussion is now continuing on the Thomas talk page. -- ] (]) 01:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd never heard of this chap before I saw this. I don't know if that makes me neutral or ignorant. Anyway, I thought I'd chip in a view from across the water.

IMO, the term ''far right'', when used in the UK with no qualification, identifies someone whose views are likely to be somewhat akin to those of the ]. Many people (imo) see the BNP as an extremist organisation, though it had success in recent elections and represents two UK constituencies in the European parliament. Yet everything depends on context. While maintaining essentially the same world-view across several decades, former Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, ] has found himself from far right to left. He would probably agree that he was on the far right of 80s Labour Party, and would probably have agreed so at the time. Labelling him ''far right'' in that context would be neither inaccurate nor inflammatory. There's a huge difference between saying someone is on the far right, and saying they're on the far right of X. One could plausibly say of someone that they are on the far right of the Communist Party, the Labour Party or the BNP.

The description used should be whichever most closely represents the views of expert opinion as expressed through RS. ''Conservative'' isn't inherently neutral and ''far right'' isn't inherently inflammatory. Accuracy is important only insofar as it pertains to accurate representation of the opinion expressed in the sources. We don't try to accurately represent our own world-view; we try to accurately represent the world-view expressed in the sources. --] (]) 19:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
:Thank you MoreThings. Clarence Thomas is very famous in the U.S. for very important reasons to Americans and very unimportant reasons for anyone outside America. Outside of news reports and some news analysis, there are hardly any sources in the U.S. that are neither for nor against Thomas or his judicial philosophy. Discussion about him is extremely partisan. The news analysis and news reports simply don't use "far right" or "far left" in relation to Supreme Court justices (or other high officials in the U.S.) because it simply isn't factual. Commentators will do so all the time, and everyone (one can hope) understands that they're exaggerating for rhetorical effect. That's the way the reliable sources (all of them, or all that I know of) write about U.S. politics in the U.S. I've addressed the issue of whether "far right of the court" is fundamentally different from the usual meaning of "far right" -- once more: the language doesn't clearly state that; also, the use of the red-flaggy, hot-button, sly-jab of a phrase is not the "conservative" language WP:BLP wants. -- ] (]) 14:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
::That there is heated partisan debate surrounding his judicial philosophy suggests to me that his position is likely a long way away from the middle-ground. People in the centre don't generate heated partisan debate. Indeed, it sounds as though you agree that it's possible to discern a position for him, and that some sources are describing that position as ''far right''. The question is: are they RS?

::I can't buy your opinion that anyone using the term is "exaggerating for rhetorical effect" because it's simply that--your opinion. Might be right, might be wrong, but it shouldn't carry any weight in the debate, nor should mine nor any other editor's. Regarding commentators: there's a fine line between news analysis and comment, yet you're defining one as reliable and the other as unreliable. I'd say it depends entirely upon who is doing the analysing and the commentating. I also feel that you're coming quite close to arguing that any source using the term ''far right'' is, by that very usage, disqualifying itself as a reliable source. I would suggest that we should approach it from the opposite direction. We should look at the sources, and decide whether they are reliable by referring to policy and precedent. Using those criteria, I have no opinion on which of the sources being cited are reliable, but I do think that's the way to address the issue. --] (]) 18:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
:::No, it isn't me making the distinction between news and opinion, it's ] (emphasis in origional):
:::<blockquote>News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. '''An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact''', and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used.</blockquote>
:::As for "my opinion", it's based not only on the experience of paying attention to public affairs reporting and commentary in the U.S., but on a little research into just this. Look at the first 100 results in Google News for "Clarence Thomas" + "far right" -- it's all opinion pieces and comments at news organization websites, same with "Sonia Sotomayor" + "far left". The ''New York Times Manual of Style and Usage'' and the ''Associated Press Stylebook'' don't mention "far right" or "far left", but they both say that "ultra-rightist" and "ultra-leftist", which amount to the same things as "far right" and "far left", should be reserved for radicals. AP states ''Ultra-rightist suggests an individual who subscribes to rigid interpretations of a conservative doctrine or to forms of fascism that stress authoritarian, often militaristic views''. The ''Times'' says, "Because it suggests excess, ''ultra-'' can be pejorative and must be used with care. ''Mrs. Manley is ultraconservative'', for example, can in some instances seem to mean that she is more conservative than anyone should really be." What applies to "ultra" applies to "far". -- ] (]) 15:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

Ugh. de Nugent is a white supremacist, and this biography is relatively new, very lengthy, and its subject is . Its creator, ], has created a mess by uploading multiple copyrighted images he claims he has the permission to upload, but there are no OTRS tickets. Since de Nugent thanks Kostro for "this article on me on Misplaced Pages, which is designed to provide factual and credible information" about his white supremacy, he probably ''does'' have permission, but that's not how we operate. Anyway, this article could stand a review, as it read to me almost like an advertisement for de Nugent's white supremacy and his championing of his repeated victimization. --<font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">>David</font> ''']''' 21:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
:For one thing the article is way too long for such a minor person. ] (]) 00:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

* {{La|Hussein Salem Mohammed}} - Sensitive detailed medical records have been inserted into this BLP article. They must be removed immediately. Another editor frequently inserts them again. . ] (]) 03:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
*:It seems that this is being dealt with by contributors at the page. Is there still an issue in your view? ] 20:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
*::The records have been removed by an uninvolved administrator from this page. The problem is that the same people who inserted them, have also added medical records to these articles: , , , , , , .. and same rejection by this editor. Removal needs to be enforced there as well. ] (]) 01:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

::It is still an issue, in my opinion, because I continue to believe that Iqinn has misinterpreted policy.

::I have done my best to refrain from challenging Iqinn's good faith. I am disappointed that he or she seems unwilling or unable to extend the same courtesy to me.

::Iqinn recently on WPANI. In my limited experience with WPANI regular readers there don't appreciate issues being raised there, that have already been raised in another forum. So, I will be responding here to the comments Iqinn left at WPANI. ] (]) 05:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Coming from ANI, I have closed the thread there and protected the article for a month to stop the edit war over these medical records. In my opinion, this is not primarily a BLP matter as long as the records are factually true (i.e., well-sourced) and in the public record anyway; rather, this is an editorial matter that needs to be sorted out on the talk page. Consider a ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

::::I am convinced it is a BLP issue. Highly problematic material it should be taken down until there is clear consensus. Still needs to be removed from these articles: , , , , , , .. ] (]) 08:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::Looking into your contribution history, it seems you're attempting to remove a lot of sourced material from various articles related to terrorist suspects. Why? Most of the material I've seen has been reliably sourced, and at some point -- when nearly every editor looking into the matters disagrees with you, perhaps -- you should step back and ask yourself whether what you are doing is productive. ] 19:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

::::::That's wrong in fact many editors agree with me. I have removed material only from a relatively small number of articles We speak of about 500-1000 articles surrounding terrorism suspects and the same problem replicates often into many similar articles. All of the articles have been written by the same person. The most articles have never been reviewed by the wider community. I remove material only if there are serious BLP issues. ] (]) 02:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

On {{La|Soulja Boy Tell 'Em}} a ] was requested for the potential use of Twitter links in order to justify inclusion of a currently circulating story (on blogs) that this rapper had posted a picture of himself in his underwear with an apparently faked bulge in his pants. The opinion given was that the story did inform as to his public persona and had been of sufficient public interest to be considered notable for inclusion '''if''' suitable reliable sources could be produced.

'''This notice''' has been raised in order to help judge if the article at can be considered a reliable source or is a "questionable source" as per the guidance of ].

The discussion in question is ].—] (]) 08:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The ''bestweekever.tv'' article linked on the discussion above begins: "''ONTD informs us that rapper Soulja Boy''". "ONTD" (Oh No They Didn't!) is a blog; it's actually a LiveJournal.com community account, which means any LiveJournal.com user can contribute a 'celebrity'-gossip related entry. We evaluate sources by determining what sort of fact checking they do. We can look at news articles verifying the site's reliability or significance, show they're backed by a news media company, point to a page that explains how they accept submissions and how they fact check, etc.

The 'article' highlighted comprises two short 2-sentence paragraphs. No About page is clearly visible on the bestweekever.tv site; the site has a VH1 logo in the top right. It is clear the 'article', with the site, is a "Gossip" page, rather than any substantive coverage of music or showbiz. In this specific case, where the gossip piece starts by pointing to a blog anybody can post to as their source for the information, there is no reliable published source for the information. Information and opinion does not become reliable by virtue of being repeated & cited in another source along with a comment.

As no ] providing the information without merely regurgitating earlier unreliable sources have been presented, the information does ] belong in the article. The ]-published Twitter source in this case is not appropriate, as we do not use such sources to present information with—direct or indirect—commentary as to what we, as editors, believe it "represents". Content that is not required in order to give a neutral encyclopedic article, that is not discussed by reliable published third-party sources as relevant to understanding the living subject as a whole, does not belong in the article.&nbsp;–] 09:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

* {{La|Abdulhadi Abdallah Ibrahim al Sharakh}} '''Report''' - ], ] (BLP) Removal should be enforced. .] (]) 11:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

:*Iqinn keeps calling this material ''"poorly sourced"'':
:*#On May 20th Elizabeth Bumiller of the NYTimes did report a DoD claim that "one in seven" former captives were supporting terrorism -- based on an unpublished DoD fact sheet;
:*#The NYTimes report of the DoD claim was widely repeated;
:*#The NYTimes report of the DoD claim was embroidered;
:*#The NYTimes report was challenged over its fact checking, and journalistic integrity;
:*#A week later, on May 27th, the DoD published a report that was either the same or similar to the unpublished report the NYTimes had based its report on.
:*#Eventually the NYTimes ombudsman published criticism of Bumiller's May 20th article;
:*#But, as I have pointed out to Iqinn many times already, the specific claims the DoD has made are verifiable to May 27th DoD fact sheet. So they are not poorly sourced.

::In his or her initial comments on the DoD claims it seemed to me that Iqinn was objecting to the wikipedia covering the claims because he or she thought they weren't credible, weren't truthful. But that is not our concern. We have to comply with ], which says we have to neutrally report what our verifiable authoritative references state. ] says our aim should be '''"verifiability, not truth"'''. When we doubt the credibility of our sources, when our personal opinion is at odds with what our references state, we have two choices: (1) forget our personal opinion, and stick strictly to what our references state; or (2) choose not to work on that article.

::Iqinn was offended when I suggested they may have misunderstood ]. But, based on their continued claim that the material is poorly sourced I continue to be concerned that their concern is based on a misunderstanding of ]. ] (]) 07:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
::* {{cite news
| url=http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2009/05/27/20/recidivists.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf
| title=Fact sheet: Former Guantanamo detainee terrorism trends
| date=2009-04-07
| publisher=]
| archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.miamiherald.com%2Fsmedia%2F2009%2F05%2F27%2F20%2Frecidivists.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf&date=2009-05-29
| archivedate=2009-05-29
}}
::* {{cite news
| url=http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20080613Returntothefightfactsheet.pdf
| title=Fact Sheet: Former GTMO Detainee Terrorism Trends
| publisher=]
| author=
| date=2008-06-13
| accessdate=2008-07-26
| quote=
}}
::* {{cite news
| url=http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/recidivism
| title=Recidivism
| date=2009-05-20
| publisher=]
| archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fprojects.nytimes.com%2Fguantanamo%2Fdetainees%2Frecidivism&date=2009-05-21
| archivedate=2009-05-21
}}

:::'''When a source (here the NYT's) writes an article with serious allegations and days later add a note to that article that they were wrong and 'misreported'. Than it is irresponsibly to put only the 'misreported' allegations into the article as this could be harmful for the individual covered in the BLP.'''

:::Sorry but seeing your post here and others i ask myself if you are a .

:::The talk page of the article where the material needs to be removed ] (]) 09:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

::::Let me ask you, for '''''again''''', that you show us all the courtesy of '''''re-reading''''' the references, to confirm or refute whether they actually say what you seem to think they say.

::::The NYTimes link above continues to name 29 men the DoD claims were suspected or confirmed of "reengaging in terrorism". I am well aware that this material you find so objectionable has been commented upon by ], the NYTimes ombudsman. He has acknowledged that Elizabeth Bumiller's May 20th article fell short of the journalistic standards the NYTimes aims for. But, no doubt unintentionally, you are seriously misrepresenting how far the NYTimes disavowal retraction went. You are also misrepresenting how long passed between the original article, and the ombudsman's apology. It was not "a few days". The ombudsman's partial apology was published

::::The DIA published a memo a week after the information was leaked to the NYTimes, that also published those names. It is possible that this is a different memo than the one leaked to Bumiller, and on which she based her May 20th article. But it also, officially, lists those men. So the report that they were suspected of '''"reengaging in terrorism"''' does not rely on the NYTimes.

::::I was well aware of the NYTimes' ombudsman's comment, and I worked to draft our coverage to neutrally and accurately reflect what our ] stated. At one point you said that the NYTimes' ombudsman's offered a partial apology for the May 20th article should accompany every reference to the claims initially published in the May 20th article. Since I thought my coverage of the NYTimes reporting on this issue didn't go any farther than the version it currently bears on its website I thought it was unnecessary to mention the ombudsman's partial apology on ever single article that referenced them.

::::I tried to address your concerns by suggesting that a fuller discussion of the May 20th article, be placed in one central place, and that the articles on each of the men named, should state they were named, and then link to that one central fuller discussion. , I suggested that central discussion could cover how widely the original May 20th article was pounced upon by former Bush officials, and their defenders, how widely repeated its claims were, the challenges to its weakest elements, the ombudsman partial apology. I was frankly disappointed that you didn't see fit to honor my suggestions with a

::::So, no offense, I continue to believe that your repeated assertion that this information is not properly sourced is based on a no doubt unintentional policy misunderstanding on your part. ] (]) 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::I have looked at the sources already many times. Primary sources and really not the most trustful one. Full of serious allegations. So we rely on secondary sources who have a look at it to tell us what it means. Looks not like it isn't easy. As the NYT's got it that much wrong. That's why we rely on multiply secondary sources for serious allegations in BLP's of relative unknown individuals. If you really want to press this into the article.. that's causes really headache. The NYT's has change it's position about various things. To figure out there final position is difficult. Really headache... It must be phrased very carefully. People have started to re-write the section and i have also made an edit even i still believe it would be the best to cut out the section for the moment. Many sources will appear in the future if the allegations are really true. ] (]) 05:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

Has a very extensive section (25 footnotes, 14 lines of text, making it have 40% of all the footnotes for the entire article, and the second longest section in the article) on "sexual orientation" which is almost entirely sourced to gay publications, and to an article retracted by the Toronto newspaper. At what point does such a section run afoul of BLP considerations? Do a large group of gay publications form a reliable source about the sexual orientation of a person the articles oppose? Is the section too lengthy as to be UNDUE? Does use of such a group of related sources adequately prove a contentious fact? I am not an edotor on the page, so am asking this only because it appears to be an issue which should be discussed. ] (]) 14:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
*This is complex. While the issue of his sexual orientation can not be ignored, I think your concerns regarding ] are well-founded. I certainly think that some serious trimming is needed, and perhaps a single paragraph, of perhaps 5 to 7 sentences might be in order. I may take a pass at this later on, but I need to think a bit more on where to start. ] 20:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

== Unreliably sourced claims ] have died ==

{{resolved}}
*{{La|Kimo Leopoldo‎}}
A report that Leopoldo have died of a heart attack was posted on the and is currently being added to the article. A few unreliable sources have reported on the post, but no reliable sources have confirmed it. I'm at 3RR and would rather not keep reverting alone. Thanks, --]&nbsp;<sup>(]&nbsp;/&nbsp;])</sup> 13:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
:The death is still not confirmed, but which is a far cry from the previous posts on various small MMA-blogs. Marking as resolved. --]&nbsp;<sup>(]&nbsp;/&nbsp;])</sup> 16:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
::Just to update, he is in fact alive and well. Good job to the NYDailyNews and a few others for reporting his death as fact. --]&nbsp;<sup>(]&nbsp;/&nbsp;])</sup> 03:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

*{{la|Falah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan‎}}
*{{userlinks|Sheikh your-Bouti}}

This article is currently at AfD, but may be kept due to the subject's notability as a national polo player. If you look at the page history, it's pretty clear that the user linked above has an agenda. I've both edited the article & !voted for deletion on the AfD, so I'm no longer an 'uninvolved admin'. --]] 14:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

== Serious BLP issues in project space ==

{{resolved}}--] 20:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled upon ] which appears to have serious BLP issues. Specifically, many of the article requests accuse named individuals of serious crimes, without sourcing. This should be looked into. ] 14:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
*I'm working on that page right now, Crotalus. I'll be adding bare references for further information on the assertions, for those who may wish to start the articles, and to alleviate any potential BLP concerns. I'm marking this resolved for now, as I'm spending some time working on this problem this afternoon. ] 20:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{la|Charles G. Koch}} The material in this ] is supported only by a single editorial from a marginal news source and is a cut and paste job to boot. A new user ] keeps adding this material back in. Perhaps some attention might help this situation. ] (]) 15:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
*I removed the section, and posted a note at the article talkpage. However, given the tenor of the adding editors edit summaries and talkpage contributions, I think it would be premature to mark this issue resolved at this point. ] 20:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==


== ] ==
Oh dear. Am I only one that thinks that, true or not, having him in ] and the caption under his pic calling him <i>discredited former "expert"</i> is a bit much? ] ] 23:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
:Yes. The tone of the article is way too hostile.] (]) 04:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


I'd appreciate it if some of you BLP experts could have a look at this article. I pruned it some already and found a curious mix of promotional language and possibly overstated accusations. Note: I just blocked an edit warrior from whitewashing it. Thank you so much, ] (]) 02:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


:I've had a small prune and clean up. ]] 10:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
{{resolved}}--] 18:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
* {{La|Talgat Tadzhuddin}} - Could someone please take a look at this article? It is completely unreferenced yet makes some serious assertions. Note that the External links section purports to contain links to external newspaper articles, but in fact are just wikilinks to the Misplaced Pages articles on the newspapers themselves. Normally I would clean the article up myself, but if I remove the unsourced and dubious info there really isn't much of anything left. ] (]) 16:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
**I'm new to this board, but am very interested in BLP issues. I'll have a look. ] 16:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
*I have removed all uncited controversial claims, and cut down the article by over half. If someone who is more familiar with the MOS regarding foreign names could take a look at the parenthetical that includes about two lines of foreign translations of the names, that might be helpful as well. Do my edits take care of your concerns Ponyo? ] 16:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
:Absolutely! The article can now be built up with proper sourcing etc. Thanks for the quick response Unitanode. Cheers, ] (]) 17:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
::Glad to help. I also readded the gay pride parade thing, but worded neutrally, and sourced. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. ] 18:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


== Candidates in an Election == == Harald Walach ==


The "]" section for this guy needs more eyes, I think. The first sentence merely states that he has "advocated for revision of the concept of evidence-based medicine, promoting holistic and homeopathic alternatives in his publications." and then links to a ] source showing him writing about these topics. What's the controversy here?
{{resolved}}--] 21:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be good if someone disinterested in Houston Politics could look over the articles for the candidates in the ].


The last paragraph I removed because the RS link provided did not appear to say what was claimed in the paragraph (when I read the translation), but the author did insinuate a "scandal" not directly related to Walach, though. But it was reverted by @] who said I "don't know what I'm talking about" and that I'm "whitewashing" Walach. So, I'm hoping to get another opinion on this. ] (]) 23:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Specifically: ], ], ], and ]. --] (]) 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
*What are your specific concerns in re: these particular articles? ] 20:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


== ] ==
*The major editors (including myself) are not disinterested observers of the election campaign. I'd like to recuse myself from any non-hard-fact (birth date, etc...) editing of any of them. My specific concerns are that these pages may be used to promote their subjects. --] (]) 20:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
*:I will watchlist them all, and will take a quick pass through them, but without specific issue on specific articles, I can't promise any big changes. I will definitely keep an eye on them, though. Would you feel comfortable with my marking this issue resolved for now? If any specific issues arise, we can always open a new thread at that time. ] 21:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
*::That seems alright. All I'm really looking for is for someone who isn't interested in a particular outcome to read the four articles and determine whether or not they are being used to promote or bash their subjects. And of course talk page comments as appropriate would be good. Just as long as the only folks looking at the articles and determining whether or not they are fair are the supporters of the various candidates. --] (]) 21:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


I would like to bring some attention to this BLP, as there is a particular claim that keeps getting reinstated, often with poor sourcing (including, so far, a Wordpress blog and ], which as self-published sources are ]). {{ping|FMSky}} has been adding the content with the aforementioned sources, along with, as of writing this, two sources on the current revision I am uncertain about, morecore.de () and metalzone (). I can't find discussions of either source at ], so I would like to bring this here to get consensus on the sources and the material they support, rather than continuing to remove the material per ]. Thank you. ] (]) 03:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==
:Its fine, he made these comments. Nothing controversial about it. Move on --] (]) 03:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Please see ]. Even if he made those comments, they need reliable sources verifying them (i.e., not ]). Simply put, Wordpress blogs and people's self-published YouTube videos cannot be used to support claims about living people. ] (]) 03:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes here are 2 https://www.morecore.de/news/finn-mckenty-the-punk-rock-mba-verlaesst-youtube-ich-habe-es-nur-wegen-des-geldes-gemacht/ & https://www.metalzone.fr/news/208728-finn-mckenty-the-punk-rock-mba-aucun-interet-musique/
:::We can also put in the video of him uttering these words as it falls under ] --] (]) 03:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think citing the video itself as a primary source would probably be the best option here. ] (]) 03:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
*{{la|Brie Gertler}} - Someone at ] has expressed doubts that this person is actually notable. Unforunately I'm having a hard time deciding if this academic meets the requirements of ]. A little guidance would be appeciated. Thanks. ] (]) 21:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
:I think she just squeaks by. If anyone wants to make an issue of it, there is always AFD.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 16:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


This biography of a pseudonymic pornographic actress (primarily notable for work on OnlyFans) was created on December 29 by {{U|Meena}} and is heavily sourced to tabloids and tabloidesque websites. Some of the sources don't support what they are cited for (e.g. the two cited for her attending a particular school, and misrepresentation of sources on whether she's from Nottinghamshire or Derbyshire). The date of birth is unsourced and the real name is sourced to that cites it to the ''Daily Mirror''. I have tried an emergency initial BLP cutback; {{U|Launchballer}} has tried a more severe cutback; the original has been restored by an IP and by {{U|Tamzin Kuzmin}} with the alleging vandalism and misogyny in the edit summary. ] (]) 17:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==
:I went through that article and yeeted everything I could find that either did not check out or was sourced to an inappropriate source. I suggest draftifying.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 20:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::...and it's all been restored (again) by Tamzin Kuzmin. Who also happened to , replacing it with a report about an article they've never edited. Hmmm. ] (]) 20:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Metacomment. The reverting user was blocked. The block notice implicated ]. So I removed the ] post here, but it's available at the diff above by ] in case an editor in good standing cares to clean it up, talkpage it, and/or follow up here. Cheers. ] (]) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== Poorly sourced Russian spies/ex-spies poisoning claim of Bashar al-Assad ==
Just doing due diligence on a source. Does meet BLP requirements? ] (]) 16:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
*This incident strikes me as a tempest in a teapot. I've never heard of Datamation before. Has this been covered anywhere else (outside of blogs / other unacceptable sources)? If not, then including it in the article would probably constitute ]. If it has been discussed in several other ], then maybe a sentence or two could be justified. ] 18:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


{{la|Bashar al-Assad}} BLP attention is needed. {{diff|Talk:Bashar al-Assad|1267015498|1266549621|On the talk page}} I have warned about the Russian spies'/ex-spies' Telegram claim of Bashar al-Assad being poisoned being too poorly sourced. Probably because of al-Assad's as a fugitive wanted for ] and as an ex-dictator, few people seem to be bothered with leaving the rumour in place, despite the low quality of the sourcing that all point to a viral rumour based on the ''General SVR'' ] channel. The ]ly "may have been" and "it was reported that" seem to be seen as sufficient to justify propagating the rumour, without attribution to ''General SVR'' as the source of the claim. After half a day, none of the more regular mainstream media sources appear to have said anything about this, including independent reliable Russian sources such as '']'' and '']''. Currently there are two sentences with the rumour (one in the lead, one in the body of the article). Diffs:
::This is so dumb. Everyone knows hacker grrls do it with ], ] is for wimps :D ] (]) 19:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
* Adding the rumour:
::I wouldn't include it, not because it's particularly a BLP issue, but because there are many more notable criticisms of Stallman that including it would be giving it UNDUE weight. ] (]) 20:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
** {{diff|Bashar al-Assad|prev|1266808883|08:50, 2 January 2025}} by {{u|BasselHarfouch}} source = ]
** {{diff|Bashar al-Assad|prev|1266896530|18:49, 2 January 2025}} by {{u|Bri}} source = ]
** {{diff|Bashar al-Assad|prev|1266975208|02:04, 3 January 2025}} by {{u|Richie1509}} source = ]
** {{diff|Bashar al-Assad|prev|1266997014|04:24, 3 January 2025}} by {{u|Geraldshields11}} source = ]
* Removing individual instances of the rumour:
** {{diff|Bashar al-Assad|prev|1266976981|02:14, 3 January 2025}} by me (I didn't realise that other occurrences remained)
** {{diff|Bashar al-Assad|prev|1266998539|04:33, 3 January 2025}} by {{u|Nikkimaria}}
] (]) 13:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:I see, thanks for letting me know about it. ] (]) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==
::See also: ] from the same source. ] (]) 17:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you for clearing up this point, i was not aware of it. I will be careful in the future ] (]) 07:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Joe Manchin ==
:''Moved from ANI''.
We are having an issue here, and it concerns {{Userlinks|StephenLaurie}} a suspected sock of ],an indefinitely blocked editor who has resumed activity at the article where the suspected sockmaster had been article banned.
This article has been placed on probation by ArbCom and problematic editors can be article-banned at Admin discretion. On 21 July 2009, after several episodes of what might be described as "suspicious and tenditious" editing by ], an Arbitration Enforcement Request was filed by <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup>, as seen . In part, she said:


Today we have an unnecessary edit war on BLP outgoing Sen. ] (and perhaps many other articles this morning) about the addition of infobox data which is factually incorrect at the time of insertion (], ]). Nobody is arguing the data, just the timing of the edit. While ] is one person jumping the gun, they are a longtime contributor here. Their position should be taken in good faith, IMHO. Also in my opinion, these edits are technically BLP violations because they impart incorrect information. ], such clear BLP violations {{tq|must be '''removed immediately and without waiting for discussion'''}} (bolding from the original) by ANY editor. This sort of thing might lead to an edit war in which ''everybody'' is trying to do the right thing. Note: the page was correctly edited for the change; one click would have changed it at the proper time of transition.
<blockquote>] is an editor with highly focused interests, arguably a single purpose account. Nearly all of his article and article talk edits have been to the ] article and the related ] article. The ] biography, a ], is under arbitration general sanctions. Additionally, this account behaves like a returning user with long knowledge of the personalities involved in this dispute. Possibly this could be ], who was article banned from ] in April 2008 and indefinitely blocked shortly afterward. Note the edit summary of the first ever edit by this account, the account's second ever edit summary asserts a familiarity with the Sanchez history. With less than 20 total account edits StephenLaurie was tagging suspected ] socks (Bluemarine is Sanchez's username) then ''removing'' posts from the Eleemosynary user talk. Eleemosynary's and StephenLaurie's edit interests have substantial overlap (note Thomas Scott Beauchamp controversy and Matt Sanchez in the Soxred report), and StephenLaurie's POV on the Matt Sanchez article is indistinguishable from Eleemosynary's. He even claims to know my history with Sanchez, although he distorts it badly. A new account would probably not recognize me, although Eleemosynary would have bitter recollections because I had something to do with his article ban and indefinite block. Whether this is enough to establish StephenLaurie as the sock of a banned user is something for the reviewing administrator to determine, yet if the socking determination is inconclusive discretionary sanctions may still be warranted per the diffs above and this dialog. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 05:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)</blockquote>
:1. Does this sort of thing happen every opening of congress?
:2. Isn't this a potential future problem for BLPN, since edit wars on this are built-in to the apparent excitement of awaiting the actual moment of transition?
:3. I'm inclined towards timed page protection, but page protection is not normally ]. literally ''under attack'' for BLP violations. If we know this is common for transitions of administration, isn't this an exception?
While this noticeboard doesn't normally discuss policy, should we be aware of such disruption in advance? Making it harder for '']'' editors like Therequiembellishere who feel... Well, I'll let them make their own affirmative position here if they wish. ] (]) 14:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


Page protections is the only way. IMHO, most editors who do these premature changes every two years, don't actually realize it's too early. They seem to assume once mid-night occurs, start updating. ] (]) 15:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
These diffs show evidence of possible sockpuppetry by StephenLaurie, dubious editing habits, and the appearance of an SPA account. After deliberating, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> felt there was insufficient evidence (partly due to technical shortcomings in the diffs) for an offical ArbCom sanction; however, the door was very specifically left open for individual Admins to review and apply their discretion.
:I raise this issue not to cause a problem today. I'm not trying to unduly embarrass any editor for taking a position I don't agree with. On the other hand, we have established BLP policy the ''hard way'' through sometimes brutal disagreements about how to carefully calibrate opposing positions based on good faith argument. I trust the BLP policy because we earned it. We don't need to re-learn these lessons. But we could discuss ''how to proceed next time''. ] (]) 15:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::In agreement. ] (]) 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Under policy, it would be within the responsibility of any editor to revert these edits and report the editor to this board. But for my starting this conversation, it would be within my remit to revert the edits, fully protect the page and warn Therequiembellishere (and others). I haven't done that. I want the discussion about what to do next time. ] (]) 15:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I understand, this is for the next time around when terms end & begin. PS - I should note, that the premature changes in the BLPs tend to have a ripple effect on related pages. ] (]) 15:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


I've said everything I want on this on Manchin's talk. It's just a lot of pedantry by a few editors with obsessive fealty and exactitude that doesn't meaningfully help anything or anyone, least of all a casual reader. ] (]) 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
All BLPs are sensitive and one that is on article probation is obviously much more so. In addition to issues raised by Durova, I had concerns about StephenLaurie's interaction wiith almost all other editors on that page, and his attitudes toward both the article and its subject. Specifically:
#
]
#
#
was offensive in tone and nature as he (again, veiled) attacked the character of an honorable editor.


:Verifiability is not "pedantry". Members aren't sworn in until noon EST, correct? &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Finally, certain apects of his edit summaries like , taken in conjunction with his other comments, give a certain air of excitability and paranoia to his editing. These are not greatly desireable elements in someone editing a delicate and controversial BLP.


:I can understand changes being made about 1 or 2 hrs ''before'' the actual event, when dealing with so many bios. But 12 hrs before the event, is too early. ] (]) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Finally, as seen throughout ''most'' of his talkpage remarks, he seems opposed to any change which might cast a favorable light on Matt Sanchez, the article subject. That, combined with concerned comments from other editors, have led me to conclude that his participation in this article has become counterproductive. It appears that some sort of intervention is needed, and I invite the scrutiny of interested parties. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 01:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
:Obvious BLP violations are not pedantry. Those edits added provably incorrect information. Can ] provide a policy-based answer why those edits do not violate BLP guidance? This is just bad acting under the cover of labelling others. Do they not see that? ] (]) 19:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Therequiembellishere's response here demonstrates we actually have a problem, at least with that user, whose reply here is non-responsive to the issue. BLP policy does indeed require {{tq|obsessive fealty and exactitude}}, as long experience with this board has shown. As my OP suggested, any user might justifiably have reverted Therequiembellishere right into 3RR and immediate blocking, just by merely diligently following policy. Therequiembellishere might bookmark this thead for when it happens to them two years from now. I could have done it this morning, but instead chose to create this thread and invite the user to comment. Would preemptive full protection be a reasonable solution to such flippant disruption? ] (]) 20:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::I oppose pre-emptive full protection. I strongly support an immediate sitewide block of any repeat offenders, with the block to expire at noon Washington, DC time on the swearing in day. ] (]) 21:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm with Therequiembellishere on this: a prediction, especially one based on clear US law, is not a false statement or a BLP violation. Joe Manchin's term does end on January 3rd, 2025, and that was still true on January 2nd, 2025. It's, in fact, been true for over a month now. The only way it could end on a different day would be if Joe Manchin had died before then, which would obviously be a BLP violation to assume.
:(Unlike Therequiembellishere I don't even think the opposition is pedantry. Pedants are technically correct; to say that the end of Joe Manchin's term was not January 3rd before January 3rd is not even technically correct. It's just false.) ] (]) 07:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::IMO the issue is not the term ending time but the claim Joe Manchin served as senator etc when he was still serving as a senator at the time. ] (]) 10:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::For further clarity. I think our readers reasonably understand our articles might be outdated. So if the article says Joe Manchin is serving and his term ended a few hours ago or even a few days ago that's fine. I mean in other cases it's reasonable to expect them to even be weeks or months out of date. But if out article says Joe Manchin served, I think they reasonable would expect he is no longer serving. As I understand it, there's no more issue. But if this reoccurs, I'm not sure Cullen328's solution is correct. I mean if some admin is volunteering to mollycoddle each repeat offender then okay I guess. But otherwise the norm is we expect editors to obey our policy and guidelines by themselves without needing handholding in the form of continual blocks everytime something comes up to stop them. Therefore I'd suggest either an admin subject them to escalating blocks quickly leading up to an indefinite if they repeat perhaps under BLP or AP2; or we do it via community bans. While I'd personally be fine with a site ban, it might be more palatable to the rest of the community if we instead do it as a topic ban on making such changes. With a clear topic ban, hopefully an admin will be more willing to subject them to escalating blocks. Even if not, I think the community would be much more willing to siteban such editors if they repeat after a community topic ban. As a final comment, I also don't see why editor feels it's something so urgent that they need to do it 12 hours in advance. This almost seems one of those lame edits we sometimes get at the ANs resulting from the apparent desire of an editor to be first or get the credit so we have editors creating "drafts" with basically zero content long before there's anything to write about then some other editor is sick of this editor doing this and so ignores the draft and makes their own. ] (]) 12:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Technically speaking, if you are still serving you also have served. So it's not technically speaking false, although this really ''is'' pedantry and I would not say it's the most true possible statement.
:::I'm still not convinced it's a BLP violation, though. ] (]) 04:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think the argument is being made {{ping|LokiTheLiar}}, that editing in someone is no longer holding an office, when they still are & somebody has assumed office, when they haven't yet, is problematic. ] (]) 16:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ping|BusterD}} maybe a RFC or something is required, to establish how to handle future premature changes to such bios. ] (]) 22:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Serious BLP vios in ] ==
:I realize this was a lengthy report about a complicated situation, but it's a wee bit demoralizing that over 18 hours after this was posted, not a single response has acknowledged being aware of it. ] Anyone?] <font color ="green">]</font > 19:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


This article is riddled with serious BLP vios. I tried tagging them, but there are so many I would have to carpet bomb the page with CN tags. This page needs urgent attention from any editors with experience and/or sources pertaining to organized crime. -] (]) 17:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Have you considered posting this at ]? –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 19:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
:::I have to admit I hadn't. This is only the third time in three years I've actually initiated a report like this. I was hoping for some Admin oversight, so brought it here. Is BLP/N the more appropriate venue? And if it is, should I delete this report from AN/I, or just leave it? Would moving it be considered forum shopping, or just correcting an oversight? And thanks for responding, I ''really'' appreciate it! ] <font color ="green">]</font > 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
::::I moved it here for you. These folks are better versed about the BLP policies and the like. Administrators watch here too. It's not forum shopping since your report hasn't been actioned yet, so you're not seeking a better answer =) –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 20:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::Doc Tropics, if you and Durova believe this is a sockpuppetry case, it needs to go to ], where a checkuser can be run if needed. The sort of circumstantial evidence provided here is probably not enough, by itself, for a block. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for your input. I have repeatedly failed to file this report "properly", or in the proper venue; I hope that my clumsiness won't be seen as prejudicial in itself. Given that this situation is currently under discussion at 2 different boards, I'm profoundly reluctant to move it or refile it myself. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 19:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::See ]. ]] 19:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks, Nathan. I believe that evaluating the sock aspects (if any) of this case separately by the sock specialists will be beneficial. Durova's evidence is certainly grounds for a closer look, but that can't usefully be done at ANI, AE or BLPN. We can continue to discuss any required arbitration enforcement action against either editor independently of who (if anybody) turns out to be a sock. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, thanks very much Nathan; your actions are appreciated. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 21:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


:P.S. I've taken a look at most of the articles on North American mafia groups and almost all have serious BLP issues. I've added "Category:Possibly living people" with its BLP Edit Notice to all of the pages excepting groups that have been defunct for more than thirty years. These pages are in rough shape and a lot of material needs to be either cited or deleted. -] (]) 03:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
== ==


== Taylor Lorenz BLP issues and harassment of subject based on article contents ==
This version includes questionable/contradictory/badly sourced biographical material on the lead singer, Dave Carroll in the "Personal life" section. I just want a second opinion rather than removing it myself. Thanks ] (]) 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


The ] article has an unusual history in the sense that the contents of the article have led to harassment of Lorenz in the past, or other issues impacting her financially.
== Paul H. Carr (physicist) ==


Most recently it was regarding her date of birth and Misplaced Pages choosing to use a date range, with the allegations being that it was Lorenz choosing to keep her birthdate off of the Internet or being deceitful.
The subject of the ] article and I moved and expanded it. He is now interested in for privacy reasons. is that if it's properly cited and neutral, it doesn't violate any policies and therefore it should stay, but as he and I are the only ones to have edited the article, I think it's time to get some fresh eyes on the situation. Thanks! <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;]</span></small> 21:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
#
:Just because something is publicly available, does not mean that wikipedia '''has''' to include it. If PaulCarr57 is the subject of the article and he does not want the material that he has removed being replaced, then I think it should be left out, given that he is not super famous. I think some other article subjects have also had similar information removed. ] (]) 22:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
#
:Did you read BLP policy, specifically ] which actually addresses how to handle private information particularly birthdates? Further can you tell me what the citation is for this information? All the sources appear to be offline ones and the info we're discussing is not directly cited so I can only guess. Is it the Marquis Who's Who source? If so, I doubt that this meets our requirements that the information be widely published given that we don't even accept it to establish notability of a person (see ] note 5) ] (]) 13:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
#
::The information is directly cited from Who's Who; the fact that Who's Who is not accepted for purposes of notability is beside the point. "Offline" is a tricky word and there's probably no benefit to us debating that here. Suffice to say that because more effort than a Google search is required to access a source online does not make it "offline". I believe that if a person does not wish their exact date of birth to be publicly known, they should not submit it to a publicly available book, and the policy does cover exactly that case: "have been published in one or more reliable sources linked to the persons ''such that it may reasonably be inferred that the persons do not object to their release''". I think that publication of one's information in sixteen different editions between 1986 and 2002 constitutes such reasonable inference. On the other hand, the subject of ''this'' article does fall into the "err on the side of caution" follow-on note. (For what it's worth, my opinion that this section of the policy is quite ill-advised, because it's only a baby step from there to "no, I'm not a member of <insert organization here>" or "no, I don't want it known that I was married to <so-and-so> in my article" and similar. That's not what ].) <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;]</span></small> 14:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
#
#
#
#
#
#
#


There have also seemingly been issues according to Lorenz with errors in the article causing her lost business opportunities
== ] ==
{{blockquote|"This insane 100% false story is affecting my brand deals and some partnership stuff I have in the works for 2025, so I really need it corrected ASAP!!!"}}


An addition of a 'Harassment and coordinated attacks' section was in August of last year, with information being added shortly after regarding a Twitter suspension. I moved the text around recently in an at a more neutral article that was quickly reverted. A followed shortly after but there hasn't been a policy based consensus.
The section of this article had some allegations of racism against the chairman. I found an IP (]) vandalizing/removing references from it, and reverted it as vandalism first, but blanked the section later as some of the sources appear to be blogs. From the page history it seems the text has been removed and put back several times. As I said I'm not sure about the reliability of the refs, help from experienced users would be appreciated. Thanks —] 04:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
:I request more eyes on this article as well. Some jackanapes slapped me with a level 3 warning for removing material that violated BLP. ] (]) 00:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


My question- should we have a devoted harassment section included for someone who has been harassed based on her Misplaced Pages profile previously? It seems like ] comes into play with directly focusing attention on her being a victim and could lead to further harassment by highlighting it with equal weight as her career section.
== ] ==


Personally I think the material could be presented more neutrally per ] but wanted to get a wider opinion.
BLP article edited extensively by the subject, ]. While the article is much better than most BLP's by the subject, it still needs some cleanup and help from BLP-experienced wikipedians. <font face="copperplate gothic bold"><font color="orange">]</font><font color="red">]</font></font><sup> <font color="black">]</font></sup> 07:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


There is also a discussion currently going on if we should include her year of birth .
== Chloe Smith - assuming office ==
] (]) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
04:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC) ''Fixed incorrect diff''


:@] it looks like the paragraph below got moved past your signature, and therefor appears orphaned.
Someone repeatedly has posted that Chloe Smith took office on both July 23, 2009 and July 24, 2009. First of all, it is impossible for someone to assume an office the day before the result was announced - so please STOP claiming July 23 as this day. Secondly, it is sourced numerous places that she is not an MP, merely elected to the seat. It technically remains vacant until she is seated in the house in October. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
] (]) 02:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:Removing the harassment section furthers the narrative that there are no coordinated harassment campaigns against her, and acts to diminish the effect those coordinated campaigns have wrought upon her. Generally speaking, victims of harassment don't want what they've gone through to be diminished.
:As , MPs take office when the polls close on election night (even though the result is not known). The oath they take later just allows them to sit in the House of Commons. So Chloe Smith was elected as an MP on 23 July 2009. If you're unhappy with this rule, you probably need to take it up with the ombudsman or something. ] (]) 12:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


I am unaware of any evidence that discussing harassment on wiki for her, or in general, leads to further harassment. If that evidence exists, I'd certainly be wiling to change my stance. ] (]) 08:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:As I have just mentioned on the talk page, there is at least person who became an MP posthumously, and therefore could not take the oath, or sit in parliament. She has been elected as an MP, and the returning officer has declared this. It does not matter whether she actually takes her seat, see e.g. ] ] (]) 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


== Discussion on the scope of ] ==
::Then there are those who were elected, but would not take the oath and therefore did not take their seats (eg, ] and ]). They were still elected MPs, however. ] (]) 13:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


There is a discussion at ] about the scope of ]. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==


== List of pornographic performers by decade ==
{{resolved}}
* {{La|Gillian Tett}} - Repeated addition and removal of an unsourced, possibly POV statement: "... and is an influential journalist." // ] (]) 15:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
**It looks as if Bwilkins has addressed this. I will watchlist this article as well, to prevent the introduction of ]. Marking resolved (for now). ] 17:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


* {{la|List of pornographic performers by decade}}
== ] ==
] is a remarkable article in that it has existed for 20 years and yet, if I were to follow ] to the letter right now, I would have to cut the article down to its first sentence, the section headings, and a single see-also. Saying "X is a pornographic performer" is, obviously, a contentious claim, and as such every entry needs its own citation; it's not enough to rely on the articles as their own ''de facto'' citations, as is the tolerated practice for noncontroversial lists like ]. This is all the more the case because the definition of "pornographic performer" is subjective. With help from Petscan, I've found the following people on the list who are not described in their articles as pornographic performers: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. Many (all?) of them are sex workers of some sort, so in each case, there may be a reliable source that exists that calls them a pornographic performer, but without one, it's a flagrant BLP violation. And if it were just those, I'd remove them and be done with it, but even for the ones whose articles do call them pornographic performers, there's no guarantee of being right. I removed ] from the list after seeing that an IP had removed the mentions of porn in her article, which had indeed been sourced to a press release about a fictionalized depiction of her life. No, each of these entries needs an individual citation appearing on the list article so that the claims can be judged.


So, there are about 650 entries, and we know at least some are questionable, and we cannot assume that <em>any</em> of the rest are correct. What do we do? Again, the letter-of-BLP answer here is to remove the unsourced items, but that would leave literally nothing. The only two citations in the whole thing are to search pages on two non-RS porn databases. So at that point we might as well apply ]. Another solution would be to find sources for, I don't know, two or three people in each heading, just so it's not empty, remove everything else, and stick {{tl|incomplete list}} there. A third option is AfD. Does anyone have any ideas?
{{resolved}}--] 19:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
* {{La|Mika Brzezinski}} - . <s>] reinserting the information has now violated ]</s> // (]) (]) (]) 17:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
**I haven't violated 3RR, I am at my limit on the article for today (, , ). I have made two other (non revert) edits to the page to "neutralize" the section in question (, ). This is essentially an arguement over whether ] is a reliable source. I say it is, Nuggetboy says it isn't. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">] • ] • 17:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)</small>


P.S. I haven't even looked at other lists of pornographic performers. Are they all like this? <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
** Removing the 3RR violation text from my report (I am formulating a response on the user's page now). The BLP notice still stands, however. This is poorly-sourced blog material. (]) (]) (]) 17:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
**:I would encourage you to restore it, but struck-through, as it makes NH's response to your report a bit confusing. ] 17:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
For an insertion of material as potentially volatile as this is ("ill advised remarks regarding the racist arrest"), I don't believe that Kos is enough. Also, 3RR is just a "bright line", not a "permission to edit war up to here" standard. If one knows when they're "at the limit", it's probably an indication that more discussion -- not assessment of where the limits of our reversions are -- is in order. ] 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
:That is why I neutralized the section. It now reads a more neutral "Brzezinski made remarks regarding the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Gates. Guests, including Harold Ford Jr, were quick to criticise her." I think criticism is OK, and if people want more information, they can link to the referenced article. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">] • ] • 17:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)</small>
*Your of the edit certainly seems more BLP-compliant, though I would still say that Kos is a bit dodgy as a source for any type or potentially controversial material. I would say the same thing about ] as well. ] 17:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
:Using The Daily Kos as a source has been discussed , but I don't see clear consensus. My suggestion is to post the question to ] to gather additional input. My personal opinion is that the information should be removed until ] can be confirmed as a reliable source by consensus at WP:RSN. ] (]) 17:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
**I am not saying that Kos isn't the best source in the world, because they do slant "left" and that isn't unbiased coverage (like you would find at ABC for example) but I think, at the moment at least, until other sources can be found, it is good enough.....for now. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">] • ] • 17:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)</small>
*** "good enough.....for now" '''isn't''' good enough for a BLP article. When an article makes a claim about a person, especially one that can be viewed in a negative light, it is our duty as responsible NPOV editors to make sure the sources are as reliable as possible. The very fact that you cast a bit of doubt on Kos tells me you shouldn't use it. (]) (]) (]) 18:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
::Anyone can create an account and write their own diaries there. I wonder how 's diary could be considered anything but unreliable source… —] 18:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


:I don't have a solution to this @], but the first name I looked at was ]. Her article references her full frontal appearance and describes it as sexploitation. Sexploitation films are not pornographic films. I can't see any mention of pornographic acting in her article? This is a problem. ] (]) 05:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*Well, now it doesn't matter. ] removed it as it was written ''not'' by one of Daily Kos journalists, but one of the diarists (everyman bloggers). That is definitely not RS. If it were a Kos writer, I would say it was, but it is an everyman (in this case everywoman) so it is out. I will completely admit that I didn't check the link first. That is my fault and I apologize. So....this is over? - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">] • ] • 18:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)</small>
::Doing some spot-checking, ] is described in his article as a director of ]s but not as an actor – and it does not seem as though pink films are necessarily pornographic; ] is categorised as a porn actor but the text of the article does not seem to support this. Clearly there's a problem here. ] (]) 05:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I believe it is resolved now, and have marked it as such. ] 19:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
:Hm, yes, per WP:BLP each LP on this list should have a decent ref (better than ], see ), and it wouldn't hurt the others either. I'm slightly reminded of a complaint I made at ]. It's not the same, but it's still sensitive. ] (]) 07:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Btw, per ] and ], it seems they're not all like that, but ] lists people without WP-articles, my knee-jerk reaction is that that's not good. ] (]) 07:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::] most seem to be referenced using "International Adult Film Database" which is user generated. Imdb for born actors. ] (]) 07:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::]. ] (]) 07:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'll be honest, I thought we'd dealt with this before and it was no longer a problem. I'm sure in previous discussions we're generally agrees such lists should only contain notable individuals with articles i.e. no black links or red links (if an editor believes someone is notable they need to create the article first). I thought we'd also agreed to strictly require inline citations when adding names regardless of what the individual articles say. I couldn't find many of the previous discussions though but did find we seem to have a lot more of these lists in the past. ] (]) 09:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm aware of a few circumstances in which pornographic actors faced serious obstacles in their lives after leaving the industry and tried hard to separate themselves from their prior career. I would hope, in these cases, we respect their wishes and just leave them off. ] (]) 12:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Depending on situation, we might or we might not. ] (]) 12:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::My main concern is for people who have explicitly expressed that they no longer want to be public people, being honest. Those who have struggled to transition to non-pornographic acting, music, etc. is less of my concern. ] (]) 12:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::That's understandable but it runs into issues with ] where editors think that once someone is a public figure, it is forever.
:::::Recently there was I believe the son of a lady who had appeared in Playboy a long time ago who had asked for her article to be removed on BLPN. The specifics that I remember are vague, but essentially she had been a Playmate one year and editors had built an article for her even though she was a relatively private person other than the fact she was in Playboy in the early 80's. The family member had suggested that the article basically loomed over her head and caused harm to her reputation since it was something she did once 30+ years ago and distanced herself from almost immediately. I can't say i disagree that in cases like that, there shouldn't be an article.
:::::] (]) 15:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I wasn't aware of that specific case but that is precisely the sort of circumstance under which I think a private person's right to privacy should be weighed more important than Misplaced Pages completionism. ] (]) 15:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I'm reminded of ] per . Other end of the scale, perhaps. ] (]) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|Nil Einne}} You may be thinking of which you on.
::] (]) 16:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't think it was really that, although I did forget about it so thanks for reminding me. One of the issues with that list is since it was such a high profile case I felt it likely there would at least be secondary source coverage, and also as pornographic appearances go, I feel being Playmate is a lot less controversial than other stuff; so while it was bad, I didn't feel it quite as severe as most of the other stuff we're doing or have been doing. I was thinking of older discussions probably especially the RfC below. ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Given the lack of referencing and the entries included in error, pointed out above, then I would be in favour of removing every unreferenced entry on the list. If that leaves literally nothing, well - AFD. If somebody ''really'' wants this information, well, categories exist. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:I would support this as well, and honestly would probably still vote to delete a list with only the referenced entries if it were brought at AfD. A list page doing the job of one or several category pages and nothing more has no purpose. '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 13:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Would a blank-and-soft-redirect to ] be a good solution here? That way the list is still in the history for anyone who wants to restore it with references. The "by decade" might be misleading in that case, but we could first reverse the hard redirect from {{-r|List of pornographic performers}}, which this probably should have been at anyways. Another option would be a list of lists at ] and redirecting there. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think your first suggestion is a good idea, I'd support that for sure. Definitely less favorable to a list of lists though. '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 20:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*I knew we had a lengthy RfC/Discussion about this subject matter, it just took me a while to find it though – <span class="plainlinks"></span>, and also this <span class="plainlinks"></span>. Discussions are ten years old, but I don't think anything in the lengthy close of the RfC has changed. I was one of the volunteers who helped add refs to this article → ], which if I recall correctly, was the impetus for the RfC. Good luck, sourcing these types of lists are a massive chore.]] 16:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:RFC closer said in 2014:
*:''Q: Should all pre-existing lists of porn performers have a reliable source supporting each entry?''
*:''A: The rough consensus below is that it's always more controversial to call someone a porn performer than to say they're engaged in most other professions. A reliable source should be added for every entry that's challenged or likely to be challenged. But as a concession to the practicalities, editors are asked not to go through the pre-existing lists making large-scale and unilateral challenges, as this will overwhelm the people who maintain these lists with work, and there is a legitimate concern that this is unfair. If you do intend to remove unsourced entries, please proceed at a reasonable, non-disruptive speed dealing with what you judge to be the highest-priority cases first. If you could easily source an entry yourself, then removing it as unsourced is rather unhelpful.'' ] (]) 16:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Well, removing ~650 entries after 10 years of the list's maintainers doing nothing to fix this would average out to, what, ~1.2 per week since that RfC? That seems like a reasonable, non-disruptive speed to me. Courtesy ping @]. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 16:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Yes, I do vaguely remember making that close ten years ago. I agree that it's appropriate to implement its outcome in full now.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 17:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] == == chew chin hin ==


https://www.ttsh.com.sg/About-TTSH/TTSH-News/Pages/In-Loving-Memory-Prof-Chew-Chin-Hin.aspx
{{resolved}}
I have to revert edits on the ] article two or three times a day, mostly about how cute he is, who he's dating, his (undocumented, and apparently non-existent) criminal record, and his ethnicity. I don't think it would do any good to semi-protect it, since it would probably have to be protected permanently, but the article does need more eyes, if that's possible. ] (]) 20:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


Dr Chew Chin Hin died <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{done}}--Watchlisted. ] 22:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks – I see you have his article. Does anything more need to be done here? There's no need to discuss the deaths of every person who has an article on this noticeboard unless there's a particular issue. ] (]) 16:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== Beyoncé ==
*This is especially troubling, given the fact that Lautner is still a minor for seven more months. Hopefully several more editors will watchlist this article. Thanks for bringing it here, Wtwag. ] 22:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


Looks like Beyoncé fan club president is editing the article and ] (]) 10:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:In the past, multiple other editors have thought semiprotection necessary. I agree and have semied for 3 months. There's nothing useful coming in and way too much intervention necessary by others.--] (]) 21:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
::I definitely support this, though I may have gone for a bit longer, perhaps SP-ing it until he's at least of the age of majority (a bit less than 7 months, in this case). I think three months is fine, though, as we can see what happens after that, and perhaps semi- it again if the same issues arise. ] 22:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I thought about it, but like to increase protection lengths gradually if possible, and the last one was for a month. Maybe by the end of 3 months nobody will care whether he is or is not dating Selina or whoever, and there will be blessed peace. One can always hope! And if not, protect again!--] (]) 22:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
::::I'll never understand the fascination some have with celebrities and who they're dating. :) Marking this resolved, now. ] 22:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


:Hi, anon! Please talkpage your concerns. When you do, please state with specificity what's wrong with each edit and why (policies/guidelines). Your diffs, in light of the normal editing process, don't indicate a severe BLP violation or failure to find consensus on the talkpage. Cheers. ] (]) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==


== Bob Martinez ==
Please bear with me since I don't fully understand Misplaced Pages policy and how to deal with problems like this. I am having difficulties with the reverts made by the user Sbakuria ( ] ) to the ] article. I have requested that they discuss their issues with the article on the article's talk page, but without consultation they revert the article to a mostly promotional and poorly formatted version (in my opinion).
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alexander_Mashkevitch&diff=next&oldid=303933569 shows the version I and another user prefer, and the version Sbakuria switches to.


There is a derogatory and malicious remark about Former Governor Bob Martinez's wife in his Wiki page biography. It's disgusting to say the least. Please fix this. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Could someone offer an opinion on this? ] (]) 22:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


:It has been removed. ] (]) 17:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==


== Kith Meng ==
I am removing controversial material that is very poorly sourced from this article and removing a number of external links based on the BLP policies which say we shouldn't include links to sites that don't obey WP's own policies on neutrality or verifiability.


This person's Misplaced Pages page is being continually changed to remove any mentions of well-documented accusations against him, often by Misplaced Pages accounts that are named after his companies. Now somebody who seems to be a bit more knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages has removed all of the references to crime and corruption, despite them being widely reported on by the press, claiming that it violates Misplaced Pages's policies to mention any accusations if they haven't been proven in court. But many of the incidents mentioned are verifiable, even if he wasn't actually convicted of a crime over them. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Midwest Christian Outreach and Personal Freedom Outreach are not reliable sources of information on Bill Gothard. Reliable sources for information would be used by other 3rd parties if they were indeed reliable. MCOI and PFO are not known in the Christian Studies scholarship field for being unbiased sources of information about Christian leaders. No other reliable source would ever think to use the unreferenced self-published claims in the MCOI or PFO weblogs to back up a claim made in their reputable news source or scholarly work.
:FYI, this is the disputed edit by {{U|Georgeee101}} who raised BLPCRIME. I guess the question is whether Meng is a ] for the allegations to be reinstated. That could be done through a RfC. ] (]) 22:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
I have made other comments on the talk pages in the past to get this stuff removed like I did in the ] article a long time ago. In both instances I was consistently battling with a group of editors that insisted on keeping in all critical claims no matter how dubious and biased the sources of that information. Eventually the ] article was fixed according to the arguments that I made years prior. It is now time for the same logic and reasoning to be applied to the Bill Gothard article.


Personal life section frequently vandalized with biased, possibly libelous pro-Israel propaganda citing biased sources. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
And since many people have accused me of being a shill for Gothard, I must let you know my background. (Luckily, I was never accused of being a shill for Phelps when I was trying to get poorly sourced material removed from his article). I am a non-religious athiest (in more of the weak atheism sense). I don't believe in Christianity although I was a Catholic as a child. I do not believe in any personal Gods. I have immense dislike for many religious leaders, particularly ones that seem to be "in it for the money". I have done edits to Scientology related articles and discussions mainly in an effort to make sure that critical information about Scientology is presented. I have also done edits to some Christian churches and leaders trying to get clearly biased information from poor sources removed. I am all for critical information about churches and individuals being presented, even in BLPs, but I feel that it is very important to make sure the information comes from very reliable sources and not groups with a clear interest in repudiating the individuals or churches involved.
:] blocked ] for a week. Thank you SFR! I'll also watch the page for future unconstructive edits. Cheers! ] (]) 00:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Matthew Parish V ==
My only ban from WP came a few years ago in this article, back before the conscientious effort to improve BLPs was started on Misplaced Pages. There were two editors/admins that continuously worked to make sure that WP:BLP was not followed. Since the policy at the time said that poorly sourced material should be removed immediately regardless of 3RR, I kept doing it, even though the one editor that disagreed with me had an admin friend that he could message to get me banned. I finally just detailed the problems on the talk pages with the hope that future admins would finally get around to fixing it.


*{{pagelink|Matthew Parish}}
Now that things have changed at Misplaced Pages (with the removal of articles on Sollog, Barbara Schwarz, and repair of ]) to remove poorly sourced material from BLP articles-- I now think its time to encourage other editors and admins to look at the history of this article and the sources that are trying to be used. ] (]) 04:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
*Previous discussions: ], ], ], ] & subsequent ]


The subject of this article is a lawyer who has brought legal actions against Misplaced Pages in the past. In June 2018 a rewrite of the article removed significant promotional material and added information on Mr. Parish's then-ongoing legal troubles. An editor claiming to be the subject deleted the legal section entirely, which led to a second thread here and I assume a thorough verification of the material in the article. In 2021 the creator of the article, {{noping|Pandypandy}}, raised another thread here about defamatory material in the article; they were subsequently blocked for COI and suspected UPE editing, making legal threats, and logged-out sockpuppetry. The same editor also created ], which is the dispute in which Mr. Parish is accused of fraudulent arbitration as described in the biography's legal issues section.
== Félix Malpica Valverde ==


In 2023 a third BLPN thread was raised on behalf of WMF Legal, who requested that editors review the article in light of multiple requests from Mr. Parish to delete it. The BLPN discussion led to the AFD linked above, which closed as no consensus to delete. In the year-and-a-bit since, numerous IP editors and sockpuppets have edited the article to remove selected information from the legal section, or have removed it all at once, while others have added new contentious information which mostly has been removed by more experienced editors. I have semiprotected the page indefinitely.
The factual accuracy has been disputed with the ] article. I just added the WikiProject BLP tag to the page to mark him as a living person. Someone please look into this article. Thanks ] (]) 06:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
:He seems to be a real notable person and there is nothing negative in the article. The only problem is the language barrier between the sources (and it seems editors) in Spanish and potential readers in English. ] (]) 02:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


I would like to request that editors once again review the current article for accuracy, and verify that the information in the article is properly cited to and accurately reflects reliable sources. Some editors in the AFD suggested that perhaps the video affair is notable but the bio is BLP1E, so I'm going to restore the draft so it can be reviewed as well. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== Armando Quintero Martínez ==


== Pronouns ==
This one is totally unreferenced. All of the sources on news.google.com that discuss him are in Spanish; since I'm not that good at Spanish, Spanish-speakers need to ensure ] is referenced. ] (]) 06:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


A request for assistance: The subject of the article ] asked me about the best way to update their article to reflect the fact that they use they/them pronouns. This is clearly attested to on their personal webpage and also can be seen e.g. in (a recent biographical blurb for an invited presentation). Two questions:
== BLP-related discussion at ANI regarding ] ==
# Is this sourcing sufficient to make the change? (I think yes but I don't edit biographies much so would appreciate confirmation.)
# Is it normal, when making such a change, to leave a comment ''in the article'' (either text or a footnote) indicating that the subject uses they/them? Or just to write it that way and expect that readers can work it out?
Thanks, ] (]) 18:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:Standard practice is that ] sources are adequate for pronouns, except in rare cases where there's reason to doubt someone's sincerity. Usually, someone's pronouns bear mention in a personal life section, same as other gender and sexuality things. Whether to include an explanatory note on first reference is a matter of stylistic discretion; personally, having written a few articles on nonbinary people, I use an {{tl|efn}} if I expect it to confuse readers (either {{pronoun pair|they|them}} or surprising binary pronouns like with ]). <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
], as we have had some discussion here about this article. ] 05:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks very much, {{u|Tamzin}}. Since there is no personal life section of this bio and to stave off possible confusion, I went with an efn; how does look to you? --] (]) 18:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:The main problem seems to be that there is way too much information for an encyclopedia article on this baseball player, as nice a guy as he seems to be. ] (]) 05:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Looks good! Check out {{tl|pronoun pair}} if you want to be pedantic about italics and kerning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::I also didn't know that baseball players had this kind of template on their articles: ]. I think that's a bit against WP's style, which is to be about subjects of lasting importance not a baseball team's current roster which could change from day to day. ] (]) 06:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
*I don't have any problem with cutting down the article some (or a lot). I only became involved with it after the "Jewish" issue was brought her due to poor sourcing. ] 06:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:16, 9 January 2025

Misplaced Pages noticeboard for discussion of biographies of living people
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. Shortcuts

    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.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:

    Notes for volunteers
    How do I mark an incident as resolved or addressed?
    You can use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section containing the report. At least leave a comment about a BLP report, if doing so might spare other editors the task of needlessly repeating some of what you have done.
    More ways to help
    Today's random unreferenced BLP
    Nelly Leon-Chisen (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 8 Jan 2025 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF)
    Centralized discussion




    Pretendian

    Full of BLP and NPOV vio's, unencyclopedic language and unreliable sources. I removed a couple.   Much of article reads like it was copied from a blog post or tabloid, and lack of proof of Native ancestry (and/or or not being enrolled in a tribe) is repeatedly conflated with lying. --Middle 8 • (s)talk 18:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    ... and the two diffs above got reverted , restoring some really poor prose and sources. This is a very sensitive topic area and I don't want to bite anyone, but clearly the article needs more experienced editorial eyes and existing editors need to review WP:BLP (and hopefully realize the difference between editing an encyclopedia and human rights advocacy). --Middle 8 • (s)talk 11:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Unless a published reliable source specifically describes the person as a "pretendian", they should not be on that notable examples list at all. BLP is clear on this - any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    One problem is that while the article is about people who falsely claimed Native American heritage, its title is from a pejorative slang term, which it begins by defining. Perhaps a change of title along with moving information about the term Pretendian further down would help.
    Listing any notable people who have pretended to have native heritage is a recipe for imbalance and unwieldy length. Instead, we should find sources specifically about the topic to determine which persons are significant to the topic. It's more important to understand why this happens, how frequent it is and what damage it causes than to provide a hit list of perpetrators.
    TFD (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's more important to understand why this happens, how frequent it is and what damage it causes than to provide a hit list of perpetrators. Well said! Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    • The title strikes me as violating WP:POVTITLE; I'm skeptical that the term is common enough to pass WP:COMMONNAME for the phenomenon. If the article is going to cover the phenomenon and not the neologism (and currently, most sources in it don't use the term), it needs to be renamed to a descriptive title. The hard part is coming up with one. --Aquillion (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    A lengthy requested move discussion already occurred and nothing has changed with the term to warrant a title change in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pretendian#Requested_move_21_December_2021  oncamera  (talk page) 16:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    • It seems fairly evident that the neologism and the phenomenon are both notable, but we shouldn't be covering the phenomenon under the neologism: I don't see evidence that "pretendian" is the dominant descriptive term even for high-profile cases of falsely claiming native ancestry. And it goes without saying that an absence of evidence of native ancestry is insufficient to list an individual on that page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    I mean, if the article is titled "Pretendian", the only sources that could justify putting someone on the page is a source using the term "Pretendian" specifically. It's a sufficiently emotive neologism that we can't really WP:SYNTH someone into that category - any source that doesn't use the word "Pretendian" is useless. If we want a list of BLPs who fall under the broader concept, we would need a separate article for that; we can't label people with a neologism without a specific source using the term. --Aquillion (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    That discussion is three years old, but more importantly, it doesn't address the WP:BLP / WP:LABEL issue. We can have an article on a neologism, absolutely; we cannot label individuals with a negative neologism unless we have a source using that precise word to refer to them. Any living person named in that article must have at least one high-quality source calling them a "Pretendian", using that exact word. Anyone who doesn't have that source backing up the fact that they have been called a "Pretendian", specifically, needs to be removed immediately until / unless that source is found - sources that use other words are useless (and WP:OR / WP:SYNTH in context.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    The term "pretendian" is used frequently in news sources (some Canadian news outlets have dedicated reporters on a dedicated "pretendian beat". The term is used in academia (Google Scholar with Indigenous, Google Scholar with Native, to weed out the Spanish-language discussions). Indigenous identity fraud is used but not nearly as often. If you want to suggest a name change, the talk page of Talk:Pretendian would be the place to do it. Yuchitown (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    In order for a BLP to be included in the notables examples list though, the derogatory term "pretendian" needs to be used frequently and widely published in high-quality reliable sources describing that individual as such, in order for the BLP to be included in that section per BLP and LABEL. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with Isaidnoway, Aquillion and others. It's one thing to have an article on the concept and under that name. That might very well be justified if there are sufficient sources referring to it. However it's another to list living persons as pretendians. That needs sufficient sources establishing it's a common enough term used to describe this person. These sources needs to clearly use the term and not simply say other things such as the person has claimed Native American ancestry but it appears to be false. Likewise in others on the person, it's fine to mention controversies over any claims, but they should not be called or categorised as pretendians without sources. Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's not a matter of what the article is named; the problem is WP:LABEL. For an emotive, negative term like "pretendian", we need, at the absolute bare minimum, at least one source actually describing someone as such using that precise word. Going "well these sources accusing them of indigenous identity fraud are essentially the same thing" is WP:SYNTH; in other contexts it might not be enough to worry about but in the context of applying a highly emotive label to a living person it's unacceptable. We can have an article on the term, but we can't use it as the general list for people accused of indigenous identity fraud because of that issue; all we can list there are people called "pretendian" specifically, using that exact word. --Aquillion (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's valid. Some people have been described as "pretendians" in published, secondary sources. I'd be fine with a separate list for Indigenous identity fraud since that's a more neutral descriptive term that is increasingly being used in scholarly writing. I've been slammed IRL but can find citations in the near future. Yuchitown (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've had a read of the Pretendians Talk page, having previously raised some concerns re BLP sourcing, and I share the concerns that the term 'Pretendian' is being used as a neutral descriptor. It's clear from the various discussions on the Talk page that it is a contentious term. I would also be in favour of moving some of the content to a list named something akin to 'Indigenous Identity Fraud' and reframing the Pretendians page as an explanation of the neologism.
    I'm concerned about some of these BLP issues being raised previously on the Talk page and dismissed in each case - e.g. here, here and here. It looks to me that this page may have multiple BLP violations that need further attention. Whynotlolol (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is a complicated issue (especially from a BLP perspective) and it seems like a lot of the long form sources note just how complicated an issue this is. I think that others may be right in saying that there may be multiple overlapping notable and perhaps less notable topics here which can be organized in a number of ways. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Vinod Sekhar

    I'd appreciate it if some of you BLP experts could have a look at this article. I pruned it some already and found a curious mix of promotional language and possibly overstated accusations. Note: I just blocked an edit warrior from whitewashing it. Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    I've had a small prune and clean up. GiantSnowman 10:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Harald Walach

    The "Controversy" section for this guy needs more eyes, I think. The first sentence merely states that he has "advocated for revision of the concept of evidence-based medicine, promoting holistic and homeopathic alternatives in his publications." and then links to a WP:PRIMARY source showing him writing about these topics. What's the controversy here?

    The last paragraph I removed because the RS link provided did not appear to say what was claimed in the paragraph (when I read the translation), but the author did insinuate a "scandal" not directly related to Walach, though. But it was reverted by @Hob Gadling who said I "don't know what I'm talking about" and that I'm "whitewashing" Walach. So, I'm hoping to get another opinion on this. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Finn McKenty

    I would like to bring some attention to this BLP, as there is a particular claim that keeps getting reinstated, often with poor sourcing (including, so far, a Wordpress blog and WP:THENEEDLEDROP, which as self-published sources are unsuitable for claims about living persons). @FMSky: has been adding the content with the aforementioned sources, along with, as of writing this, two sources on the current revision I am uncertain about, morecore.de () and metalzone (). I can't find discussions of either source at WP:RSN, so I would like to bring this here to get consensus on the sources and the material they support, rather than continuing to remove the material per WP:3RRBLP. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    Its fine, he made these comments. Nothing controversial about it. Move on --FMSky (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please see WP:NOTTRUTH. Even if he made those comments, they need reliable sources verifying them (i.e., not self-published sources). Simply put, Wordpress blogs and people's self-published YouTube videos cannot be used to support claims about living people. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes here are 2 https://www.morecore.de/news/finn-mckenty-the-punk-rock-mba-verlaesst-youtube-ich-habe-es-nur-wegen-des-geldes-gemacht/ & https://www.metalzone.fr/news/208728-finn-mckenty-the-punk-rock-mba-aucun-interet-musique/
    We can also put in the video of him uttering these words as it falls under WP:ABOUTSELF --FMSky (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think citing the video itself as a primary source would probably be the best option here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    Bonnie Blue (actress)

    This biography of a pseudonymic pornographic actress (primarily notable for work on OnlyFans) was created on December 29 by Meena and is heavily sourced to tabloids and tabloidesque websites. Some of the sources don't support what they are cited for (e.g. the two cited for her attending a particular school, and misrepresentation of sources on whether she's from Nottinghamshire or Derbyshire). The date of birth is unsourced and the real name is sourced to a National World article that cites it to the Daily Mirror. I have tried an emergency initial BLP cutback; Launchballer has tried a more severe cutback; the original has been restored by an IP and by Tamzin Kuzmin with the most recent revert alleging vandalism and misogyny in the edit summary. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    I went through that article and yeeted everything I could find that either did not check out or was sourced to an inappropriate source. I suggest draftifying.--Launchballer 20:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    ...and it's all been restored (again) by Tamzin Kuzmin. Who also happened to remove this initial report, replacing it with a report about an article they've never edited. Hmmm. Woodroar (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Metacomment. The reverting user was blocked. The block notice implicated WP:SOCK. So I removed the Oli London post here, but it's available at the diff above by Woodroar in case an editor in good standing cares to clean it up, talkpage it, and/or follow up here. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Poorly sourced Russian spies/ex-spies poisoning claim of Bashar al-Assad

    Bashar al-Assad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) BLP attention is needed. On the talk page I have warned about the Russian spies'/ex-spies' Telegram claim of Bashar al-Assad being poisoned being too poorly sourced. Probably because of al-Assad's status as a fugitive wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity and as an ex-dictator, few people seem to be bothered with leaving the rumour in place, despite the low quality of the sourcing that all point to a viral rumour based on the General SVR Telegram channel. The WP:WEASELly "may have been" and "it was reported that" seem to be seen as sufficient to justify propagating the rumour, without attribution to General SVR as the source of the claim. After half a day, none of the more regular mainstream media sources appear to have said anything about this, including independent reliable Russian sources such as Meduza and The Moscow Times. Currently there are two sentences with the rumour (one in the lead, one in the body of the article). Diffs:

    Boud (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I see, thanks for letting me know about it. Richie1509 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    See also: Claims of Vladimir Putin's incapacity and death#October 2023 claims of death from the same source. Boud (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for clearing up this point, i was not aware of it. I will be careful in the future BasselHarfouch (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Joe Manchin

    Today we have an unnecessary edit war on BLP outgoing Sen. Joe Manchin (and perhaps many other articles this morning) about the addition of infobox data which is factually incorrect at the time of insertion (, diff]). Nobody is arguing the data, just the timing of the edit. While User:Therequiembellishere is one person jumping the gun, they are a longtime contributor here. Their position should be taken in good faith, IMHO. Also in my opinion, these edits are technically BLP violations because they impart incorrect information. Under policy, such clear BLP violations must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (bolding from the original) by ANY editor. This sort of thing might lead to an edit war in which everybody is trying to do the right thing. Note: the page was correctly edited for the change; one click would have changed it at the proper time of transition.

    1. Does this sort of thing happen every opening of congress?
    2. Isn't this a potential future problem for BLPN, since edit wars on this are built-in to the apparent excitement of awaiting the actual moment of transition?
    3. I'm inclined towards timed page protection, but page protection is not normally done preemptively. Here's the page today literally under attack for BLP violations. If we know this is common for transitions of administration, isn't this an exception?

    While this noticeboard doesn't normally discuss policy, should we be aware of such disruption in advance? Making it harder for sooner editors like Therequiembellishere who feel... Well, I'll let them make their own affirmative position here if they wish. BusterD (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Page protections is the only way. IMHO, most editors who do these premature changes every two years, don't actually realize it's too early. They seem to assume once mid-night occurs, start updating. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I raise this issue not to cause a problem today. I'm not trying to unduly embarrass any editor for taking a position I don't agree with. On the other hand, we have established BLP policy the hard way through sometimes brutal disagreements about how to carefully calibrate opposing positions based on good faith argument. I trust the BLP policy because we earned it. We don't need to re-learn these lessons. But we could discuss how to proceed next time. BusterD (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Under policy, it would be within the responsibility of any editor to revert these edits and report the editor to this board. But for my starting this conversation, it would be within my remit to revert the edits, fully protect the page and warn Therequiembellishere (and others). I haven't done that. I want the discussion about what to do next time. BusterD (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I understand, this is for the next time around when terms end & begin. PS - I should note, that the premature changes in the BLPs tend to have a ripple effect on related pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I've said everything I want on this on Manchin's talk. It's just a lot of pedantry by a few editors with obsessive fealty and exactitude that doesn't meaningfully help anything or anyone, least of all a casual reader. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Verifiability is not "pedantry". Members aren't sworn in until noon EST, correct? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I can understand changes being made about 1 or 2 hrs before the actual event, when dealing with so many bios. But 12 hrs before the event, is too early. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Obvious BLP violations are not pedantry. Those edits added provably incorrect information. Can User:Therequiembellishere provide a policy-based answer why those edits do not violate BLP guidance? This is just bad acting under the cover of labelling others. Do they not see that? BusterD (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Therequiembellishere's response here demonstrates we actually have a problem, at least with that user, whose reply here is non-responsive to the issue. BLP policy does indeed require obsessive fealty and exactitude, as long experience with this board has shown. As my OP suggested, any user might justifiably have reverted Therequiembellishere right into 3RR and immediate blocking, just by merely diligently following policy. Therequiembellishere might bookmark this thead for when it happens to them two years from now. I could have done it this morning, but instead chose to create this thread and invite the user to comment. Would preemptive full protection be a reasonable solution to such flippant disruption? BusterD (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I oppose pre-emptive full protection. I strongly support an immediate sitewide block of any repeat offenders, with the block to expire at noon Washington, DC time on the swearing in day. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm with Therequiembellishere on this: a prediction, especially one based on clear US law, is not a false statement or a BLP violation. Joe Manchin's term does end on January 3rd, 2025, and that was still true on January 2nd, 2025. It's, in fact, been true for over a month now. The only way it could end on a different day would be if Joe Manchin had died before then, which would obviously be a BLP violation to assume.
    (Unlike Therequiembellishere I don't even think the opposition is pedantry. Pedants are technically correct; to say that the end of Joe Manchin's term was not January 3rd before January 3rd is not even technically correct. It's just false.) Loki (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    IMO the issue is not the term ending time but the claim Joe Manchin served as senator etc when he was still serving as a senator at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    For further clarity. I think our readers reasonably understand our articles might be outdated. So if the article says Joe Manchin is serving and his term ended a few hours ago or even a few days ago that's fine. I mean in other cases it's reasonable to expect them to even be weeks or months out of date. But if out article says Joe Manchin served, I think they reasonable would expect he is no longer serving. As I understand it, there's no more issue. But if this reoccurs, I'm not sure Cullen328's solution is correct. I mean if some admin is volunteering to mollycoddle each repeat offender then okay I guess. But otherwise the norm is we expect editors to obey our policy and guidelines by themselves without needing handholding in the form of continual blocks everytime something comes up to stop them. Therefore I'd suggest either an admin subject them to escalating blocks quickly leading up to an indefinite if they repeat perhaps under BLP or AP2; or we do it via community bans. While I'd personally be fine with a site ban, it might be more palatable to the rest of the community if we instead do it as a topic ban on making such changes. With a clear topic ban, hopefully an admin will be more willing to subject them to escalating blocks. Even if not, I think the community would be much more willing to siteban such editors if they repeat after a community topic ban. As a final comment, I also don't see why editor feels it's something so urgent that they need to do it 12 hours in advance. This almost seems one of those lame edits we sometimes get at the ANs resulting from the apparent desire of an editor to be first or get the credit so we have editors creating "drafts" with basically zero content long before there's anything to write about then some other editor is sick of this editor doing this and so ignores the draft and makes their own. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Technically speaking, if you are still serving you also have served. So it's not technically speaking false, although this really is pedantry and I would not say it's the most true possible statement.
    I'm still not convinced it's a BLP violation, though. Loki (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think the argument is being made @LokiTheLiar:, that editing in someone is no longer holding an office, when they still are & somebody has assumed office, when they haven't yet, is problematic. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    @BusterD: maybe a RFC or something is required, to establish how to handle future premature changes to such bios. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Serious BLP vios in Gambino crime family

    This article is riddled with serious BLP vios. I tried tagging them, but there are so many I would have to carpet bomb the page with CN tags. This page needs urgent attention from any editors with experience and/or sources pertaining to organized crime. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    P.S. I've taken a look at most of the articles on North American mafia groups and almost all have serious BLP issues. I've added "Category:Possibly living people" with its BLP Edit Notice to all of the pages excepting groups that have been defunct for more than thirty years. These pages are in rough shape and a lot of material needs to be either cited or deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Taylor Lorenz BLP issues and harassment of subject based on article contents

    The Taylor Lorenz article has an unusual history in the sense that the contents of the article have led to harassment of Lorenz in the past, or other issues impacting her financially.

    Most recently it was regarding her date of birth and Misplaced Pages choosing to use a date range, with the allegations being that it was Lorenz choosing to keep her birthdate off of the Internet or being deceitful.

    1. FreeBeacon
    2. TimesOfIndia
    3. Lorenz Substack
    4. SoapCentral
    5. RedState
    6. Lorenz BlueSky
    7. Twitchy
    8. FoxNews
    9. BlueSky
    10. FreeBeacon

    There have also seemingly been issues according to Lorenz with errors in the article causing her lost business opportunities See here

    "This insane 100% false story is affecting my brand deals and some partnership stuff I have in the works for 2025, so I really need it corrected ASAP!!!"

    An addition of a 'Harassment and coordinated attacks' section was added in August of last year, with additional information being added shortly after regarding a Twitter suspension. I moved the text around recently in an attempt at a more neutral article that was quickly reverted. A TalkPage discussion followed shortly after but there hasn't been a policy based consensus.

    My question- should we have a devoted harassment section included for someone who has been harassed based on her Misplaced Pages profile previously? It seems like WP:AVOIDVICTIM comes into play with directly focusing attention on her being a victim and could lead to further harassment by highlighting it with equal weight as her career section.

    Personally I think the material could be presented more neutrally per WP:STRUCTURE but wanted to get a wider opinion.

    There is also a discussion currently going on if we should include her year of birth here. Awshort (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) 04:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Fixed incorrect diff

    @Awshort it looks like the paragraph below got moved past your signature, and therefor appears orphaned.

    Delectopierre (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Removing the harassment section furthers the narrative that there are no coordinated harassment campaigns against her, and acts to diminish the effect those coordinated campaigns have wrought upon her. Generally speaking, victims of harassment don't want what they've gone through to be diminished.

    I am unaware of any evidence that discussing harassment on wiki for her, or in general, leads to further harassment. If that evidence exists, I'd certainly be wiling to change my stance. Delectopierre (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion on the scope of WP:BLPSPS

    There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Self-published claims about other living persons about the scope of WP:BLPSPS. -- Patar knight - /contributions 02:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    List of pornographic performers by decade

    List of pornographic performers by decade is a remarkable article in that it has existed for 20 years and yet, if I were to follow WP:BLPREMOVE to the letter right now, I would have to cut the article down to its first sentence, the section headings, and a single see-also. Saying "X is a pornographic performer" is, obviously, a contentious claim, and as such every entry needs its own citation; it's not enough to rely on the articles as their own de facto citations, as is the tolerated practice for noncontroversial lists like List of guitarists. This is all the more the case because the definition of "pornographic performer" is subjective. With help from Petscan, I've found the following people on the list who are not described in their articles as pornographic performers: Fiona Richmond, Amouranth, F1NN5TER, Kei Mizutani, Uta Erickson, Isabel Sarli, Fumio Watanabe, Louis Waldon, Nang Mwe San, Piri, Megan Barton-Hanson, Aella (writer). Many (all?) of them are sex workers of some sort, so in each case, there may be a reliable source that exists that calls them a pornographic performer, but without one, it's a flagrant BLP violation. And if it were just those, I'd remove them and be done with it, but even for the ones whose articles do call them pornographic performers, there's no guarantee of being right. I removed Miriam Rivera from the list after seeing that an IP had removed the mentions of porn in her article, which had indeed been sourced to a press release about a fictionalized depiction of her life. No, each of these entries needs an individual citation appearing on the list article so that the claims can be judged.

    So, there are about 650 entries, and we know at least some are questionable, and we cannot assume that any of the rest are correct. What do we do? Again, the letter-of-BLP answer here is to remove the unsourced items, but that would leave literally nothing. The only two citations in the whole thing are to search pages on two non-RS porn databases. So at that point we might as well apply WP:BLPDELETE. Another solution would be to find sources for, I don't know, two or three people in each heading, just so it's not empty, remove everything else, and stick {{incomplete list}} there. A third option is AfD. Does anyone have any ideas?

    P.S. I haven't even looked at other lists of pornographic performers. Are they all like this? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    I don't have a solution to this @Tamzin, but the first name I looked at was Isabel Sarli. Her article references her full frontal appearance and describes it as sexploitation. Sexploitation films are not pornographic films. I can't see any mention of pornographic acting in her article? This is a problem. Knitsey (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Doing some spot-checking, Kōji Wakamatsu is described in his article as a director of pink films but not as an actor – and it does not seem as though pink films are necessarily pornographic; Harry S. Morgan is categorised as a porn actor but the text of the article does not seem to support this. Clearly there's a problem here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hm, yes, per WP:BLP each LP on this list should have a decent ref (better than Internet Adult Film Database, see ), and it wouldn't hurt the others either. I'm slightly reminded of a complaint I made at Talk:Holocaust_denial/Archive_21#Notable_Holocaust_deniers. It's not the same, but it's still sensitive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Btw, per List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films and List of actors in gay pornographic films, it seems they're not all like that, but List of British pornographic actors lists people without WP-articles, my knee-jerk reaction is that that's not good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    List of British pornographic actors most seem to be referenced using "International Adult Film Database" which is user generated. Imdb for born actors. Knitsey (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Talk:List_of_British_pornographic_actors#People_without_WP-articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'll be honest, I thought we'd dealt with this before and it was no longer a problem. I'm sure in previous discussions we're generally agrees such lists should only contain notable individuals with articles i.e. no black links or red links (if an editor believes someone is notable they need to create the article first). I thought we'd also agreed to strictly require inline citations when adding names regardless of what the individual articles say. I couldn't find many of the previous discussions though but did find we seem to have a lot more of these lists in the past. Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm aware of a few circumstances in which pornographic actors faced serious obstacles in their lives after leaving the industry and tried hard to separate themselves from their prior career. I would hope, in these cases, we respect their wishes and just leave them off. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Depending on situation, we might or we might not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    My main concern is for people who have explicitly expressed that they no longer want to be public people, being honest. Those who have struggled to transition to non-pornographic acting, music, etc. is less of my concern. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's understandable but it runs into issues with WP:PUBLICFIGURE where editors think that once someone is a public figure, it is forever.
    Recently there was I believe the son of a lady who had appeared in Playboy a long time ago who had asked for her article to be removed on BLPN. The specifics that I remember are vague, but essentially she had been a Playmate one year and editors had built an article for her even though she was a relatively private person other than the fact she was in Playboy in the early 80's. The family member had suggested that the article basically loomed over her head and caused harm to her reputation since it was something she did once 30+ years ago and distanced herself from almost immediately. I can't say i disagree that in cases like that, there shouldn't be an article.
    Awshort (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wasn't aware of that specific case but that is precisely the sort of circumstance under which I think a private person's right to privacy should be weighed more important than Misplaced Pages completionism. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm reminded of Richard Desmond per . Other end of the scale, perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Nil Einne You may be thinking of this discussion which you commented on.
    Awshort (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think it was really that, although I did forget about it so thanks for reminding me. One of the issues with that list is since it was such a high profile case I felt it likely there would at least be secondary source coverage, and also as pornographic appearances go, I feel being Playmate is a lot less controversial than other stuff; so while it was bad, I didn't feel it quite as severe as most of the other stuff we're doing or have been doing. I was thinking of older discussions probably especially the RfC below. Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Given the lack of referencing and the entries included in error, pointed out above, then I would be in favour of removing every unreferenced entry on the list. If that leaves literally nothing, well - AFD. If somebody really wants this information, well, categories exist. Bastun 14:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    I would support this as well, and honestly would probably still vote to delete a list with only the referenced entries if it were brought at AfD. A list page doing the job of one or several category pages and nothing more has no purpose. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 13:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Would a blank-and-soft-redirect to Category:Pornographic film actors be a good solution here? That way the list is still in the history for anyone who wants to restore it with references. The "by decade" might be misleading in that case, but we could first reverse the hard redirect from List of pornographic performers, which this probably should have been at anyways. Another option would be a list of lists at Lists of pornographic performers and redirecting there. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think your first suggestion is a good idea, I'd support that for sure. Definitely less favorable to a list of lists though. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 20:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I knew we had a lengthy RfC/Discussion about this subject matter, it just took me a while to find it though – Unreferenced lists and porn stars RFC, and also this AfD as well. Discussions are ten years old, but I don't think anything in the lengthy close of the RfC has changed. I was one of the volunteers who helped add refs to this article → List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films, which if I recall correctly, was the impetus for the RfC. Good luck, sourcing these types of lists are a massive chore. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      RFC closer said in 2014:
      Q: Should all pre-existing lists of porn performers have a reliable source supporting each entry?
      A: The rough consensus below is that it's always more controversial to call someone a porn performer than to say they're engaged in most other professions. A reliable source should be added for every entry that's challenged or likely to be challenged. But as a concession to the practicalities, editors are asked not to go through the pre-existing lists making large-scale and unilateral challenges, as this will overwhelm the people who maintain these lists with work, and there is a legitimate concern that this is unfair. If you do intend to remove unsourced entries, please proceed at a reasonable, non-disruptive speed dealing with what you judge to be the highest-priority cases first. If you could easily source an entry yourself, then removing it as unsourced is rather unhelpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      Well, removing ~650 entries after 10 years of the list's maintainers doing nothing to fix this would average out to, what, ~1.2 per week since that RfC? That seems like a reasonable, non-disruptive speed to me. Courtesy ping @S Marshall. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 16:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes, I do vaguely remember making that close ten years ago. I agree that it's appropriate to implement its outcome in full now.—S Marshall T/C 17:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    chew chin hin

    https://www.ttsh.com.sg/About-TTSH/TTSH-News/Pages/In-Loving-Memory-Prof-Chew-Chin-Hin.aspx

    Dr Chew Chin Hin died — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrypttorfan (talk • contribs) 15:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Thanks – I see you have already updated his article. Does anything more need to be done here? There's no need to discuss the deaths of every person who has an article on this noticeboard unless there's a particular issue. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Beyoncé

    Looks like Beyoncé fan club president is editing the article and 50.100.81.254 (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hi, anon! Please talkpage your concerns. When you do, please state with specificity what's wrong with each edit and why (policies/guidelines). Your diffs, in light of the normal editing process, don't indicate a severe BLP violation or failure to find consensus on the talkpage. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Bob Martinez

    There is a derogatory and malicious remark about Former Governor Bob Martinez's wife in his Wiki page biography. It's disgusting to say the least. Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.165.250 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    It has been removed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Kith Meng

    This person's Misplaced Pages page is being continually changed to remove any mentions of well-documented accusations against him, often by Misplaced Pages accounts that are named after his companies. Now somebody who seems to be a bit more knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages has removed all of the references to crime and corruption, despite them being widely reported on by the press, claiming that it violates Misplaced Pages's policies to mention any accusations if they haven't been proven in court. But many of the incidents mentioned are verifiable, even if he wasn't actually convicted of a crime over them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khatix (talk • contribs) 07:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    FYI, this is the disputed edit by Georgeee101 who raised BLPCRIME. I guess the question is whether Meng is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE for the allegations to be reinstated. That could be done through a RfC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sami Zayn

    Personal life section frequently vandalized with biased, possibly libelous pro-Israel propaganda citing biased sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.223.20.111 (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    ScottishFinnishRadish blocked Jayadwaita for a week. Thank you SFR! I'll also watch the page for future unconstructive edits. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Matthew Parish V

    The subject of this article is a lawyer who has brought legal actions against Misplaced Pages in the past. In June 2018 a rewrite of the article removed significant promotional material and added information on Mr. Parish's then-ongoing legal troubles. An editor claiming to be the subject deleted the legal section entirely, which led to a second thread here and I assume a thorough verification of the material in the article. In 2021 the creator of the article, Pandypandy, raised another thread here about defamatory material in the article; they were subsequently blocked for COI and suspected UPE editing, making legal threats, and logged-out sockpuppetry. The same editor also created Draft:Kuwaiti videos affair, which is the dispute in which Mr. Parish is accused of fraudulent arbitration as described in the biography's legal issues section.

    In 2023 a third BLPN thread was raised on behalf of WMF Legal, who requested that editors review the article in light of multiple requests from Mr. Parish to delete it. The BLPN discussion led to the AFD linked above, which closed as no consensus to delete. In the year-and-a-bit since, numerous IP editors and sockpuppets have edited the article to remove selected information from the legal section, or have removed it all at once, while others have added new contentious information which mostly has been removed by more experienced editors. I have semiprotected the page indefinitely.

    I would like to request that editors once again review the current article for accuracy, and verify that the information in the article is properly cited to and accurately reflects reliable sources. Some editors in the AFD suggested that perhaps the video affair is notable but the bio is BLP1E, so I'm going to restore the draft so it can be reviewed as well. Ivanvector (/Edits) 16:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Pronouns

    A request for assistance: The subject of the article Karen Yeats asked me about the best way to update their article to reflect the fact that they use they/them pronouns. This is clearly attested to on their personal webpage and also can be seen e.g. in (a recent biographical blurb for an invited presentation). Two questions:

    1. Is this sourcing sufficient to make the change? (I think yes but I don't edit biographies much so would appreciate confirmation.)
    2. Is it normal, when making such a change, to leave a comment in the article (either text or a footnote) indicating that the subject uses they/them? Or just to write it that way and expect that readers can work it out?

    Thanks, JBL (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Standard practice is that WP:ABOUTSELF sources are adequate for pronouns, except in rare cases where there's reason to doubt someone's sincerity. Usually, someone's pronouns bear mention in a personal life section, same as other gender and sexuality things. Whether to include an explanatory note on first reference is a matter of stylistic discretion; personally, having written a few articles on nonbinary people, I use an {{efn}} if I expect it to confuse readers (either they/them or surprising binary pronouns like with F1NN5TER). -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks very much, Tamzin. Since there is no personal life section of this bio and to stave off possible confusion, I went with an efn; how does look to you? --JBL (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Looks good! Check out {{pronoun pair}} if you want to be pedantic about italics and kerning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories: