Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:01, 1 December 2009

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/Ramiro_Garcia

Self-promotional article from journalist himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.222.156.148 (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Lifelike

This Article has no reliable References or Critical Content. It feels more like an Advertisement of the Artist himself. 01:42, 26 Oct 2009 Homem-Christ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.153.196.11 (talk)

Karl Rove

The last paragraph of the lede paragraph for a while has read as follows:

Rove's name has come up in a number of political scandals. These include the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the related dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, among others. To date, no charges have been filed against Rove for any of his alleged illegal activities.

Several editors (myself included) have raised concerns about the bolded part of the paragraph. The paragraph has since been changed, but other editors have raised the possibility of restoring it. Does the bold sentence violate WP:BLP? Soxwon (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Rove is very controversial so supporters may be opposed to the language and opponents in support of it. If the sentence considered is "to date, no charges have been filed against ____ for any of his alleged illegal activities", then this may be considered more objectively. There are politicians of both parties whose names could be inserted, just google some politician scandals. The bottom line is that adding "for any of his alleged illegal activities" does make it a BLP violation. Ipromise (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As the author of the original paragraph, which stood from last summer until a few days ago, the intent was to find a middle ground. Rove is, as I understand it, under active investigation, hence the wording. Please see the current Rove talk page for more information. Archive 7 and 8 shows some of the turmoil from the era, and my current talk page also has recent material regarding this. Best, Jusdafax 07:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I took the phrase out. As a neutral from the UK I thought it was weasely and speculative and opinionated and does not belong in the lede at all. if as Justafax claims that the guy is actually under current specific investigation then details of the specifics could be added to the body of the article but to have such an open, unspecific comment in the lede is awful (imo). What are these alleged illegal activities? Who is investigating him and what are these people investigating him about? When will the investigation (if there is one) end? How jolly mysterious. Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have answered these concerns in exchanges with this user on my talk page and the Rove talk page, but the user has stated they refuse to google anything or look into the archives. In addition the user appears to me (and after the events of last summer, I admit to sensitivity) to be using terms both above, and elsewhere, that approach or cross over the limits of what I understand to be WP:BAIT. Thanks, Jusdafax 15:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, this issue is fairly straightforward. Do we have a reliable source saying "no charges have ever been filed against Rove", or something roughly equivalent to that? If so, then it is probably a good idea to include it. If not, then it should be omitted, because such a contention would then constitute original research. We need to go with what the sources say. *** Crotalus *** 16:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Firstly I find User Justafax's comments about me regarding WP:BAIT without any foundation at all and shows from him a complete lack of good faith.

I found this at

"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel’s decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove’s conduct." Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Stale - That article is well over three years old, and is not relevant to the current matter. Again, I have given Off2riorob specific information regarding this, which the user chooses to ignore. I will now paste some of the material from the Rove talk page to this one to demonstrate this. Begin paste

Again, on Aug. 13, the New York Tmes says this: "Congress must continue its investigation into the firing of top prosecutors and call Karl Rove and others to testify so the American people can hear how the justice system was hijacked." Try googling 'Nora Dannehy' and any combination of 'Rove' or 'attorneys firing' for more information on an ongoing investigation. It's my view that 'To date' stands, by Misplaced Pages standards. Jusdafax 00:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It is still not required to be in the lede. I am not going to google anything, all I care about is the weasel pov opinionated edit in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Would I be correct in saying that you support this edit and don't want to change a word of it? Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I wrote the paragraph you object to. Frankly, I see it as a compromise between those who would word it much more strongly, and those who don't want mention of Mr. Rove's ongoing legal issues at all (however, remember, he had to testify before the U.S. Congress earlier this year.) I'm open to discussion within reason, but I think by any reasonable standard, you fail to make a case.

To recap: Rove is being investigated at the current time by a U.S. Prosecutor, Nora Dannehy. Now I know you say you won't google anything, so how about clicking on her link? It shows who she is, and what she's investigating. Now click on this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13thu2.html which mentions Rove as a player in the investigations, based on his testimony before Congress.

The day Rove is either cleared, or charged with a crime, is the day we can remove this moderate paragraph. At least, that's how I see it.

End paste

This pasted material demonstrates that we are going in circles here. The person who brought this issue back to this page, User:Soxwon, was warned in September warned for edit-warring on Rove's page. It seems, to me, given the edit histories of both Soxwon and Off2RioRob, that we have long since reached a point of diminishing returns on this issue. I ask for a speedy decision here so that the issue can move forward. Best, Jusdafax 18:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your attempting to point the issue at other editors and not at the edit is very bad faith. You have not answered any of the issues regarding this actual edit, I will add it here so that people can see the actual edit under discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rove's name has come up in a number of political scandals. These include the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the related dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, among others. To date, no charges have been filed against Rove for any of his alleged illegal activities.

this is what I edited to...

Rove's name has come up in a number of political scandals, including the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the related dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy .

It is a good edit made in good faith. Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel it's important to add (for the casual reader) that Off2riorob fails to discuss any of the points I have just made, and in my view, for the obvious reason that they are facts, which is what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be all about. Jusdafax 18:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jusdafax please discuss content, not contributors. I was advised to bring this here by another neutral editor and await an outside opinion. I advise Off2riorob and you to do the same. Soxwon (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your link provided to support this opinionated edit in the lede of the article, this one is an opinion piece with nothing of any weight to support your edit. I also note that your edit has no support here at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Absent any word in a RS of an 'actual investigation aimed at Rove, the sentences are on the order of "John Doe has never said when he stopped beating his wife." Clinton does not have such a list of claimed crimes sans any investigations, to be sure, and so Rove ought not.

To resume...

The investigation of Rove and the 2006 attorney firings is ongoing. (The link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051402816.html ) as this Washington Post article (Prosecutor To Interview Rove Today, Sources Say) notes.

Then there is http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/15/rove.attorneys/index.html this CNN reference on Rove's interview the day after. For clarity, I paste some of this below:

• Rove questioned about U.S. attorney firings - Story Highlights

• NEW: Karl Rove questioned for 3½-plus hours on 2006 firings of U.S. attorneys

• NEW: Rove's attorney: "He intends to fully cooperate with the investigation"

• Justice Department report found that some firings were influenced by politics

• Special prosecutor trying to determine if any ex-Bush officials broke any laws.

Again, the Karl Rove Misplaced Pages article lede final sentence, which I now strongly suggest returning to the lede as timely, informative and meets WP:RS requirements, reads:

To date, no charges have been filed against Rove for any of his alleged illegal activities. Rove continues under investigation by special prosecutor Nora Dannehy.

In August, Rove was named in a U.S. House investigation. "Harriet Miers, then White House counsel, said in testimony June 15 to House Judiciary Committee investigators that Rove was "very agitated" over U.S. Attorney David Iglesias "and wanted something done about it."

• The link: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/08/12/2009-08-12_george_bush_adviser_karl_roves_role_in_firing_us_attorney_detailed_in_newly_rele.html

• NBC covered the story. The link: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/archive/NATLKarl-Rove-to-be-Interviewed-in-Criminal-Probe.html?corder=regular

Conclusion: Rove continues under investigation by both Ms. Dannehy and U.S. Congress. He has neither been charged nor cleared. Jusdafax 00:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is still not worthy of inclusion in the lede. If he is still under investigation add it to the body of the article with all the details, where it can be rebutted and defended as desired or required. Off2riorob (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, Disagree. Without any further discussion from other viewpoints (the silence is deafening), I will feel free to add the sentence back into the lede. I believe I have demonstrated good faith, WP:RS and the right to do so. I also waited ten days to see if there was further commentary. Time to move forward. Standing by for final comments, if any. Jusdafax 03:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason it is deafeningly quiet here is that a few people have commented, it is not a big issue, a few words in the lede, please don't relate the silence to support for your edit. It is a detail and not worthy of inclusion in the lede. Whether you have shown good faith or not is irrelevant, the edit is poor, it does not even explain itself, it does not belong in the lede at all. Off2riorob (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I continue to wait for voices other than Off2riorob. It appears that my sources meet WP:RS by any reasonable standard. Jusdafax 05:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Off2riorob, I don't see it belonging in the lede. I disagree with your interpretation that in absence of other contributors, your view should prevail. He could make the same argument as I don't see anyone flocking to support EITHER view. As above, it runs dangerously close to questions like "So when did you stop beating your wife?". I feel that biographies of living people are a case where extra care needs to be taken, especially when they are figures who are so potentially divisive. Putting it in the lede gives it undue weight - I'm not suggesting that it be removed, so arguments about the validity of the statement are irrelevant. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You cannot say that Karl Rove has 'alleged illegal activities' unless he has been formally charged with a crime and he has never been charged with any crime. In the U.S., one is presumed innocent and therefore all charges are 'alleged.' But you can't allege anything without the charges. Rove is not being investigated for criminal activity. He's never been charged with any crime. To say that his name came up in scandals is fine because it did, but a scandal is not the same at all as criminal behavior that begets criminal charges. The article must be sensitive to the fact that this is a biography of a living person and therefore Rove has rights under U.S. and international law, not to mention the questionable morality of hurling false accusations against someone just to advance a petty personal agenda. Off2riorob is entirely correct within Misplaced Pages policy in removing the line since it bears absolutely no merit.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: As we now have a whole raft of new problems on the Karl Rove page, including section blanking and baseless formal accusations to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring by Malke 2010 (no action taken by admins) of edit warring, the above original issue has gotten lost. Soxwon states on the Karl Rove talk page that he has requested full page protection as a result of edit warring by Malke 2010 and Off2riorob. Is there an uninvolved admin willing to step in, or does this just quietly get marked off as 'unresolved'? Jusdafax 07:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Chhe is edit warring, and along with Jusdafax they are a tag team which is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. They are like bullies on the playground. There is no page blanking on the Karl Rove page. There is only removal of copyright material, which after discussion, a consensus was reached to remove it. Chhe restored it and then added "references," which only refer to the copyrighted material. Didn't change one word of the copyright violation. And the other is the vandalism by Chhe where he inserts the line that Karl Rove was made to testify about Don Siegleman which is not true. Even after being told there is no such investigation, Chhe insisted on restoring the line in an effort to maintain the negative POV. Jusdafax refuses to discuss edits that will in any way change the negative POV on the Karl Rove page which as it stands right now reads as a scandal sheet. He immediately accuses people of having "an agenda" if they don't agree with him. It's so blatantly obvious he's the one with the agenda.

We can't make progress on the page without Chhe constantly flying in to revert all new edits. Their tag team hounds editors who make new contributions. The harassment of accusations and the incivility by Jusdafax are an everyday event. Jusdax does not engage in discussion. He is turning the Karl Rove article into a battleground in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. He believes that only he is allowed to determine the content, acting as though he is the owner of the article, (making statements such as, "I wrote that line," which again, is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Any contribution that threatens the extant negative POV is cause for Jusdafax to report to this noticeboard. He is uncivil in his comments, as is so obvious by his posts, for which he has been warned in the past. His latest diatribe is on the edit warring noticeboard where I appropriately addressed Chhe's edit warring. Neither of these individuals is willing to contribute to the reduction of the negative POV or add information that is legitimately relevant to the biography. They both want the page to remain exactly as it is. The smallest edit prompts thousands of words on this page and the Karl Rove talk page, yet they offer no solution. It's just a conversation driven in circles. Jusdafax makes negative statements like, "Here we go again," or "chilling effect" is his latest. Or they both constantly bring up mistakes of the past, which is clear evidence in itself of a refusal to move on, and make progress. Neither of these individuals has ever engaged in civil discussion on the talk page. The only saving grace is that by their own words we know them.Malke 2010 (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Malke 2010's obsessive interest in Karl Rove (a brief look at his edit history shows this, also the extensive material in Rove article Archive 7 and 8), and somehow getting me in hot water (note his heated discussion with and block by admin Black Kite in September), speaks for itself. The idea that I claim ownership of the KR article is pretty rich when one notes that I have made exactly one edit to the article in the past three months. Jusdafax 00:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

World Football Daily

World Football Daily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – I know it's not a bio article per se, but this article has had repeated disputes with a minority insisting that certain information about the hosts and the show not be included, while simultaneously insisting that inflammatory remarks by host Steven Cohen be included. We're long past WP:3RR, but I didn't want to request a block and thereby further incite anyone. –JohnnyPolo24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

There was a discussion about possible BLP violations in the article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I pointed out that according to BLP, self-published sources may only be used if "it does not involve claims about third parties". All of the self-published sources included on the list directly criticize the scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) panel (ie. third parties) who've stated the scientific assessment in a report. See the list's lede, it's basically what the list is about. All the quotations are criticisms of the scientists on that panel and their findings. A random find-on-page for the word "blog" shows that source #44 fails this part of BLP. Find the statement by Syun-Ichi Akasofu that source #44 supports and you'll see several claims made about third parties. There's other self-published sources in the list as well, source #44 is just an example.

I am looking for feedback from the greater Misplaced Pages community on whether this constitutes a BLP violation per Misplaced Pages:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published_source Criteria #2. --Nealparr 00:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a weird complaints, or rather several ones mashed in one. Most of the "self-published" sources and blogs are not used to make claims about third parties (and, btw, the IPCC is not a LP, so that would be outside the scope of the BLP policy), but rather as sources on the subjects own opinion per WP:SELFPUB. If other cases remain, please list them outside the above blanket statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The IPCC is literally a panel of living persons, but more to the point: Criteria #2 isn't about the person in the biography, it's about their reliability to make statements about third parties in a self-published source. It's basically: They can reliably state things about themselves, but they can't reliably state things about others, because it's WP:SELFPUB. All the reliability issues WP:SELFPUB tries to avoid are included in the list under the guise that it's just their view about themselves. But it's not. It's their view on the third party of the IPCC (and sometimes the individual scientists who make up the IPCC). --Nealparr 00:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• The way I understand WP policy a person's views would have to be commented on in secondary published sources, not just mentioned in his or her or another person's blog. I didn't see any major problems with sourcing in the article, although there might be a few. The list was a little weird though. People with views from "the world is really cooling" to "global warming is a good thing" are all included together. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• "The IPCC is literally a panel of living person" - well, by that argument BLP also applies to the government of the US, Exxon Mobile, the Church of Scientology, and Al-Qaeda. BLP protects individuals, not groups. As for the rest, let me repeat: The sources are not used to make claims about third parties. X says Y about Z is a claim about X, not a claim about Z. Self-published sources by X are usually acceptable as sources for statements by X. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone is reliable to comment on the US, Exxon Mobile, the Church of Scientology, or Al-Qaeda. Statements by X about Z are usually unacceptable if they are in a self published source. They're only included here under the guise that X's comment about Z is really about X, but that doesn't make any sense. If a person says the IPCC's statements are erroneous, that comment is about the IPCC, not themselves. --Nealparr 01:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not everyone is reliable to comment on the US, Exxon Mobile, the Church of Scientology, or Al-Qaeda. But none of those are BLP matters. I will repeat it once again. WE don't make statements about the IPCC. WE make statements about what person X has said. For that purpose, self-published sources by person X are ok. Even if person X says outrageous things about the Pope or Jerry Falwell's mother. I wont necessarily repeat this over and over again - if you stick to the same point, just assume it done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that it isn't about what WE claim. Criteria #2 is about whether the SELF PUBLISHED MATERIAL involves claims about third parties. IT does, and we quote it verbatim. --Nealparr 01:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying this is an issue for the WP:RS/N rather than the BLP/N? I only came here because Kim suggested this is the correct place. If not, should this be taken there instead? --Nealparr 01:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm saying you are wrong, your interpretation of policy is wrong, and you dragging this from hither to yonder without replying substantially to points made will not change this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have replied substantially to your points. You disagree. Fine, let others chime in. --Nealparr 01:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may chime in, I agree that the use of self-published sources is not a BLP violation in this case because, as Stephan Schulz states, the IPCC is not a person. Some types of self-published sources may be a mistake in this article for other reasons, but that debate is not for this forum. I do have a big BLP concern with this list. My concern is that the "weird" (as Steve Dufour writes above) nature of the list's subdivisions and inclusion criteria are so arbitrary that inclusion, exclusion, and subcategorization--and their potential impacts on the people listed and not listed--is based on what a group of Misplaced Pages editors think is important instead of on the person's actual viewpoint relative to IPCC views. However, the list in question was the recent subject of a no-consensus AfD, and emotions seem to be running high on the talk page and elsewhere at the moment, so I'm not sure now is the best time to use this noticeboard--or at least, it's not the best time for me to use it. I hope experts at BLP feel free to chime in on the list's talk page in a week or so when cooler heads may prevail. Flying Jazz (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. You've missed something. Unless the scientists' statements specify that they oppose the IPCC consensens, or an external reliable source does, it is WP:OR and a WP:BLP violation to place them on the list. The fact that the statements appear to disagree with the IPCC consensus, in the opinion of the adding editor, is not adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan Schulz above. Also, that statements appear to disagree (or agree) in the judgment of the editor, and the consensus of editors, is quite adequate for inclusion and not a violation of NOR or BLP, and is what we do in every article in Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages would be impossible to write if every source needed a second source to say that the first source said what it obviously (by consensus) said. And why would we not need a third source to say that the second source really did say that the first source said what it seemed to say, etc?John Z (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY, as it related to WP:BLP, means we may not interpret a statement made by a living person. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. That is another issue that has been raised. If my argument isn't a BLP issue, certainly that one is. --Nealparr 12:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A common misuse of WP:PRIMARY. It states "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." If the person's statement and the IPCC's statement can be placed alongside each other and the contradiction can be readily identified, then there is no "interpretation". Rd232 13:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rd232's assessment about Arthur Rubin's objection. Contradictions can be readily identified. If this really were a list of opponents to IPCC statements instead of a list of opponents to an arbitrarily-defined subset of IPCC statements (that a group of editors here think are the only really important ones relevant to global warming), then I would not have a BLP issue. Flying Jazz (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP issue. This is yet another piece of the long fallout from the AFD on this article, with some editors who failed to get their way there going through increasingly bizarre wikilawyering. It looks like they have become emotionally attached to their desires on this article and can't let it go William M. Connolley (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

sez you. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way.

• In an article about X, we cannot say that "X opposes the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" unless X or some WP:RS says that. We could not do it based only on X's statement which differs from a signficant point of the IPCC assessment.
• Why is the list different?

And it should be in the BLP board because otherwise the (now redacted) list of 700 from the Congressional Record would be a legitimate source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the list of 700 would never be a reliable source to anything other that Marc Morano's (and possibly Inhofe's) opinion. You are confusing things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment My understanding is that WP:BLP policies apply to every article, and everything else on WP. Living persons are certainly involved here where a person's career could be harmed by being on the wrong list. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that BLP applies to the list... it most certainly does. And your example is very much the reason that inclusion into the article isn't just accepted. We need a clear unambiguous quote, that directly contradicts the premises for the list, the person also has to be notable per Wikipedias notability criteria (which is why we do not allow red-links).

The discussion here is about subtleties in interpretation of BLP. The original claim here is that we cannot use a self-published quote from a scientists if he anywhere in his text mentions something that can be indirectly related to another living person. Here that indirect link is that the IPCC is a panel of scientists, and that the texts criticizes the IPCC therefore BLP disallows usage of the text. A rather novel interpretation to my view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion of any possible BLP violation in the list, not just the one I asked about. It's a request for outside independent eyes. --Nealparr 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that requesting independent eyes is good. Hope you don't mind me saying this, but trying to have a discussion about "any possible" violation might be...less good. Flying Jazz (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion How about a new policy: "WP is not an enemies list"? Steve Dufour (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That policy, like most others, would certainly give us a tool to try to poke each other with when we're too lazy or cranky or exasperated to engage with each other about detailed issues on a talk page. Flying Jazz (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Rd232. That's exactly what has not been done. Many of the scientists in the "has not been established" or "cause unknonwn" classes are claimed to oppose an IPCC conclusion that something is "likely". There is not necessarily a contradiction or opposition there. If the classes where IPCC makes a definative conclusion, and a scientist makes a statement which contradicts that statement, and (this has not been checked, as far as I know), the scientist's statement was made after the IPCC paper, then the argument might be acceptable. I still don't think it is, but that could be handled adequately by making definitions clear in the lede of the article. As it stands, if IPCC said "likely" and a scientist said "unknown", there's no conflict. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  Short comment: Quotes are checked for whether the statement is made after the IPCC report. If they aren't then the quote can't be used. And "likely" is a certainty estimate (in this case: 66-90% chanceSPM footnote 7) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  "Likely" may be a certainty estimate in IPCC, but it's unknown whether "unknown" represents an uncertainty estimate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but this is a statement that show complete ignorance of the IPCC report, or ignorance of how confidence intervals work. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  Even if that's what IPCC means by "likely" (which requires a specific statement in the article and a reference, that may synthesize an interpretation of the the scientist's statement. If a scientist explicitly says that it's unknown, that might just mean he has a higher standard of "known". If a scientist explicitly says the data is insufficient to calculate a probability, that still doesn't necessary disagree with the IPCC statement. If a scientist states a specific probability range which does not intersect the range specified by the IPCC, that might be a difference.

  And I do understand confidence intervals. I'm confident (pun intended) that the IPCC paper doesn't actually represent such, even if it claims to, and, even if it did, confidence intervals have a "probability" of being incorrect.

  — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  It is not an "if thats what the IPCC means" - its a "that is what the IPCC means" statement. Please at the very least attempt to read up on the subject. And all the quotes by the scientists have been checked and verified (with both other documents and within context) that it is really unknown that they mean. Please try to at least verify or check what you state - as we've asked you again and again: Please substantiate with specifics, instead of being deliberately vague. There is a well-established process on the list, where you remove a disputed scientist from the list, for further discussion, if there is any doubt about the veracity of the quote. Try doing that. You are implying that we (all the editors of that list) deliberately are trying to game BLP, and frankly i find it rather annoying. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  Ahem.

  1. I said if because it's not important at this point. I believe you. However, confidence intervals have error probablilities.
  2. The quotes from Balling, Cristy, Cotton, Deming, de Freitas, and Lintzen, at least, do not contradict the IPCC statement withour further investigation. That investigation would be WP:SYNTH unless it's an expansion of the existing quotes or a reliablie third-party analysis. Some of them could be placed in the category that they believe the IPCC model(s) is(are) faulty, which would be a different form of opposition than that the cause of warming is unknown.
  3. I don't think you're delibrately trying to WP:SYNTHESIZE violations of WP:BLP, but that's the effect. The statements quoted do not contradict the IPCC statement you (collectively) claim they do.

  — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  Even if that's what IPCC means by "likely" ... I said if because it's not important at this point. I believe you. - please stop wasting our time with stuff that is (a) not important and (b) that you believe anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  What is the appropriate grammatical structure for stating that I accept the hypothesis that that's what the IPCC meant by "likely", without verifying, because it doesn't help your cause. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  Well, your wording right now, tells us that you still haven't bothered to even glance at the IPCC reference. Because it is no "hypothesis", every instance of "likely" is even footnoted so that you won't be in doubt. How exactly can we take you serious, if you can't be bothered to verify the basis of your own argumentation? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  That is rather impressive. I'm only going to address one of your examples (the most blatantly wrong one): Deming. I'm interested in how you can reconcile "There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty." with criteria 2 (which is a certainty estimate). Or how you can reconcile "If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful." with criteria 3 (which states the exact opposite). In what way exactly does the quote by Demming not include him per the list criteria? Deming even closes with a statement that he considers the current scientific opinion "...misinformation and irrational hysteria." (nb: This is something that should be raised on talk, and not here btw) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Multiple BLP violations I'm not seeing a clear BLP violation, so keeping my comments short. There are certainly SYN and NPOV problems. Basically, the article is another demonstration how the (poor) inclusion criteria of a list can be used (intentionally or not) to Wikilawyer around most or all of Misplaced Pages's content-related policies. Epic fail. --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  Could you please expand on this? Particularly of interest to me is why you call it "(poor) inclusion criteria" and what you believe is NPOV (as well as the SYN part of course). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  I'll do so on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  I think the most problematic BLP concerns aren't that scientists are criticizing others, but that original research is being done in order to ascribe beliefs to these scientists, sourced only by quotes from these scientists themselves. An earlier BLPN report of this same dispute here states these concerns more clearly. Arthur Rubin (15:55, 16 November 2009) has provided a list of examples. In addition to WP:SYN violations, this looks like a violation of WP:Blp#Reliable_sources and WP:SELFPUB. --Ronz (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  After posting a deletion essay on the talkpage here with Ronz's main concerns SYNTH and NPOV Ronz has realised that he will get nowhere at present because the article has just gone through its 4th AfD. So it appears he has decided to change his mind completely on the BLP issues and go for Arthur Rubin's very weak BLP argument as an alternative attack. If he had been involved before he would realise that all of this has been covered many times. WP:SELFPUB is irrelevant, when determining the POV of a scientist it is their own publications which are clearly the best source ie. "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Rather than slinging general mud over the whole list it would be far more constructive if he could point out which sources are not reliable enough to back up the individual entries. If he cannot argue this sufficiently then there is no argument. If he can then the individual should be removed from the list. Polargeo (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  I suspect this is the real problem with the article - editors who misrepresent, attack, and disrupt in order to drive away any perspective other than their own. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but editors who come in with complete tangents whilst I am working on improving the article and then revert or hide any criticism of their new tangents on some extremely weak civility grounds seem to me to be wasting everyones time. Polargeo (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, WP:SELFPUB doesn't apply, since the only self-published documents that are used are written by the subjects themselves... and they are most certainly WP:RS to their own opinion. As for the SYN argument - please refer to the comment by Rd232 above. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  WP:SELFPUB applies if editors are using the sources for original research, which appears to be the case despite comments to the contrary. Misplaced Pages editors are doing original research to identify and categorize the beliefs of scientists, as well as doing original research to identify what scientists are worth mentioning. Such cherry picking of scientists and the self-published sources of their beliefs are also problematic in regard to NPOV. There are many reasons why WP:SELFPUB #5 states, "the article is not based primarily on such sources," most related to NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  Your invocation of #5 goes against the meaning of #5. This argument is heading towards WP:wikilawyer territory. What #5 means is we should not create an article on selfpub. This has not been done here. Polargeo (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  Please note that I wrote "this looks like a violation of WP:Blp#Reliable_sources and WP:SELFPUB." Perhaps I should have added, "combined" or "both, together." --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  It would be far more helpful if you could point out a particular occasion where the soure isn't reliable enough to backup what it is trying to back up. When we need more reliable sources to verify a statement please point this out. Just stating this over and over again without pointing to the actual source that is inadequate is unhelpful. Again this should be done on the article's talkpage and if there are any serious problems the individual can be removed immediately. To attack the whole list with vague mudslinging is pure disruption and the reason for my inital reaction to your essay. Polargeo (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  "Arthur Rubin (15:55, 16 November 2009) has provided a list of examples." --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  He has posted six names from a list of forty without any detail of why any of the named individuals fail. And that is from the most ardent BLP criticiser of this list. Many disagree with him, as above. So let us now look in detail at any one of those 6 individuals on the talkpage of the article and deal with it if necessary. Polargeo (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't see the IPCC as a living person, it is a creation like a corporation, BLP does not apply to whole IPCC's results. The complaint should be about reliable sources, which I can't follow from the info presented here. Public officials should be held accountable, and publicly funded work should be disclosed. Original research and synthesis on the reports should be removed. The specific issue should be closed, and restated if needed. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Mark Levin/David Frum

In response to one sentence of criticism by David Frum placed in the Mark Levin article, SPA User:Malvenue has inserted a two paragraph screed in both the Levin and Frum articles. Request assistance and intervention in dealing with an editor not acting in good faith. Gamaliel (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How about some diffs so we'll know what sentences and paragraphs you are referring to? CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel has repeatedly inserted a quote from a non-neutral source in violation of consensus which violates WP:BLP. Any attempt to correct the issue, whether it be removal of the offensive material, rewording or insertion of a balancing statement are met with unilateral reversions, complaints, personal attacks, claims of policy-shopping, etc. Strangely enough, the only response he has NOT undertaken is a justification of why his insertion supports WP:BLP despite repeated requests to do so. He has also ignored any attempts at compromise and even mediation. It is obvious this person is not complying with WP:AGF. Malvenue (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

An update and some diffs added to the initial paragraph. I'd forgotten about this report. User:Malvenue twice violated the 3RR and it resulted in the article being locked. Malvenue has changed from violating the BLP to claiming that BLP prohibits even the presence of a mere sentence of a dissenting view from a major commentator. He is simply lying about most of the above, as I've repeatedly discussed this with editors on this page, most of whom are acting in good faith despite the disruptive presence of Malvenue. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Carol, Gamaliel provided one diff above, which shows Levin's rebuttal of the criticism.

The other source of edit warring is Malvenue's repeated deletion of criticism at Mark Levin, e.g., . Malvenue says on the talk page that criticism of Mark Levin in, e.g., Newsweek (circulation of 2.7 million per week), isn't acceptable per WP:BLP because the publication criticizes Levin directly, instead of reporting that someone else criticizes Levin (a kind of "teach the controversy" requirement). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually that is not what I'm saying at all. In the future if you're going to paraphrase me and take comments out of context I would appreciate it if you would at least notify me on my talk page so I can respond. The portion of the discussion to which you are referring is where Gamaliel disputes the sources cited in Levin's response citing National Review as being biased. I pointed out to him his citation of Newsweek falls under the same failure as it is now a self-proclaimed issue advocacy magazine and no longer a news periodical. If you read the discussion on the talk page you will see my objection to his own "screed" (his word) is to Frum as a "reliable source" not simply to the citations as you would have us believe. The only person lieing on this page is Gamaliel who constantly misrepresents what I say and what I mean in order to further his own editorial preference. He has failed to act in good faith, he has repeatedly violated WP:EQ with constant insults, personal attacks, threats and vulgar language. I have repeatedly placed compromise language on the table which he has refused to even address. I issued an RFC which he has ignored. In short, his actions on that page demonstrate he has no intention of acting in good faith or discussing anything that does not entail anything other than what he decrees is acceptable editing. As for my "constant deletion of criticism" you again misrepresent what's been going on. I notice you don't mention Gamaliel's constant deletions of any rebuttals by the subject. Malvenue (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I assume that you're capable of watching conversations about your behavior and POV pushing without every editor who joins the conversation pinging you on your talk page. You posted above, so you were clearly aware of the conversation without me reminding you about it.

Your claim that Newsweek is "now a self-proclaimed issue advocacy magazine and no longer a news periodical" is strange. In an article, I'd tag it {{dubious}} as well as . Certainly my search of Newsweek.com for corroboration does not support your belief.

Fact, not belief. Please even as you're misrepresenting my positions. Malvenue (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not finding the word "advocacy" anywhere in either the NYT article or the blog. I'm also not finding any indication in these non-Newsweek links that self-proclaimed is an appropriate description.

It may interest you to look at the timestamp on my message above. The comment that I made at the beginning of last week cannot reasonably be expected to reflect stance you took up the following week. It is based on the position you were advocating before my comment, which you will find examples of here and here. I realize that in this desperate search to find any excuse at all to remove criticism of Mark Levin from Misplaced Pages, you might have forgotten what some of your older arguments were. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why, how absolutely even-handed of you. It's unfortunate you can't resist being insulting when discussing these things.

I'm not sure which part of "The Death of the News Weekly: Newsweek to Restructure, Opinionate and Take Aim at Economist" and "The venerable newsweekly’s ingrained role of obligatory coverage of the week’s big events will be abandoned once and for all, executives say" is hard to understand, and I could spend a lot of time sourcing more about Newsweek but it's obvious you aren't listening. Once again, for the record, just on the off-chance you happen to actually read what I write here, I stated the view on Newsweek in response to Gamaliel's statement that National Review was not a legitimate source either, something you picked out of context and are now trying to hammer me over the head with. I doubt this will actually sink with you as it appears you've already picked a side, but then again hope springs eternal. Malvenue (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

My trip through the page's archives shows only a single instance of that argument in your name, and this comment was made five days after my comment above. Time travel being an imperfect art, my comment above can be presumed not to be responsive to comments made at a later date by you. So unless you want to claim ownership of some other accounts involved in that discussion, or perhaps to provide a diff in which you compare Newsweek to National Review before 17 November (such a comment might exist, particularly if none of the editors involved in the alleged conversation bothered to name the publication), then perhaps you'll agree that my comment on the 17th has nothing to do with your comment on the 22nd.

I reject again your unfounded assertion that a decision to not focus on CNN-style newsgathering turns Newsweek into a wikt:self-proclaimed advocacy publication. There are more than two kinds of publications in this world, you know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Reject all you like. You're entitled to your opinion, just not your own facts. At the risk of going completely off track here I end the Newsweek discussion now as it has nothing to do with the Notice section at all and I have corrected you on your taking my words out of context and explained the correct context. Malvenue (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors following this may be interested in Malvenue's RfC on the article talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Audley Harrison

Based on a discussion at WikiProject Boxing, Vintagekits added several derogatory (sourced) nicknames to the Audley Harrison article. It was reverted by two editors who disagreed with the addition, and the case was brought to AN/I.

I restored the previous version and protected the page for 3 days. IMO this brings up BLP problems, but I'd rather remain a neutral admin and simply initiate a discussion. The WT:BOXING "consensus" that VK cites only involves 5 users agreeing at a project level. This edit was clearly contested by others, so I'm opening a thread here for centralized discussion. Uninvolved opinions would be welcome. JamieS93 20:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment A limit of 2-nicknames in the Infobox per boxer's article, would be acceptable (with consent reached at each boxer's article). GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Nicknames should not appear in the infobox if they do not appear in the main body of the article. Otherwise, they should be highly, highly significant and mentioned in multiple independent sources, because, to satisfy BLP, we need the best possible sources for things like nicknames. --John (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames and other information not mentioned elsewhere in an article is often included in an infobox. This is not a problem. Usual standards for verifiability apply. I think the issue is whether including multiple derogatory nicknames would give undue weight to a particular viewpoint.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

John, so if nicknames are mentioned in the body of the article and have multiple reliable sources then they should be in the infobox?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I say include the nicknames in the Harrison article. I think it is poor form that because Off2riorob thinks his owns the BLP noticeboard that we are discussing this again and that we are overruling WP:NPOV, WP:RS and the Boxing Project with regard this piece of boxing information - I am also a little disappointed that the editor that opened this discussion did not contact each of the parties involved on the Audley Harrison talkpage and the Boxing Project to inform them that this discussion is going on.

Without doubt nicknames are a central piece of information with regards a boxers, his notability and persona. Many boxers are synonymous with there nicknames and are even recognisable be there nicknames alone. e.g. Butterbean (Eric Esch), "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler, "Prince" Naseem Hamed, "Sugar" Ray Leonard, "Cinderella Man" (James Braddock), Ray “Boom Boom” Mancini, Hector “Macho” Camacho, Kid "Kid" Lewis, Ronald "Winky" Wright, even this year Olympian Joe Murray went public looking for a nickname before he went pro. It's a crucial piece of information. The WP:BOXING !voted 9:1 with regards this issue.

Many fighters have more than one nickname, take the following examples for instance. Anthony Small has multiple comedic nicknames including "the Scream", "Sweet Pea" and "Sugar Ray Clay Jones Jr." - he isn't the only one and I think all should be added. To limit the number of nicknames to just two is horrible contrived. If a boxer has multiple common nicknames (be they favourable or unfavourable) then they should be included as long as it is sourced. Which of the Tyson nicknames would you remove or keep? "Iron Mike", "The Baddest Man on the Planet", "Mighty Mike" or "Kid Dynamite"? what about Pacquiao? "Pac-Man", "Manny", "the Pride of the Philippines" or "The Mexicutioner", or Ricky Hatton - The Hitman, the Manchester Mexican, the Pride of Hyde or Ricky Fatton?

At wikipedia we shouldnt take peoples personal feelings into consideration and we shouldnt cover up negative aspects of a biography. At the Boxing Project we don't hide the fact that Luis Resto destroyed a mans life or that Mike Tyson disfigured another fighter. We dont sweep things under the carpet to be polite - this isnt a dinner party! Not all boxers like their nicknames and infact many find them offensive or misrepresentative. We shouldnt ignore negative nicknames. Jimmy McLarnin didnt like being called "the Hebrew Scourge" or "the Jew Killer", Nikolai Valuev finds "the Beast from the East" utterly degrading and offensive, Thomas Hearns objected to "the Hitman", Victor Ortiz doesnt like being called "Vicious", John Mugabi hated "the Beast" and Kermit Cintron doesnt like being called "the Killer" because of his charity work, Paulie Malinaggi never liked being called "the Dead End Kid", as did Sam Langford being called the racist epitaph "the Boston Tar Baby" and Audley Harrison doesnt like "Fraudley" or "A-Farce". Interesting Ricky Hatton has embraced the derogatory "Ricky Fatton" nickname and even wore a fat suit during his ringwalk at the Juan Lazcano fight to mock it and "the Ghost" was also used as a term of abuse by another fighter towards Kelly Pavlik and then Kelly turned it positive and took it as his nickname.

That bring us onto major flop Audley Harrison. His team choose "A-Force" as his nickname (his team were also the root of trying to have the other nicknames removed here as well) but the majority of the fans rejected it and use other nicknames to describe him with the most common being "Fraudly" used in multiple sources such asSue Mott at The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Guardian, The Telegraph again, The Independent, SKY Sports, The Times Eastside Boxing.

I dont believe adding these nicknames breaches WP:BLP - BLP states that we should show Criticism and praise - this does, BLP states that we shouldnt take sides - if anything the articles on Harrison overemphasises the positives not the negatives. BLP states we shouldnt be give undue weight but representing a minority view as if it were the majority one - this doesnt - all the nicknames have multiple sources which back them up. On the undue issue I have this basic rule of thumb with regards the notability of a boxers nickname, it goes like this - if I saw it in the headline of an article would I know what boxer the article was going to be about. The ones added to the Harrison article pass that test in my opinion. Try these - "Fatton Flattened" - ?? "The Hitman is Mexicuted" - ?? "A-Farce fails again" - ??

Basically what I am saying is that boxers often have multiple nicknames and often have nicknames that they dont like but as long as they are commonly used and backed up by reliable sources then it should be shown in the infobox. I would also add that if there are multiple nicknames then if one is an official nickname then we should have (official) after that one. To do otherwise would be a breach of WP:NPOV remember Misplaced Pages is not censored.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have previously commented on this at the Audley Harrison page and see no reason to change my opinion as stated there. Boxers nicknames come from many different sources. Some are intended to flatter, others are derogatory and some well earned. Nikolai Valuev is well know to hate the nickname "The beast from the east" but it is a well recorded matter of fact that it has been used as his nickname by many sources. Likewise I am sure Audley doesn't like being called Fraudly, Audrey or A-Farce etc but they are well used and so should not be ignored. If they are well sourced they should be included in the info box and in the text where approriate. --LiamE (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• My 2p. No limit on nicknames. Well sourced, verifiable content should not be disregarded due to artificial limits that have no basis in reason.

Positive nicknames – commercial, professional, used in fight promotional material, ring announcers, respected broadcasters, published media, etc. – should be included.

Negative/pejorative nicknames – used only where these are impeccably sourced and subject to any other relevant BLP considerations. Boxing is fairly unique in this respect in that a boxer such as Harrison can become better known for inability than capability and the usual use of nicknames becomes transposed to draw attention to the athlete’s failings. That’s fine so long as normal evidential rules for content are applied.Leaky Caldron 11:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree as there are BLP issues to consider any perjorative nicknames must be VERY well sourced indeed but I can't see any reason to impose an arbitrary limit to the number of nicknames used in the infobox. --LiamE (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• As I see it there are two issues here - criteria for including nicknames in an article and criteria for including nicknames in an infobox. In the case of Audley Harrison, by far the most common nickname is his "official" one of "A-Force". The fact that he has received much criticism for his professional performances leading to a number of derogatory nicknames is, I believe, perfectly acceptable for inclusion in the article, with solid referencing, but including every nickname that's has ever been used in the infobox isn't sensible. Several boxers have had different primary nicknames during their career and these should all be in the infobox, whether the boxer likes those nicknames or not. Little-used nicknames/derogatory terms such as 'Audrey' for Audley Harrison and 'Rick Fatton' for Ricky Hatton have no place in the article let alone in the infobox, which should summarize the most important aspects of the article. I don't understand the obsession with piling all of these into an infobox.--Michig (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I think the only nickname worth including for Mike Tyson is "Iron Mike", and for Hatton "Hitman".--Michig (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Boxers, as well as other notable people in other fields, are given nicknames and aliases wether they like it or not. Take the legendary 1930s boxer from Cuba who goes by the name Kid Chocolate. That moniker is probably a reference to his color. Nevertheless, he never comment on it. True, some athletes may not like their nicknames. But if it's what they're well-known for, then mentioning them may be neccessary. FoxLad (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The names they're known by, yes. Other nicknames, barring widespread adoption, wouldn't apply. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• What is or isn't put into the article content, is irrelevant to me. My concern is the Infobox, which IMHO should be limited to 2-nicknames (preferably a positive & negative name). GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Putting in "a positive & negative name" doesn't help balance the box. If anything, it may be applying undue weight to the negative nickname. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

HTF, I agree. Most boxers dont have a "negative nickname" so it doesnt become are issue - many boxers like Bernard Hopkins (Borenard) and Floyd Mayweather (May-runner) get dubbed with those type of nicknames by opposing fighters "fans" - these rarely get mentioned outside boxing forums and have no place in an article. But these are different these are nicknames that are in common use and back up in multiple reliable sources - not only that but they appear in the headline of articles for the boxers - which to be proves that they are commonly used and recognised as legitimate nicknames. I consider that it would be therefore a breach of undue weight and neutrality to omit it.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the best I can offer. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Infobox should only list the boxer's most recognisable nicknames. But I do agree that nicknames are crucial to the identification of a boxer. For instance many people just know James Braddock as The Cinderella Kid.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The cinderella kid? I think you mean the cinderella man. In any case this name was only given to him after his comeback from obscurity and poverty. Previously he was known as Bulldog of Bergen, Pride of the Irish and Pride of New Jersey. Oh look, another guy with multiple nicknames. --LiamE (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I just figured a 2-nickname limit (positive/negative) is a reasonable balance. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

.How many nicknames does a boxer normally have? Or any other sportsman for that matter?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

For boxers, at least one (I believe). GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

KB, normally one, sometimes many. GD, limiting the number of nicknames to two is hopelessly flawed - if a boxer has 3 positive common nicknames would you not include all? I should remind people that this is a BLP discussion and editors should focus on the BLP issues, there is already concensus to include the nicknames at WP:BOXING so if there isnt a significant BLP issue then that concensus should be acknowledged.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

2 nicknames is sufficiant IMHO & but, that's just my opinon. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• The sourcing is the thing, though - "significant" coverage needs to be seen. As far as I can see "Fraudley" is well-known and well sourced including sources from outside the boxing world; the others do not appear to be as supportable as that one. Black Kite 14:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So, having just 'A-Force' & 'Fraudley' in the Infobox, would be acceptable? GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO, yes. Others may obviously disagree! Black Kite 15:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Of the four - "Audrey", "Ordinary", "A-Farce" and "Fraudley" I would say that the latter two receive the the most amount of coverage.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• BLP articles need to be exceptionally well-sourced, and those sources must support the claim that a particular nickname is indeed widely used. If the boxing culture encourages nicknames to be used, it is likely that individual boxing writers might coin new nicknames in their work. Just because someone used a nickname (and therefore, a citation can be provided) doesn't mean it should appear in the article. (Should we add Boomer's nicknames to every athlete he mentions?) I think that might have been the case with "Audrey" and "Ordinary" in the original dispute. Yes, they can each be sourced, but perhaps not enough to assert common usage. I also think that an arbitrary limit of two nicknames—one "good" and one "bad"—is a misguided attempt at neutrality, and we also shouldn't be trying to mollify editors on both "sides". We're building a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia here. Looking at the sources provided by Vintagekits above, and googling for myself, my opinion is that "A-Force", "A-Farce", and "Fraudley" could all be sourced sufficiently to satisfy BLP concerns. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

2-limit for the Infobox 'only'. The content is limitless. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why impose a limit on the infobox only? What difference does that make, if high-quality sources demonstrate widespread usage of three or more? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just my choice. Though whatever's chosen, I'll go along with it. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The sourcing is a key factor here. It doesn't matter if the nicknames are derogatory, if they are widespread and notable enough to make it into reliable/third party sources, there is nothing besides bland moralism (or maybe fanatism for some of the more established boxers) preventing their inclusion. Since Misplaced Pages is not censored, they are not a BLP violation. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out, all of these nicknames are already in the body of the article, where they can be commented upon or rebutted as desired or required. This discussion is about whether it is correct to add them all to the infobox, a citation of some sort, can be found for all these nicknames, some of them are quite well reported and some of them are less well reported. In my personal opinion, it is undue weight to add them to the infobox, which is a place of high visibility in the article, imo, the infobox is only for the main most well know nickname and adding all of these nicknames to the infobox is totally excessive and gives undue weight to the lesser known names. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Caribbean H.Q. summed it up pretty well. I believe that only the nickname by which the boxer is most commonly known be placed in the infobox. All others may be posted within the article as long as those nicknames have really been used by the boxer himself or he is referred to as such by a verifiable relibale sources or sources and as such said sources must be cited. There are many websites out there whose writers may invent their own nicknames and as such should not be considered as reliable (example: Ringside Report). Tony the Marine (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So what's the general consensus, folks? GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment My personal opinion on this is one nickname per boxer is more then enough and example of why this should be is on the article Nikolai Valuev there is 4 nicknames, clearly when he is introduced into the ring only one is read out, so that one should be used not the other 3. To sum up boxing articles on Misplaced Pages in my view should have 1 and only 1 nickname in the info box that being the most common name the boxer is known as, however multiple nicknames can be mentioned in the article itself.

Ϛŧēvěŋ 17:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would say the general consensus here is reflective of the wikipeda norm as it is now, one nickname (the most common) in the infobox and any others if they are well used and citable in the body of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I shant dispute it then. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus. There doesn't even appear to be a consensus on what the BLP issue is. Setting a limit on the number of nicknames in the boxer infobox is not a BLP issue and should be discussed elsewhere (ex. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Boxing).--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Lester Coleman

I noticed that in a recent change to the Lester Coleman page, an IP address has replaced cited content with a legal threat, warning that anyone who replaces the content will be reported for violating a court order. There is some discussion of this on the talk page, but it is over two months stale and, personally, I don't know anything about it, but I thought that it would be best to bring it up here and see if anyone else does. Cheers, CP 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for the removal as the content was sourced. SPA's have been continually attacking the article, making unsourced claims for months. --NeilN 23:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

this is the disputed content....

1999 arrest on charges of fraud

On April 10, 2000, he was sentenced to ten years on thirty-six counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument. The trial court then suspended imposition of the sentence and granted Coleman probation for five years. However, on June 11, 2002, his probation officer filed an affidavit stating that Coleman had violated the terms of his probation and was residing in Saudi Arabia. Coleman was then apprehended later in Florida and was returned to Kentucky where he was then formally sentenced to ten years in prison on May 29, 2003. Later, upon appeal to vacate his sentence, the Fayette Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky denied his motion and affirmed his conviction on May 28, 2004. this is the supporting cite

Are there any other citations for any of the material or is it just this single source? Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

, , --NeilN 23:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert but those citations don't seem to actually support these comments and are not strong enough to show notability or wide coverage of a notable event. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

They show Coleman was arrested, convicted, sentenced, and violated his parole. The article is not about an event, but rather about Coleman. I would think a jail sentence would be notable in a bio. --NeilN 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A splendid use of primary sources (court documents) to be used contrary to WP:OR and WP:SYN as well as WP:V, WP:RS and lovely WP:BLP which states "Exercise great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." Collect (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Confused. Are you saying the court doc should be used or not? --NeilN 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a no. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest, what is criminal possession of a forged instrument.Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

IANAL, but I believe it means a person is knowingly holding a fake cheque, money order, etc. --NeilN 23:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Which jail is he in? Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No idea if he's still in jail. Does it matter? --NeilN 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, what jail was he in? Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To make it quite clear -- WP:BLP says not to use "trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." Records where personal information is included are barred outright. Collect (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing that out Collect.Off2riorob (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the paragraph can probably be rebuilt using other sources. --NeilN 01:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to do that, I wanted to say that the sources should be strong and cover the content well. Off2riorob (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I consider the sources I provided above strong. --NeilN 20:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been involved in defending this article over the past year or so. There have been repeated attempts to remove sourced material from the article and replace it with material that cannot be substantiated -- this is merely the most recent attempt, and we mustn't fall for it. The subject of the article is a convicted con artist -- previous attempts have involved things like claiming that he has a twin brother with a very similar name who is a university professor. An informative Misplaced Pages article about him serves a purpose -- we ought not to allow it to be watered down, or it may well be misused. Looie496 (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that it would be an unnecessary task to rewrite the offending paragraph—in order to conform to the WP:BLP issue raised by Collect. The pdf-files (i.e. a primary source) are easily confirmed by a secondary source (i.e. the Lexington Herald-Leader articles which were published during the period of time of Coleman's incarceration). Supporters of removing the offending material have been given ample opportunity to provide reliable and verifiable documents which contradict the statements made in the offending paragraph yet, to date, have provided little other than useless original research which often leads to broken internet links or phantom, government Word documents. The supporters of removing the paragraph are well versed in the crafts of writing, of providing false documents, and of making threats but they have yet to provide anything convincing. —Merry Yellow (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Timpanycecelia's remarks are unsupported by simple searching of the Internet for any reference to a tort action "TRT-MXR-2001-04993", or to a "Kevin J. Malasinski". Why would anyone accept Timpanycecelia's editing as a valid reason to delete vital, well-documented biographical information on Lester Coleman, a fraudster of the highest caliber? The offending paragraph should be restored. Also, an issue such as this might be better served as a Request for Comment where a concensus of Misplaced Pages opinion would be expressed on the Lester Coleman talk page.—Merry Yellow (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me of a problem in Sholam Weiss. Editors kept reverting sourced material and inserting supposed primary source references (trial transcripts). In this case, it appears that both sides are using primary sources, and that's troublesome. Am I mistaken on this or are there reliable secondary sources on this Coleman's fraud legal issues? If so, those and only those should be used. However, if Coleman contacts Misplaced Pages and can provide evidence that he was exonerated or dismissed or whatever, then obviously that needs to be reflected. We can't just rigidly say the guy was convicted of something if in fact he was not. Bottom line is that I'm just not clear on the sourcing. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The seconday sources are articles published in the Lexington Herald-Leader, a small, Lexington, Kentucky, newspaper which does not provide hypertext links to any of its articles. Searching a pay-for-view subscription service provides first paragraph (plus Headline text). The material presented is sufficient for corroboration of the primary source material: i.e. Coleman was arrested, was convicted, was granted probation, abused his privilege, and was eventually incarcerated for the remainder of his sentence. There has never been any corroboration that these specifics are inaccurate, or false, or misleading. Hiding behind a dubious Misplaced Pages principle about not using primary source material allows detractors to write an inaccurate, watered-down biography.—Merry Yellow (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to see what you're referring to, but it seems OK with me. Sometimes, Google Archive search gets you the same stuff for free as can be had from the pay services. I know what you mean about primary sources, as that was the problem in the Sholam Weiss article. It was at one point an amazing love song to a guy serving 1000 years in prison for fraud. However, if that IP or user claims to be or to represent Coleman, BLP shows deference to claims of that kind. This kind of situation does arise from time to time, and even legal threats need to be carefully evaluated to be sure we are not ignoring a valid claim. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the previously mentioned Lexington Herald-Leader article-summaries (found here under "No twins. Same Person") you may find the Archive 1 page as well as the Articles for deletion "Lex" Coleman interesting reading. (Note In the "Articles for deletion Lex Coleman" discussion, one must be mindful that the haughty User:Nrswanson used several of his confirmed sockpuppets to sway the sentiment of the discussion in favor of "deletion" versus "merging". Thus, because of his behavior, many valuable additions to the Lester Coleman article have been tainted and overlooked. For example, Lester has been teaching in Saudi Arabia as the Chairperson, for the Faculty of Arts & Humanities at American University of Technology. This latter fact (plus Lester's role as Lex Coleman the LexTalk America radioshow host) help to establish Lester Coleman's notability and we should be annoyed with User:Nrswanson for his arrogant disruption of valuable information.) —Merry Yellow (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As of 18:02, November 26, this discussion has returned to the Talk:Lester Coleman talkpage subsection "Fraud". http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Lester_Coleman#Fraud —Merry Yellow (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Olivia Patricia Thomas - Dead on Misplaced Pages before family is notified

User:Jkaharper has added information on the death of Olivia Patricia Thomas based on the following reference: . In case you don't want to sign up for it, the text of the message is as follows:

Greetings,

Louis Epstein is reporting that a 114-year-old woman died today (name withheld until family notified). I'm not going to name names, but it's almost certainly a woman from New York.

Regards Moderator

Reliability of the source aside (that is being discussed at the top of this page), not only does this source not explicitly identify the individual, but her own family has apparently not even been notified of her death... I don't think it's likely that the family would learn of it this way, but it would be absolutely horrible if they did, particularly as it hasn't yet been absolutely confirmed. I'm bringing this up to add extra attention so that I don't have to worry about breaking any reversion rules if the information is re-instated. Cheers, CP 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing this newspaper is good enough. So unfortunately it doesn't seem to be wrong. But yes, good call, sourcing a death by inferring it from a post on Yahoo is not best practice, to put it mildly. Misarxist (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems confirmed now. I was more worried that it was posted here before the family was notified than anything else. Cheers, CP 16:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I respect your concern and sensitivity, but do you really think the relatives of someone 114 years old would be all that shocked that they kicked the bucket????? Regisfugit (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not our place to try and understand how the relatives of this person might react. As with all BLPs, information of this nature must be sourced, without question. Kevin (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it may be arguably covered by Misplaced Pages:Avoiding harm. And yes, Regisfugit, they might be, since she was doing fairly well (at least for a 114 year old) at her death. More to the point, however, a family should be notified about a death by an appropriate authority who can ease grief, not a rumour (true or otherwise) on a yahoo group posted to Misplaced Pages. In any case, I think that this can be marked as resolved now, although I'm not certain if it's kosher to do it myself. Cheers, CP 17:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of the source proven correct once again, note I didn't name names. Neither did I add the updates to Misplaced Pages. I agree that the Wikipedes should have waited for confirmation. That said, in this case Ms. Thomas had no children and, to be honest, no close family members, either. There were some friends/former neighbors, however.Ryoung122 12:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please remove my birth day and year from my biography page

Please remove BIRTH day and YEAR date from my biog page -- BOTH.

Thank you.

David Anthony Kraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.1.245 (talk • contribs)

If you have an issue with an article about yourself, please see WP:OTRS. Grsz 03:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed as per request. This isn't critical per the article. Please check OTRS as above for other issues concerned with this .(olive (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

Just as a matter of interest, we just take User:71.30.1.245's word for it that they are the subject of the article? – ukexpat (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Anyway, while we're at it, would somebody please change the picture on my article? I mean, being perfect and all, I clearly have a more symmetrical face than that. Sincerely, Jesus Christ. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

On a more serious note, the David Anthony Kraft article states that he lives in Clayton, Georgia; the IP 71.30.1.245 traces to a nearby county (perhaps where the ISP is located). While this doesn't prove anything, it suggests to me a relatively high likelihood that the anon actually is who he says he is. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway the date is not needed, unless you want to send him a birthday card. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we normally keep years. OTRS not here is the proper way to handle this. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex

Anon is repeatedly adding back obviously unsourced/unreferenced content naming living persons, therefore raising BLP issues, to List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex with edit summaries claiming the content is sourced. There seems to be a running attempt by a small number of editors to claim that "I watched the film and I believe it's true" is acceptable sourcing for real-world claims concerning living persons. I don't believe there's a genuine dispute about any lack of consensus on this point, since it's at best original research. I made substantial deletions from the article earlier today, removing most of the unsourced claims, and adding references to several where the claims could be clearly established. I suspect several other claims might be sourceable; but too often the sources I turned up tended to hedge their statements with terms lke "reportedly." I also left in several claims regarding well-established pornographic performers, since there's no likelihood of reputational harm to them (although citation tags might have been appropriate as I look back). Other sets of eyes could be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is appalling. It contains self references to Misplaced Pages reliable sourcing as a criteria, and then proceeds to list a whole load of unsourced claims. About half the material in the article ought to be removed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed about 80% of this article as unreferenced and thus violating BLP. Please watchlist, as I'm sure to have upset someone.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a great article to nominate for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not disagreeing. But it was at afd before.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the stuff mentioned isn't really sex. I have President Clinton to back me up on this. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Man, what an embarrassment. How does this article survive AfD? What's the world coming to? Isn't the idea of a list of films containing unsimulated sex a perfect concept for the porn industry itself to maintain? Why the heck would anyone want Misplaced Pages to be maintaining this list? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you already have 3 "delete" votes. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I will go ahead soon and renominate it. The more I think about it the more serious the BLP problems seem. Nothing is well sourced and anyone involved with any of the films could be harmed. If the article is saying actors were hired to have sex on film, what does that make the film makers? Steve Dufour (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (2nd nomination)Steve Dufour (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted, one of the biggest surprises I have ever had on WP. Fans are trying a counter-attack against the person who decided to delete however.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski bio being undermined

There is a clear split in the Roman Polanski article among two well-defined groups:

• Biographical editors: Those who have contributed to his biography based on his primary areas of notability - director, producer, screenwriter, Academy Award winner, etc. They have included his personal life details about the Manson murders of his wife and his case of sexual assault. The editors have tried to maintain a rational balance with the primary emphasis on his professional achievements and his personal life legal issues in proportion to his life.

• Underminers: This comprises a new group of editors whose only edits have been since recent news events relating to his arrrest on 30-year-old sexual assault of a minor charges in the U.S. The primary characteristic of all those editors is that they have only focused on adding text and cites relating to his personal life sex-crime and have not contributed to this article before he was arrested. Some editors have only edited with multiple cites to overly expand details of the crimes. Some apparently became new Wiki Users just to focus and expand that area. A cursory review of edits to the category section would show how there seems to be a highly motivated group who feel that his sex-assault case should be the only one worth categorizing, and have even removed categories that are his primary professional areas of notability.

The most comical aspect of the edits are the ones where his "early life" section is put after his career, which is perverse to typical bios, one editor even saying "Chronological biographies are amateurish . . "

I think that a careful review of the article and the talk page will prove the points above. Simply looking at the talk page sections will prove the points. By allowing single-focus editors to pervert the bio of a famous professional film person and turn it into what amounts to a quasi-inquisition, the encyclopedic intentions of Misplaced Pages could be visibly undermined, even allowing future bio editors to use this bio as a precedent and negative model for other future bios that fall victim to unruly groups. I generally work on bios and I was shocked to see how a significant bio could potentially stain WP's goal of neutrality. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a content dispute, editors are split and discussions arise as is the way of the wikipedia working in a correct way, I fail to see what is the objective and purpose of opening this thread, I suggest that there is no issue at all that warrants opening this..possible future reference for all future bios, that is a bit carried away if you ask me. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"A bit carried away" is when an editor writes "Stop edit warring about these cats, I will have the article locked" after a simple good faith, and fully discussed edit. You were asked to provide proof of your ealier reverts based on your statement that there was "consensus." You have ignored that simple request in favor of threats. That's a better definition of "carried away," IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, that is nothing that has any place here on this noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I would say there are 3 (4 etc) groups ... Most sensible editors are staying out of the time-consuming cultural conflict (a. Put Polanski in prison for life vs b. Given all givens, this should be dropped.) Yes, there is more energy to "amp negative"/"denature positive" since arrest of Polanski, but page organization already reflected that before arrest. As has been mentioned, differences of opinion re structure are being discussed ... But, in the long run, there may well be need for threads on this noticeboard to resolve seemingly irreconcilable editorial differences on a clear policy basis (rather than druthers). Proofreader77 (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The actions of Wikiwatcher1 are simply outrageous. Wikiwatcher1 is a new contributor to the Polanski page and their only goal seem to be Tagging the article without specifics, and then asserting, that a large group of editors, are "underminers" Wikiwatcher1 has no specific contributions other to just assert bad faith upon other editors. Wikiwatcher1 then goes on to mock the entire article and any of the work that all the editors have done to this page. And to what end? What does Wikiwatcher1 want to do beside hurl mud at other editors? Its an open question. What do they want to have done?

bullet). Proofreader77 (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)]

Reply: In contrast to that, note one "new" User's very first Misplaced Pages contribution, which besides adding courtroom drama and wikilawyering, expresses an audacious disrespect for other editors to this article by claiming "bias" as part of his opening statement:

"It is a gross omission to the proper Misplaced Pages "persons" entry to not mention that Polanski had another relationship with an underage girl of just fifteen, . . . . the omission of the record under his personal life is egregious. . . . I urge you to create a factual record in Polanski Personal life that he simply had a sexual relationship with a 15 year old. . . . its a factual record that is currently omitted under his personal life. Since it is of a known nature and with a well known individual and has references. I urge the editors to correct the record. It commission conveys a bias. It is a factual record. See: Natasha Kinski" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You only intend with that remark, beyond not replying to the substance, is a just an attack impugning my character and competence. Raising a gross admission of a fact, is content focused, its not like your attack upon me. It has no place. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

All of your statements are false, accusatory and defamatory: You wrote "The actions of Wikiwatcher1 are simply outrageous. . . . only goal seem to be Tagging . . . . has no specific contributions . . . . goes on to mock the entire article . . . . hurl mud at other editors." Do you think the editors reading your comments are idiots? And I don't think anyone besides you appreciates your boldings (aka "shouting"). --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying that all of anyone's statements are false, is rarely correct, its a gross over generalization. My remarks are concerned with what you are doing and writing. When you said there are comical edits, that is mocking. Before raising this noticeboard I do not believe you made any editorial contributions to the article. I may be wrong on that. You hurl mud, when you state the types of editors should not be allowed to work on articles because you think they challenge the integrity of WP. Bolding is not shouting, its used to emphasis. All caps is shouting, or at topic heading. It remains outrageous (not defamatory either) for you to assert there are two groups of editors. Biographical Editors, which presumably contains your personal viewpoint, and those contrary to your viewpoint that you cast off as "underminers". Putting up on a noticeboard, that their is a group of underminers, breaks WP decorum, asserts as fact an assumption of bad faith of other editors, and bypasses the normal talk channels of every article. You have charged me in no uncertain term as being an underminer, on this noticeboard, and I object. I think your methodology is counterproductive to the work and continued work of collaborating editors. Beyond me will you be creating a list of "underminers. If it is just me, believe me I stand behind my work and contributions. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• • They are not asking for anything specific to be done, both in NPOV they drove by and Tagged (which I have removed for cause, I will only do that once, be assured). I have read what Wikiwatcher1 has written here. It does not point to anything in the articles content that is improper or needs revising. As far as their "comical item of concern" there is an open question with voting on that very point. We were talking about it before they came to this board. Is it that Wikiwatcher1 just wants to short circuit the process? I don't know but in Wikiwatcher1 view of the world, there is their own view, and then everyone eles's whom they call underminers. This is the worst means, to open a dialogue, calling everyone as underminers, please. --Tombaker321 (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not correct Tom. My initial "drive-by" to the article included relocating "Early years" before his career, for the reasons discussed. It was immediately reverted based on a claim of earlier "consensus." Another seemingly logical edit was to add categories for his areas of notability, and those were also immediately undone under claim of earlier "consensus." Those were clear, and so far undisputed improvements to the bio. In good faith, I requested proof of any earlier consensus from deleter and the request was ignored in favor of threats to "lock" the article if any more such edits were made. Assuming no consensus existed, I tried again to add correct categories. They were again reverted by another editor w/o clear reason. As a result, improvements to the article have seemingly been prevented ("locked out" might be a better word). True, like others to this article, I drove by. At least I didn't use a rented car. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

One of your first actions in talk, was tagging the NPOV flag, without giving reasons, and pointing to this Notice Board. I did not see you asking for help with the categories within the discussion page, but I believe that it would be an easy consensus to list out what categories to use, and then fix that, and remove changes. I don't see this list of categories as being appropriate being listed out by anyone. You have raised a NPOV dispute, editors in discussion are asking for what specific items you are referring to. Please give the editors what items you feel are Not NPOV. Myself and other editors are frustrated that you have not communicated what you should have done right from the start of the dispute. A dispute is not a forum for creating an entry, it is to address specific problem items of POV. Specific. Right now in discussion you are attacking specific editors, and casting a large net saying there is a "group of dissenters". Please stop impugning other editors integrity, just to attempt to further you position. Thank you --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I created a hotlink to early life, and put it right atop the Career section. This should solve the issue for both groupings of views. I broad overriding complete style revision to the entire article is out of scope of the NPOV, but is a topic of discussion. --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag without resolution

Note that the NPOV tag that was placed on the article was removed with the following summary statement:

(Removing NPOV Tag. See: Talk "POV tag notice" Section for details. Briefly: Tag was without specifics, tagger did not respond to questions, Tag swiped entire article, Was left up as Driveby Shooting).

None of the comments justifying removal are true as there was plenty of talk and all questions were answered in depth. Such comments seem to go against WP:Civil standards so I would like some 2nd opinions from uninvolved neutral editors. To date, there seem to be few, if any, comments from uninvolved editors on the talk page.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Wikiwatcher did not have any contributions to Polanski article before November 19. They immediately raised a request for comment, posted to this notice board, and tagged the entire article with a NPOV dispute, using this noticeboard as its justification.

2. When challenged they did raise 4 issues. These items were not NPOV items but rather style and formatting concerns. Each was addressed.

3. A posting was made that he NPOV flag would be removed, and why. No responses.

4. The flag was removed for cause, and the reasons explained again.

5. Wikiwatcher1 has been a highly disruptive force to the Polanski article. They have asked me about personal information, and accused me of sockpuppetry, on my talk page. They posted those items they were asking me on another editors talk page.

6. As reflected here, Wikiwatcher has direction, and no ears to other editors. Its there way or they actively label editors as dissenters. Labeling a group of editors as "underminers" break the basic assumption of good faith.

7. Wikiwatcher is now engaged it 3RR and edit warring.

8. Wikiwatcher1 has now suggested the entire entry is removed.

9. To achieve the goals of removing content, wikiwatcher1 maintains that sections should only be allowed to be the a percentage of other categories.

10. Wikiwatcher is primarily concerned with Hollywood entries. There desired goals seem to be of a fan of the arts, and believe that anyone who wants to properly show the effects of Polanski's anal rape of 13 year old child, who was drugged, and repeatedly protested, is an underminer. The entry itself is very gentile to Polanski's actions as a predatory pedophile (in fact through talk before Wikiwatcher showed up we agreed to not call him a pedophile. Wikiwatcher1 seemingly want it all explained off.

11. Wikiwatcher is talk is asserting that groups of editors are "underminers" as they state here again. This is discouraging editors to contribute. --Tombaker321 (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a good chance that you won't get a neutral party to solve this for you, so you work it out amongst yourselves. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael E. Mann etc

There is a lot of excitement in the blogosphere about climategate etc etc etc. This is leading to a lot of junk landing (either maliciously or by misunderstanding) on various pages e.g. , , (or more obviously spurious ) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Kinda crazy. The anon IP's are edit warring now. - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop censoring these reports. No authors of the e-mails have disputed the genuineness of any of them. The story has been reported in the New York Times, the BBC, etc. in the references which you have censored. Please stop censoring well-verified reports of highly notable events concerning public figures.Flegelpuss (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This, "The e-mails document the efforts of Jones, Michael Mann and several of Jones' subordinates at the University of East Anglia to discredit global warming skeptics, and hide data that would not support their theory of Climate Change" is not well sourced at all as a blog is being used for a cite. --NeilN 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Sourcing such allegations to a blog is completely unacceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Stephan for semi-ing several of these articles William M. Connolley (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If I can help, let me know. I agree with WMC et al. that "Climate Gate" should not be even within months of changing a single word of text of any living scientist's BLP, if ever. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, it may also be appropriate to speedy the already-PRODded coatrack 'article' Climategate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I note that the article was created by the suspiciously new user Doize77 (talk · contribs) as his second edit. His first edit was to bluelink his userpage. My spidey sense is tingling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Doize77 (talk · contribs) has been blocked as one of the many sockpuppets of Tinpac (talk · contribs). Other probable sockpuppets have been causing problems; there's an outstanding checkuser request at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If you list the BLPs where this is an issue, I would be happy to review them for semiprotection as appropriate. MastCell  04:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I was about to come here to say a similar thing. In addition,

• Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Climatic Research Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

need the eyes of BLP friendly editors. While they are not biographies, BLP issues will almost definitely arise and there have already been accusations made against specific individuals, likely to be more over he coming days so we need to make sure these are well sourced and necessary/appropriate to mention etc. While I personally won't object to Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy (former title Climategate) being deleted as TOAT has suggested I'm doubtful this will happen. Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've retitled "Climategate" as Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy, per WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal's deprecation of -gate in article titles and our usual practice in such cases (e.g. "Rathergate" → Killian documents controversy). I've also removed some evident BLP violations from Climatic Research Unit and removed some unreliable sources (blogs) being used to support controversial statements, and I've cleaned up/expanded the controversy article to make it properly encyclopedic. I think its notability is fairly well-established now that it's received substantial mainstream coverage. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have requested on WP:RPP that Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident be semi-protected for a week; it's being hit repeatedly by sockpuppets and IPs violating BLP and NPOV. Could someone please step up to semi the article? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Done per my offer above. MastCell  02:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles that need monitoring

Some more eyes on the following articles would be useful. I've just deleted a bunch of blog-sourced accusations of criminality added by Tillman (talk · contribs), which I'm disappointed to say remained in the article overnight. The hysteria in the right-wing blogosphere and media appears to be intensifying - I was amused to read calls for RICO investigations, apparently overlooking the fact that East Anglia's not in America - and a lot of frankly rather defamatory accusations are being made. Some help is needed in monitoring these articles to ensure that we don't end up with a stack of further BLP violations.

• Climatic Research Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Phil Jones (climatologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Michael E. Mann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kevin E. Trenberth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another issue is that some editors are repeatedly trying to add commentary or links to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident to the biographies of scientists mentioned by or senders or recipients of the leaked e-mails, apparently on the basis that those scientists are "co-conspirators". I'd suggest monitoring links for a bit to spot such occurrences. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• James Hansen

could perhaps do with semi-ing if the recent anon stuff keeps coming William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep an eye on those articles as well. I ask other editors to do the same. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

See here, below, for a more balanced perspective. We now have at least five reliable sources (Science magazine, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Financial Times) saying that Jones' statements call into question whether or not he violated Britain's FOIA. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP and negative information

I just saw some articles mentioning that the persons dropped out of school. The information was sourced. However, the information is negative. Should this be censored out so that we don't embarrass them? Part of BLP is not to smear someone although the rules are not written to say exactly that. See Renee Russo and David Thomas. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Dropping out of school is not necessarily an embarrassing piece of information. Reliably-sourced information individual's education is a reasonable part a complete biographical article, and that includes whether or not a person has dropped out of school. That said, there may be issues of WP:WEIGHT, as well as questions about how the information should be presented in a neutral manner. In other words, an article that consists solely of

Joe Bloggs is a high school dropout from North Carolina.

isn't good. On the other hand, a biography might legitimately contain,

Bloggs married his high-school sweetheart Janet in 1972, at the age of sixteen. A year later, Bloggs dropped out of high school to found FooCorp, his first software enterprise....

See the difference? If you have specfic questions about the articles you've mentioned or illustrative diffs which you'd like to relate, that would be helpful. It's sometimes difficult or misleading to discuss these issues using only generalities. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The question was posed because these biographies might have a category created called high school dropouts or notable people who did not complete high school. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I would say you should propose the categories for deletion. "Dropout" certainly does have negative connotations; at the least, a category containing that should be renamed. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Repeated removal of WP:RS info on Gilad Atzmon

The last time this article was brought here there was a consensus to make the Politics section shorter, which was done.

The current issue, as described in detail with quotes from WP:RS is at Talk:Gilad Atzmon#Do sources say criticism of Zionism led to charges of antisemitism?. Drsmoo (who will surely comment below) keeps removing three WP:RS saying Atzmon is called an antisemite for his criticism of Zionism because of his Drsmoo's POV that Azmon is only called one because of his ethno-cultural critiques. (Note an Admin had to delete two Drsmoo attacks against Atzmon on Nov. 21 - 1, 2.) Considering there was an OTRS in the spring about just such biased editing on this biography, hopefully someone will opine about this biased deletion of WP:RS info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, the last time this article was brought here, Carolmooredc completely reverted the edits of the two editors who attempted to help, replacing them with her own edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321642088&oldid=321461856 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321642476&oldid=321642088

I'm not sure "ethno-cultural critiques" is a good euphamism for Atzmon's statements that: "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop.”, "Bush behaved Jewishly" and "Jewish ideology and Nazi ideology were very similar.” Which are the kinds of statements that have earned him regular accusations of antisemitism (that being the point of contention here.) The reason CarolmooreDC's provided sources were removed is that A. The Aaranovitch article, while a reliable source, in no way states what CarolmooreDC's interpretation of it claims it states, every example/quote provided by the article regarding antisemitism, is a statement regarding Judaism; the same is true for the Scottsman article. The only source that said Atzmon had been accused of antisemitism for his statements on Zionism was from the opinion of an editor/interviewer at the Gisborne Herald. A tiny local newspaper with a circulation of about 8,000. That is against the Misplaced Pages rules on reliable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations "In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used." Citing papers such as the New York Times and the Times of London as examples, and "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact" The opinion of the conductor of that interview is included in the politics section. Drsmoo (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

People can read the facts at the link. And the editor who shortened it left out almost all the neutral info and it was two to one negative info, despite lots of WP:RS neutral info, which is one of the reasons the article got locked last time around. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI. I have tried a mediation with Drsmoo, but after weeks of personal attacks on me for trying to make the article NPOV, now followed by yet another illustration of Drsmoo's hatred of Atzmon (illustrated by these two hostile diffs he refused to remove and an admin had to: 1, 2) I think I should just delete this silly BLPN thread where he's got me trying to prove there are accusations vs. Atzmon.

I probably should just go straight for a complaint about re: BLP Dispute tag regarding Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims about living people are strictly forbidden on all Misplaced Pages pages. In addition, all articles must be neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic, and free of original research. Editors who continue to introduce unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living people will be blocked from editing per Misplaced Pages policy. Advice on what to do welcome. 23:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you do have to prove your statements. If you can find a reliable source that states that Atzmon has been accused of antisemitism for his statements on Zionism, than it will be included. I recommend that you actually see a noticeboard discussion through to completion, rather than jumping from noticeboard to noticeboard to mediation to noticeboard as soon as there is any discussion. Drsmoo (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

<backdent>I feel Drsmoo's hostility towards the subject (esp. as mentioned above in his recent talk page edits which an admin just had to revert because he refused to) and towards anyone trying to do an NPOV edit of the article is so severe that I have cataloged various editors' complaints about him at Wikiquette Alerts. Perhaps that is what I should have brought here instead of the one issue which mediation had not been able to resolve yet. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Revised alert focuses on Drsmoo's incivility towards me as advised after the first alert. Let's think positive thoughts Drsmoo will get a good mentor!

Meanwhile, for anyone interested in substantive discussion of this issue, again I present my case at Talk:Gilad Atzmon#Do sources say criticism of Zionism led to charges of antisemitism? If necessary I can repeat it here, with any updates. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

More NPOV, non-WP:OR version of politics section

Rather than start a new thread, I decided to put up a link to revised version of this section correcting what I believe are WP:BLP violations. See this diff which I explained with this edit summary: More NPOV, non-WP:OR version of politics section; use quotes in context of what Secondary Sources say, not editor's WP:OR; per various talk page and noticeboard comments. It is based on comments I have gotten in various places that deals with the WP:OR issue (cherry picked use of Atzmon quotes out of context of what the secondary source said about those comments) and POV issue (not allowing the Swedish Democrats defense of Atzmon in the article), plus a few POV issues. This diff also shows I am NOT trying to delete all negative information about Atzmon, just trying to make the article comply with WP:BLP and WP:RS policies. Note the section still is 2/3 about criticism of Atzmon and his replies, which should satisfy the most strenuous Atzmon hater. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Janelle Pierzina

• Janelle Pierzina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is suffering very persistent disruption (edit warring) from an IP editor, 71.200.39.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who insists on including two inappropriate (one unsourced and another using incorrect terminlogy) independent pieces of information in violation of WP:BLP. The editor is not responding to message on the talk page, and has been abusive in edit summary ("you're nuts"). The warring started on 18 November, with these two edits, and has been a total of eight times up to this complaint. Request block of the IP or semi-protection for two weeks. Ohconfucius 15:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest AfD. She was only on a game show and was an extra in a couple of movies and TV shows. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's up for AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Janelle_Pierzina_3.In the meantime, the IP activity is continuing. Ohconfucius 13:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Erin Burnett

She is a TV journalist. I think undue weight is being given to a couple of her statements, which were probably poorly expressed. Certainly mistakes on her part but not so important that they need to take up half the article. A larger issue is the chilling effect reporters might feel if they dare to say anything controversial, or even speak as a "devil's advocate" which she seemed to have been doing in the Chinese toys controversy. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It was totally excessive, I watched the videos, very poor citations and very pov writing, I have taken the wack hammer to it, I think it is a lot better now, I am not being funny but pov pushing like that by an ip really makes me annoyed. I expect he will come back to revert, I will keep it watched, if someone else would also as it really should not be returned to the previous state. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Carly Smithson

Carly Smithson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Cold465 has repeatedly added information about a fansite controversy that is not notable and that Smithson is not directly involved with. Cold465 has made these edits numerous times despite the objections of other editors, does not really respond to these concerns on their talk page, does not discuss the issue on the discussion page and even moved the whole article to Carly'sAngels Controversy, . Cold465 in their last edit even admits that the controversy has nothing to do with Smithson, . // Aspects (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem seems to be gone. Anyway the article focuses too much on her on American Idol, rather than her whole career as an artist. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Maria Bartiromo

This article on the CNBC broadcaster urgently needs attention. It has a "Controversies" section that is far too large for an article of this size, and an editor insists on reverting a particularly poorly sourced subsection that is especially inflammatory. See .--JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be okay now. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, thanks to User:Nuclear Warfare, who correctly deleted the "controversies" section. Doesn't seem to be any effort to revert, so this can be marked "resolved." Thanks. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Durgan: NASL, "Vitriol"

In Jeff Durgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) post, NASL section, references and do not directly support authors statement of "vitriol" toward Mark Peterson or other players. Further, reference appears to be hearsay from an unpublished author in which I am neither quoted nor are direct quotes by me from other sources referenced.

In total, I am under the impression that the author of this Jeff Durgan post is biased against me and has reason to report negative and potentially harmful, inaccurate information. When I try to remove questionable, inaccurate or seemingly biased statements he reverts to his original text and threatens to block me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notiempo (talk • contribs) 12:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Original post regarding this at WP:Editor assistance/Requests#Post: Jeff Durgan. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Curt Weldon

This article has a real slant against the person and also a lot of original research. For instance it cites the US Army's policy to suggest that he should have gone to Vietnam but got out of it. It also includes information about 2 lobbyists who worked for him and were also involved in unrelated scandals, seeming to imply that he was also involved. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is nothing more than a political attack...the lede says it all...Despite FBI allegations of corruption, in the nearly two years since the '06 elections, no formal charges or allegations have ever been levied against him. ..We shouldn't allow wikipedia to be used in this way. Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mike Rann

Unfortunately I seem to be the only admin on scene at this one, and I am literally right in the middle of exam week, so it's a bad time for me to be monitoring anything live. Essentially the issue here is that the Premier of South Australia is being accused by a woman in a paid interview of having an affair with her (Clinton-style), and an editor sympathetic to his political opposition is adding tabloidish stuff to it, including the names of all parties. It seems to be almost a textbook case for demonstrating the 3rd para of BLP in action.

Furthermore, my understanding of BLP policy, especially given the likelihood the media agencies who reported this will end up in the courts and perhaps for good reason, is that the woman and her ex-husband should not be named per "Presumption in favor of privacy". If someone could watchlist it and keep an eye on it, I would be most grateful. Orderinchaos 14:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Presumption in favor or privacy should not apply here since she gave a public interview. Will add to watchlist since some of these edits look in any event problematic. Good luck with exams. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Mojib Latif

Several editors are edit warring in an attempt to include material from Weblogs into the article, see this edit for details: . WVBluefield (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've warned both you and the other editor of WP:3RR, please let it settle until an uninvolved 3rd editor can help find consensus in line with WP:BLP. It's better to avoid a block so you can partake in the discussion than to be blocked and have no voice.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Several editors have assisted in removing the offending material. WVBluefield (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sulaiman Al-Fahim

• Sulaiman Al-Fahim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'd like to request some help with this article. We've got an on-going, low level (a couple reverts per day) edit war between Jessica Hoy and a number of other semi-interested editors. I initially reverted Jessica Hoy's edits, as they were unsourced and POV (in the overly positive direction). In discussions with her(?) on our respective talk pages, it appears that the lack of sources and the poor style are mostly a result of being new to the editing process, and having a hard time with the distinction between positive POV and neutral edits. If her edits weren't constructive, I'd revert, but they do add useful information (the original information was a few years out of date), and she is correct in that the initial tone of the article was somewhat overly biased in the negative direction. I was hoping I could get some assistance cleaning up both the prose and the sources for her edits to meet acceptable quality and NPOV standards. Any interested editors who could contribute to fixing up her version of the article to fix POV issues while keeping the new, useful information would be welcomed. —ShadowRanger  17:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A note: I have rewritten a section or two in neutral POV, and Jessica was more than willing to keep the version that indicated negative things (a suspect claim to the title "Dr.") without overemphasizing them. Good faith is not just assumed but demonstrated on her part, but her skills as an editor are such that assistance is required. —ShadowRanger  17:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fictitious person's biography

• Hamilton Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this appears to be a joke biography of a fictitious person // Victorgo (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Hamilton_Mitchell

Looks like it was vandalized a long time ago and no one caught it. I've restored the pre-vandalism version. —ShadowRanger  17:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, the pre-vandalism version appears to be legit stub of a real person (an actor). —ShadowRanger  17:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Statements used as examples

User:Gamaliel has claimed that it is a violation of BLP to use a defamatory statement on a talk page as an example in a discussion of what is or isn't a violation. E.g. in a discussion of whether the statement "Michael Savage is a hypocrite" is or isn't a violation, Gamaliel claims that merely giving the statement as an example is itself a violation; in other words, he claims that if accusing someone of hypocrisy in an article would be a BLP violation then I have just violated it right here. I claim that such a rule is absurd, and amounts to censorship, since it stifles debate about the policy and its application. -- Zsero (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Reiterating my response below, whether or not it is a BLP violation is somewhat beside the point here. The talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, and ad hominem attacks are unlikely to serve that purpose. If your point is to discuss some point of policy, there should be no need to resort to ad hominem attacks. Discuss the policy, not the person, and BLP won't apply. —ShadowRanger  18:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinions v statements of fact

This arises out of the same discussin as the previous item, but is a separate issue, so I'm putting it in a separate section: User:Gamaliel claims that calling someone an idiot is a BLP violation (but, apparently, that calling someone a hypocrite is not). It is clear to me that he is wrong. Defamation, by definition, is restricted to statements of fact; pure expressions of opinion, no matter how unfounded, cannot be defamatory. "John Smith is a thief" is defamatory; "John Smith is an idiot" is not and cannot be defamatory. BLP is explicitly about protecting people from defamation; that's clear from WP:BLP#Rationale. Thus saying (on a talk page, rather than in an article) that "John Smith is an idiot" cannot be a BLP violation, and it is against the rules to edit it out, let alone to threaten someone with blocking for writing it in the first place. -- Zsero (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone an idiot is neither informative nor constructive. Talk pages are for talk related to improving the article, and personal statements of opinion are not generally helpful to improving the article. Even if it wasn't a BLP violation, it's still a violation of WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. —ShadowRanger  18:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "idiot" is also an old quasi-medical term. So to call a public figure an idiot, you would have to prove that their IQ is below a certain level. That would be hard to do. Now, I realized that Glenn Beck has written a book labeling people he doesn't like as "idiots", but he is not bound by wikipedia standards. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I considered noting that in my original reply, but decided against it. It wouldn't improve the situation if he substituted "doofus" (a non-technical slang term from what I can tell) for "idiot". :-) —ShadowRanger  18:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Zsero's claim is that calling someone an idiot is not a BLP violation because it's opinion rather than fact. Either way, it's O.R. and it's irrelevant. It's also uncivil when directed towards another editor. And the "censorship" cry would be typical. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that Zsero is currently on a short block and cannot respond here. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel's response to the conversation seems a bit absurd, though. Zsero was going off-topic, clearly, but it was also clearly opinion. It seems particularly ridiculous to block someone for comments clearly intended to by hypothetical, and therefore far from BLP violations. A stiff reminder to get back on-topic, and possibly adding a template closing the section, would probably have been far more productive. Sχeptomaniac 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Granted. I hadn't even looked at the exact edits; I was answering the problem as stated here. The history does seem to indicate that Gamaliel warned him several times and suggested he take his concerns here, and the edits violate a number of other guidelines beyond BLP, e.g. WP:3RR, WP:POINT. It would probably be best to unblock and take this to dispute resolution. —ShadowRanger  20:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Or we could let the short block give him some time to cool down and reconsider his approach. Mattnad (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

While I feel this issue has largely be sufficently dealt with, I should point out that calling someone an idiot if unsourced or poorly sourced is indeed a BLP violation (not the most serious one perhaps, but a violation). If you are under the impression something must be defamation to be a BLP violation you're mistaken I suggest you read the actual policy. Defamation (and derived words) is only mentioned 3 times, libel 2-4 times depending on how you count and slander not at all. This isn't an accident. BLP goes beyond what constitutes defamation/libel/slander. Calling someone a hypocrite is similarly likely a BLP violation if poorly sourced. If this relates to a talk page, as others have said it isn't appropriate for many reasons. Editor opinions of a subject of course are generally unwelcome on wikipedia particularly when they are negative views on a living person. Personally I may not normally remove such comments nor advocate their removal in most circumstances. But if someone does feel it's necessary I would support such actions and in any case someone who makes such comments has little defence for them. If someone make such inappropriate comments and is repeatedly warned but continues, a short block would seem justified. Edit: From a brief look at the article talk page the only person who called anyone a hypocrite appears to be Zsero him/herself. There was some discussion about whether it was appropriate to mention sources called Michael Savage a hypocrite which is obviously appropriate but that was all. Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, when it's a personal opinion, as it was in this case. The purpose of BLP is to protect living people from the insertion of false/misleading material as best we can. What is clearly a personal opinion on a talk page would not fall under that purpose, as it's not going to be personally damaging for some random person on the internet to consider them a "ratbag" or "idiot." It's disruptive to WP, but does not fall under the scope of WP:BLP. Sχeptomaniac 23:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally damaging perhaps not. But potentially offensive and annoying to the subjects? Perhaps yes, particularly for a fairly unknown person and if the talk page is full of disparaging opinions. Yes this may not be the case here (I believe the people called idiots were journalists so they're probably somewhat used to people calling them idiots and it was only one user), but it doesn't change the fact that offensive comments and discussions about living people are particularly unwelcome and a BLP violation (even if not the most serious violation). And this isn't solely my opinion, this issue has came up on the noticeboard before and the general consensus is personal opinions about living people are an unwelcome BLP violation and should generally be removed if they provide nothing constructive to improve the article. Incidentally, you are mistaken that the sole purpose of BLP is to protect living people from the insertion of false or misleading info. In fact BLP also deals with privacy violations and information that is true but is of insufficient relevance to be mention at all or perhaps should be mention but not given much prominence. In some cases, you could argue the the way the information is presented may give a misleading impression of the person (but of course you could also argue the same thing if the talk page is full of people saying X is an idiot/ratbag/hypocrite/whatever) but the concern here is beyond simply given a misleading impression. Remember an important principle of BLP is to consider the possibility of harm and yes the is a small possibility of harm when talk pages are used to air editor opinions on living people. This is something many forums have no problem with but it's not something acceptable on wikipedia and in the case of BLPs, particularly so and BLP is one of the reasons. Just to reemphasise what I've already said, I don't believe this is a particularly serious BLP violation nor even something which has to be dealt with on BLP/N in fact, in most cases random editors opinions are not (although they should still usually be removed) but if you ask the technical question 'is this a BLP violation' the only answer can be yes. There are of course plenty of BLP violations, even on articles, which aren't really that big a deal, even calling people idiots in articles would often fall into that category, User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem has a good essay on this. Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So now BLP is supposed to protect an article subject from annoyance and offense? I seem to recall the whole point is to avoid undue harm. I see nothing in BLP policy or Doc glasgow's excellent work to suggest such an expansion. When the policy was developed to address harm, particularly serious harm, why are we trivializing it by saying it now applies to annoyances?

If a talk page is full of disparaging comments, then there is an entirely different problem with off-topic conversation (WP:FORUM) and disruptive behavior. I've never said the behavior should be allowed, only that a more appropriate policy should be applied. Sχeptomaniac 17:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

J. Philippe Rushton

Over the past couple of months, several editors have raised concerns on this article’s talk page that the article is unbalanced and not reliably sourced, but a few users (particularly user:Ramdrake) seem determined not to allow the article to be changed. (Looking at the article’s history is a good way to get a sense of this.) Since Ramdrake has been immediately reverting the edits of other users who tried to change this aspect of the article, I’d rather not get involved in another edit war over this; it seems more appropriate to just post about it here.

This article was brought up on this noticeboard last month here, but this particular issue about it doesn’t appear to have been dealt with. I’d like it if someone could take a look at it now. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a casual reading of the article shows it is heavily biased against the subject. This might be fair since his ideas seem to be really out there. It might be better to have a much shorter article, briefly explaining his work and then saying it is rejected by most others in the field. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, his theories are pretty unpopular, although there are also some prominent biologists and psychologists who’ve been supportive of them. The article mentions two of them—E.O. Wilson and Hans Eysenck—and there’s also Linda Gottfredson and Arthur Jensen. Papers he’s written are also consistently published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, so his work isn’t obviously unscientific the way something like creationism is.

Does how unpopular his ideas are make a difference for the article, though? This isn’t an article about his evolutionary psychology theories; it’s a biography. WP:BLP has some specific guidelines about not allowing biographies of living people to be overtly slanted in a negative manner. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't anybody have an answer to this? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The criticism does appear to be supported by references (forgive me, I didn't check every one manually), so the primary gripe here is about weight, correct? Have you attempted to discuss this on the article talk page? I don't see any posts by you there. Try and discuss the changes. If, and *only* if, you are unable to reach a consensus you can bring this to dispute resolution. —ShadowRanger  19:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the issue of weight, there’s also the question of whether some of its sources can be considered reliable. Several parts of the article are cited to blogs, or to material that was self-published by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

WP:BLP states, “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” As I stated before, when this has been done in the past, the user Ramdrake immediately reverted the edits in question. Most of the concerns that I would raise about this on the talk page are concerns that other users have raised there already, which doesn’t appear to have solved anything. Since there’s nothing I could attempt with this article that others haven’t attempted already, I think the only appropriate course of action at this point is to bring it up here.

I’m reluctant to seek dispute resolution with this user on the Rushton article because I’m already involved in a mediation case with him on another article, and I don’t want to be accused of wikihounding him. Isn’t it possible to get other people to help with a problematic article by posting about it here? --Captain Occam (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center is not neutral with regard to racism, like the American Civil Liberties Union is not neutral with regard to constitutional rights. But like the ACLU they are an influential and widely respected organization, and the article could not be NPOV without their input. They are a reliable source for their own views. I don't see anything that is cited to the SPLC without making clear that it is the SPLC talking, except in the lede. So I will try to fix the lede momentarily. ~YellowFives 23:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

of Stroker Serpentine

• Stroker Serpentine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Concerns

My chief concern is one of sourcing this rather unusal article. I have several concerns.

• is this article INDEED a biography of a living person. Kevin Alderman himself under the name Kevin Alderman has acieved little noteriety in and of himself to even MERIT a Misplaced Pages article TITLED Kevin Alderman. However, he HAS achieved much under the name Stroker Serpentine and is more widely and popularly knwon as such AND as such DOES in my opinion merit a Misplaced Pages page. cf this article to the article Anshe Chung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the subject Stroker Serpentine to the subject Anshe Chung. Whatever these two subjects have achieved have been as their "avatars" Kevin Alderman and Ailin Graef remaining chiefly unknown

• However, as an "avatar" does this subject merit the protections of a biography of a living person. Chiefly, with repsect to sourcing, I for one FULLY support the idea that ALL Misplaced Pages articles be sourced as best as possible with unsourced materials removed. Yet, personages as the subjects Anshe Chung or Stroker Serpentine arent actual PEOPLE but representations within a virtual world and hardly subject to libel.

The Dispute

• The main dispute was the removal of content a source as "removing negative information about a BLP which lacks a high-quality source. My thinking is several: that the subject properly IS not a blp, and that a full fledged edit war might be headed off by a clear ruling on the proper title of the article and what subject the article properly subsumes.

• Mainly Does a Kevin Alderman merit a wiki page in and of himself or rather is the fountainheadof his successes wedded to his adoption of the Stroker Serpentine personae ans as such would an article on Stroker Serpentine merit the protections of a biography of a living person.

Changes by Me

• I moved the page from Kevin Alderman to Stroker Serpentine to best reflect the true nom d'voyage of the subject in his interatcions inthe world.

• I undid the removal of the "poorly" sourced materials and added a source. The claims of the removed materials are widely reportedand even more sources may be added or substituted as needed in the future.

• other minor edits inthe hopesofcleaning the article

As a final note, this is an article in dire need of a good cleaning. I would hope that those close tothe subject might be allowed to edit the article without fear of vandalism. --Martinbane (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

First point: even if he's using a pen-name, he's still a living person, so BLP does apply. As to moving the page, I'm neutral. We generally go by the name the person is best known by, and it's sounding like his pen name is how he's known. As for the sources, I'll have to look at the article; negative information about a living person must be very well sourced. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanx Hand that bites that cleared up a lot.

• i agree that the subject IS the blp. I'd counter (and am picking nits lol) that the adoption of an avatar in second life is more a nom d' voyage rather than a nom d' plum THOUGH that doesnt matter it IS an adoption of a second NAME by a LIVING person. It could be argued that instances occur within business in second life where a corporate avatar account is shared by various people (cf the world stock exchange "money holder" account whose name escapes me atm) or a bot account shared by no one (cf the Jenna Jameson avatar in Second Life). However, there is no evidence that the Stroker Serpentine avatar is used by anyone OTHER THAN Alderman so your point remains a valid one.

• as for the name of the article, it is generally clear that Alderman is better known by his NOM D' AFFAIRES Stroker Serpentine-i.e. Alderman is more commonly known as Serpentine period.

• this negative bit has been widely reported. more and better sources can and shall be provided as needed as time goes by.

--Martinbane (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• however i wouldnt be opposedto the removalof the negative materials until sch a time as truly high quality sources may be found. i wont removethe negative bit myself but wouldnt be opposed to its removal inthe near future barring valid, high quality sourcing.

--Martinbane (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve Cooley

Steve Cooley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - IP editor is repeatedly adding WP:OR material. Not super libelous but inaccurate at least and some statements might be considered controversial such as calling city council folks "irrelevant" where really he was referring to legislation in the one citation included, I believe. Requesting some other folks please chime in. Thank you. - Owlmonkey (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit newsy and the IP has put it back, the IP doesn't seem to want to talk about it, is it being reported by any other sources? What about rewriting the story to a simple line, that might calm the IP down. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I'm hesitant to reduce it all after the two reverts I've made already, but it's a good suggestion. I'm hoping more third party editors can take a look and participate as they feel so inspired. But in particular to make sure that whatever there meets BLP standards as folks here see it. Even the one citation however doesn't establish that the DA is "against" dispensaries as far as I can tell or that there is a marijuana controversy particularly. He's quoted as against the practice of over-the-counter sales (per state law), as opposed to dispensaries existing, so I'm not sure even that citation has a noteworthy contribution to the article's current assertions. Google '"steve cooley" marijuana' and one does find that his statements that pot dispensaries should only grow for coop members and not sell over-the-counter. Noteworthy for his article? -Owlmonkey (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I trimmed it a bit to take the weight out of it, that does not mean that I actually support its inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. I appreciate the tag on the overall section as well. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert Garside

Hi. Wikimedia UK has been contacted by the subject of this article, who isn't happy with the article. Essentially the complaint is that the controversy section is unduly weighted compared with the rest of the article. This is apparently part of an ongoing campaign against the subject across the internet, which has included Google bombing. For that reason, relying on google searches is problematic, and editors that have just edited this article and related pages may not be approaching the topic from a neutral point of view.

For background, the article has been raised here twice before: .

This is a tricky situation that I personally feel uncomfortable taking an active role in as a wikimedian (note that Wikimedia UK of course can't take an active role here, being an independent organization). Could someone please take a look at the article and assess whether or not it needs to be more balanced, taking the above information into account? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment..The controversies section does look a bit excessive, his record was accepted by the Guinness book of records so they are very strong on facts and conditions, that said there are some issues, which we should mention, but the section is in need of trimming by a decent writer in the way of summarizing the stronger comments, to balance the article in a fair way, the controversy section is the main part of the article.Any volunteers? Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot in a while if there are no takers. Meanwhile anyone in favor of moving the controversy section to the talk page temporarily as a WP:BLP issue, while the problems are fixed? Aditya Ex Machina 14:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, I have removed the section to the talkpage in readiness. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi. I'm traveling, but noticed the blanking. As I indicated when I wrote the text, I welcome additional review. That said, I read every news source on the subject that I could access at that time, and I don't believe that the article is unbalanced in reflecting that. Criticism was most of what I found. I don't object to the removal of the section so long as this is very temporary (since currently I think it represents an WP:NPOV problem), but it can't remain in its current state for long as now the article certainly does represent a BLP issue. The lead says "Although press in 2001 and 2002 reported that Garside had admitted some fabrication, in 2003 he denied the admission. In addition, critics have questioned the plausibility of his claims and the accuracy of the evidence documenting Garside's run." This, of course, summarized the sourced criticism section. Perhaps pending the proposed rewrite, somebody would like to add sources for that? :) --Moonriddengirl 21:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, in reference to the top note, when I wrote that section, I searched google news, not google, and I did access everything I found at that time that was not hidden behind a subscription wall. And I had no history with the subject of the article, positive or negative, prior to the OTRS communication. --Moonriddengirl 21:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to describe the problem as neutrally as possible, but looking at it again I see that I failed. :( I have no opinions on the article, or any surrounding controversies, and my intention was not to imply anything; my aim when writing the above text was to communicate the issue as I understood it without putting words in people's mouths, or taking a stance.

I would note that Google News is still powered by Google, so if google bombing has gone on here then that will also be susceptible. There are a large number of links and references to media coverage on the talk page (I believe that they were originally placed in the article by the subject), which might be of help when reworking the article.

If this could possibly be sorted out this weekend, that would be great... Earlier today the subject of the article sent me a version of the article that he has written, about which he says "I believe this is balanced". I will place on the talk page in case this is of use. Mike Peel (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for commenting, of course respect to these additional comments, I also agree that there does need to be a section on the doubts as regards the record, and I also feel that the section is excessivly large compared to the rest of the article and that Guinness is well known for its accuracy as regards accepting claims. I personally do agree with the complaint from the subject of the biography, it seems excessive, the Internet is sometimes a place that enjoys controversy and so there are plenty of such citations around, there was an offer of a rewrite and I accepted, I appreciate your wanting something returned to the article and I will give this my attention over the weekend looking for a replacement to the article by Monday, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Would a google bomb prevent articles from showing up? I'm not really familiar with the concept, but I checked literally every readable link in google news that I could find. Even if it was on the last page, I read it. Again, I requested review at the time and am happy enough if I get it now, but I am unsure how much "of an ongoing campaign against the subject across the internet" may be reflected here. Notes and edit summaries such as this, this and this suggest to me a basic misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages's function. In the one instance, the person he accused of "NOTHING MORE THAN DIRTY TACTICS BY PEOPLE WHO COME SECOND IN LIFE. THIS IS A COVER-UP" seems to be Rd232 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Clearly, the proposed rewrite by the subject for the controversy section is not balanced. It reduces all criticism to David Blaikie--others of standing are mentioned as well at various sources such as , , , , . In the controversy section I created, I made every effort to air his viewpoints as well. I understand that the subject would be happiest with no or little reference made to the controversy, but it seems to have been huge...and to have persisted after the validation of his record by Guinness. --Moonriddengirl 23:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The rewrite is a nice story and for sure personal elaboration, I have not checked the citations the subject claims support it, if you think that it is fine and balanced then we can replace it, personally I am with Guinness here, and I don't think the controversy section about anything should be bigger than the section related to the achievement. There was no support at all here for the section until I removed it today? As there are experienced editors here that actually support the section the subject is complaining about I will happily take my time elsewhere. Feel free to simply replace it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it a bit more, the article has lost nothing of any value with the removal of the titillating controversies in the removed section, there are still comments regarding doubts in the article, imo, if the lede was simply trimmed to reflect the new article body it would be fine, the reader would have lost nothing at all, I do think it was excessive, and a bit tabloid, trim the lede a bit, archive the talkpage, job done.I will do that if there are no objections. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I already objected above, and I still object. I believe that you have cut out a good bit of information that is verifiable to reliable sources, and I do not believe it is undue. Sensitivity in WP:BLP does not require ignoring significant media coverage of controversies. --Moonriddengirl 00:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

So your position is that there is no problem? Off2riorob (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (I am not on my home computer, and my connection is very iffy. The edit conflict sent me into stasis for quite some time. I'm afraid I can't communicate quickly here.) Not to be redundant, but I invited review before and continue to welcome it. However, I believe that the current article shirks coverage of controversies. Misplaced Pages's policy, as we all know, is to accurately reflect what reliable sources have said about notable subjects. This controversy is covered extensively around the world. Some sources that have covered it include The Guardian; Sports Illustrated Adventures, Sydney Morning Herald, BBC, Telegraph, Guardian (again). Removing the controversy section wholesale is definitely unbalanced. Regardless of whether the run was authenticated or not, the controversy seems clearly notable. --Moonriddengirl 01:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, there is a lot of time, I do agree that there was a lot of coverage of the surrounding claims of falsehood and cheating, misrepresentation to Guinness and whatever else, plenty of citations, I am not in favour of censorship, simply that to me, what was there does seem excessive, so we can take the strongest most encyclopedic points from the removed content and add it to the other sections, thereby reporting the simple story without a controversy section. Off2riorob (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added an archiver to the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not object to 8 days. 1 day when there is ongoing discussion about a page is not a good idea. --Moonriddengirl 01:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I am just getting to know all about those archive bots, I didn't realise that. It is gong to need an archive though, all those cites and stuff there will need cleaning. Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Archiving can also be done manually, as explained at Help:Archiving a talk page. I'm not that familiar with bot functioning, but wonder if this method might not be superior on article talk pages that are seldom used. Not only would it significantly slow down the bots if they had to trawl every article talk page to determine if content needed to be archived, but unless the article talk page is monitored, somebody could easily leave an important note that is overlooked in even an eight day window. Perhaps these are the reasons that Miszabot says, "Before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there" and the help page says, "Note: Make sure to establish consensus before setting up MiszaBot or ClueBot III on a talk page other than a user talk page." I don't believe automatic archival there is necessary or, really, a good idea, once the excessive content is trimmed. --Moonriddengirl 13:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If your of that opinion, I am fine with that, I do see the points, manual archiving is perhaps a better way to go, feel free to make the alteration, as per your comments here I will ask for consensus in future before doing that. Off2riorob (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

All right, but I will leave it to you to decide what is currently on the page that needs manual archiving. :) Given my OTRS communications and subsequent actions, I think it's best that I not make that determination. --Moonriddengirl 13:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to do that, is there some kind of general agreement that we are all more or less happy that what is left is fair enough settled on? Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no issues with anything being archived up to the section to which I contributed today. I'd like some feedback on the proper placement of the Disputes section, as requested there, and I'd like to know the reason for the italics in the quote. --Moonriddengirl 14:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Working on it now. All additional assistance appreciated. Aditya Ex Machina 12:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Done now. Aditya Ex Machina 14:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, on first appraisal it reads well, there are imo enough of the critical comments still included so as not to whitewash the story and the excessive weight, imo, has been taken out from the section. Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have done some alterations and explained why at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl 13:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sheikh Khalid bin Saqr Al Qasimi

The entry for Sheikh Kalid bin Saqr Al Quasimi is completely copied from a blog, ostensibly run by him. The location of the blog is:

It has been created and run by a PR firm, California Strategies to accomplish Sheikh Khalid's political goals of being reinstated as crown prince of Ras Al Khaimah.

None of this information is verifiable by neutral third parties and as such should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucastar78 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a clear cut case of blatant copyright infringement. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. —ShadowRanger  17:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is actually the same group putting their private political messages on Misplaced Pages. They have now simply moved the unverified content to a new entry - Sheikh Khalid bin Saqr Al-Qassimi. It uses the purpose created website, , as a neutral third party reference.

The Justice Department Foreign Agent Registration Act records can show that California Strategies, which runs the is hired and paid for by Sheikh Khalid. Here is the document showing that this is the case: This is a clear violation of Misplaced Pages standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucastar78 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirected it to the original page and watchlisted it. I have no doubt whatsoever that the page is a violation of multiple Misplaced Pages policies, but CSD was denied on the original page (though it will be deleted unless copyright issues are resolved). —ShadowRanger  16:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

Mufti Ebrahim Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hi, this is a bio of a living person. It was in a poor state before, only including a few potentially libelous comments including sourcing to a few controversial media reports. To a nuetral observer that means something is fishy. I've been working on developing this biography whilst including as much sourcing as possible but this one user "Fragma08" keeps accusing me of vandalism and completely "undo's" my work and replaces it with a simple copy/paste from a biography of this person posted elsewhere. I think this person just wants to have it their way. I suggest one of the admins please look into it and allow for the article to be developed according to wikipedia guidlines. Thank You. // At-thanawi (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)At-thanawi

Kindly note, that At-thanawi has been removing sourced work (which was in fact added by a different user several months ago and not myself) repeatedly referring to it as libellous. The information that At-thanawi has been adding was more an attempt of overwriting the opinions of mufti Ebrahim Desai and was completely uncited, which does constitute vandalism. In a related article, Deobandi, this user has also in his revision as of 12:58, 6 November 2009 removed information from the article along with sound reference, which he simply claimed as being "false information and propoganda". I am concerned about the appearent bias. There is strong indication that the user is now attempting the same thing on this article, and removing the opinion/work of the mufti because he finds it "libellous" which makes no sense at all. A person's opinions given in the course of their daily work can not be libelous to that person's biography/article. The article has been under constant vandalism attacks in attempts to remove the opinions of the mufti. This seems very biased and much indicates that either mr Ebrahim Desai or his students are editing the article.Fragma08 (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just removed a chunk of text that was a clear copyvio of http://www.daralmahmood.org/muftisaab.html . – ukexpat (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above, unless some more reliable sources per WP:RS can be found, this one looks like it's headed to Afd. – ukexpat (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Article was a coatrack to talk about his view on rape. Removed. Probably deletable. Hipocrite (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is not a coatrack. You will find that majority of the biography has been removed because of copyright issues. Therefore the classify it as coatrack only minutes after, is unreasonable. Allow for some time to build on the article and I will do my best to find other sources and details so to develop the article possibly in collaboration with other editors who may know more about this mufti.Fragma08 (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Urgently needs more eyes. Hipocrite (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, what Fragma08 doesn't understand is that he/she does not have sole control over this page. This user wants the biography to include the fatwa on rape (and a few other things) on the bio. While, I want to expand on the biography. Fine, the controversial issues can stay but why is it that this user want's to make his stuff the only information available on this person? I expanded the biography quite a bit (90% of my edits were sourced)without any bias, but everytime fragma08 totally undo's my work. Misplaced Pages admins should look at the edits I made. How in the world does this not meet Misplaced Pages standards? I don't personally know the person who's bio we're editing but I have followed him for quite a well and I'm aware of his details. Fragma08 only wants the world to know about his controversial fatwas. That's it. And the rest of the bio he keeps copying/pasting from Desai's biography on another site. At-thanawi (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)At-thanawi

Personal attacks are very unbecoming. If At-thanawi has issues with me, this is not the place. This discussion here is limited to the article of Ebrahim Desai, and not personal issues. Maybe At-thanawi should keep in mind that such allegations could fall under the personal attacks and breach wikipedia guidelines, WP:ATTACK. At-thanawi never attempted discussion before reverting back unsourced details, hence removal . One wonders, where At-thanawi got his information from. Also he failed to in every instance explain, why he deleted the opinions as part of Desai's fatwas, when editing. Much supports that either Desai himself or his students have been reverting/editing this article, but I have not objected to either. So major parts of the article will have to be rebuilt and I welcome any sourced contribution there can be in building up the article but without removing the person's work. May I also remind At-thanawi that I did not make the last (now deleted) biography (more than a few lines). But I maintained it, as it was sourced. The fatwas were thus part of a longer biography (now deleted due to copyright issues). So At-thanawi's statement is false. I also want to bring attention to the changes of At-thanawi made to the article on Deobandi of 12:58, 6 November 2009 where sourced information was removed based on "false information and propoganda". A pattern clearly. Fragma08 (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Tim Kaine

There has been quite a kerfuffle going on over at the Governor of Virginia's article. Themoodyblue has continuously removed Kaine's signature from the infobox, with vague assertions that someone from Kaine's office told him to, because Kaine "doesn't like it", and because it is "illegal" (I can find nothing whatsoever in the Code of Virginia which addresses this issue). After some back-and-forth edit warring, I contacted Themoodyblue on his talk page - this proved fruitless. I then sought input from an impartial party at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography. Warrior4321 replied, but his edits were summarily reverted by Themoodyblue. Road Wizard tried to diffuse the situation by leaving a message on both Themoodyblue's and my talk pages, but not with great success. Themoodyblue has now resorted to personal attacks and legal threats. Frankly, we're at an impasse, and need some uninvolved editors to sort this out. Thanks, faithless () 20:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The legal threat should be reported, and I have done so. – ukexpat (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Themoodyblue has been blocked for legal threats. – ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is also being discussed on the AN page. The editor first complained, on the article talk page, that the signature came from PAC literature and therefore was not in the public domain. When that went unheeded, he started arguing that posting the facsimile signature was a felony, yet no one could find any citation in support of that claim. He then indicated that he had talked to the governor's office about it, which of course is original research. He's either well-meaning but misguided, or he's trolling. Either way, he engaged in increasingly intimidating behavior, hence the block. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - and are original research which have not been verified to the source's authentication and permission (Tim Kaine). One file claims it is "Own work by uploader, traced by hand from" the other taken from an e-mail. Neither meets the claim for "contains no original authorship" as presented, because they are stolen. Both violate the authenticators copyright. They should be deleted for violating copyright and OR. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see that adding someone's signature to an article adds much value, and it certainly has the potential to cause trouble. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment - I traced the SVG from the raster. The signature can't be copyrighted as far as I know. If you could provide another source, I'd be happy to put up a new version. I just trace what's there for me, in good faith. I apologize if I have caused such trouble. Connormah (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Claes Zangenberg

• Claes Zangenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Mr. Zagenberg is not a noted Norwegian expert on Company Law and author of several books on the subject of cross-border-incorporations. He is a unkown norwegian jurist wich is in the buisness of selling NUF companies to Norwegians. He claims to be an author of several books. However, in the official Norwegian database of books http://ask.bibsys.no/ask/action/result?cmd=&kilde=biblio&kilde=emneportal&kilde=forskpub&kilde=forskpro&lang=nb&q=Claes%20Zangenberg you can clearly see that he has printed his book three times, not written trhree books. Further, under the "Zangenberg" directory, he claims that he is a "advisor to the Norwegian Ministry of Finance". He has mearly written a letter to the Norwegian Ministry of Finance, this does not make him an advisor. Further, there is no Lawfirm with the name Claes Zangenberg // Josefk84 (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Article has been trimmed t within an inch of its life. Off2riorob (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged it for speedy deletion. There is absolutely no indication of the importance or significance of this individual. – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sheikh Khalid bin Saqr Al-Qassimi

The entry for Sheikh Khalid bin Saqr Al-Qassimi is carried over from the marked for deletion entry Sheikh Kalid bin Saqr Al Quasimi (slightly different spelling). It is nearly exclusively sourced from a blog, ostensibly run by him, but operated by California Strategies. The location of the blog is www.sheikhkhalisrak.com :

The Justice Department Foreign Agent Registration Act records clearly show that California Strategies, which runs the propoganda blog (see legally mandated disclosure at bottom of blog pages) is hired and paid for by Sheikh Khalid. Here is the document showing that this is the case: This is a clear violation of Misplaced Pages standards.

The blog and site have been created and run by a PR firm, California Strategies to accomplish Sheikh Khalid's political goals of being reinstated as crown prince of Ras Al Khaimah.

He holds not position of power in Ras Al Khaimah or the United Arab Emirates as can be shown by the OFFICIAL UAE site that lists the crown princes and deputy rulers of each emirate: (scroll down to crown princes and you will see Sheikh Khalid's brother Sheikh Saud is the Crown Prince of Ras Al Khaimah)

None of this information is verifiable by neutral third parties and as such should be removed.

To recap - this is new entry is the same group putting their private political messages on Misplaced Pages. They have now simply moved the unverified content to a new entry - Sheikh Khalid bin Saqr Al-Qassimi. It uses the purpose created website, , as a neutral third party reference. All entries citing this propaganda blog should e removed. --Lucastar78 (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As I noted on WP:NPOVN, the offending article is now redirected to the other offending article, which is itself under review for copyright infringement (along with a host of other problems). —ShadowRanger  16:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Anita Turner

Anita Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In response to a post on the neutral point of view noticeboard I have stubbed down the article on the above television producer. Some more eyes would be helpful, in particular to comment on the use of a website, Digital Spy, for non-controversial information. I'll take that to RSN if necessary. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say not, actually that is quite a controversial comment that is supported by that website if you can't find any ref to the comment at another location I would suggest removal of the comment. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lee Rhiannon

Lee Rhiannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I've redacted the name of the family member and other personal information in the section called "Controversies" (bad sub-heading I know). I've also provided an explanation of why on the talk page. I'm just wondering if the information should be there at all considering that it fits in awkwardly with the other information, and it's relevance to the article is spurious except for the familial connection. It is also an event that is currently being settled in courts, so this entry may not even be appropriate perhaps unless a there is a conviction. Sambauers (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like coat-racking to me, the article is about Lee not her son, I have removed it, if in doubt, take it out, BLP. There is also a lot of uncited stuff there which I have tagged. Off2riorob (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I definitely have POV about this topic so I was forcing myself to assume good faith and needed to double check on action beyond the obvious WP guidelines. I'd like at least one more person to provide confirmation before this is marked as resolved (or preferably for someone else to mark it as resolved). Sambauers (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Darl McBride

The Darl McBride article is a target of recent vandalism from a few IP addresses, including 65.39.66.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 204.62.193.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 204.62.193.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 204.62.193.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). All of the IP's are probably the same individual, since the content is almost identical, the addreses geolocate to the same area of Arizona, and they are all associated with fastQ, who I assume is a local internet provider in that area.

Diffs are , , , , , , and .

Note that vandalism, 3RR, and edit-war warnings have been removed from user talk pages as well: , , , , , .

As I have noted on Talk:Darl McBride, I have my own very strong opinions about the character of the BLP subject, and won't be editing the article, just watching for vandalism and other editing patterns.

Please consider semi-protecting the articles, and blocking the specific IP addresses not already blocked (if not the /24 subnet) for a short period of time, to give the vandal time to lose interest. Pfagerburg (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is little of the extreme amounts of vandalism required to warrant semi-protection; most vandalism is very recent. Please consider reporting to WP:AIAV if any more activity such as this goes on. Intelligentsium 22:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

James Arthur Ray

24.136.170.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) at James Arthur Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) suspect Manosmilusos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) new user, multiple users warned, ignoring talk, and repeatedly adding un-sourced POV. Diffs: Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think it is very likely that this is User:Manosmilusos, who has made no edits outside of James Arthur Ray. I agree that something needs to be done; probably the article should be semi-protected.Brianyoumans (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• I should have put a request in for user blocking ... it's annoying now, but the issue isn't severe to require page protection. Would appreciate an administrators attention. If the user persist, will have to take up the issue with the vandal admins. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• ATTENTION the user persists in disruptive editing Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Temp block by

Paul Sellar

An editor has blanked the page claiming the subject finds it libelous. Can someone take a look over it? 152.3.249.63 (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Without sources to verify notability the article could be subject to deletion. Suggest following WP:BLP. I see no dispute when there are no sources cited. The article was tagged ] User AliMartin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may wish to declare WP:COI on their own talk page. Suggest closing this issue. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Dov Hikind Financial Censorship David Irving John L. Sampson Eric Adams Carl Kruger Diane Savino Peter Abbate Michael Benjamin Vivian Cook and other similar

User:Yossiea and User:Will Beback have reverted contributions by User:pottsf to the above articles claiming that Yeshiva World News is not a Reliable Source.

I request a ruling as to whether Yeshiva World News is a reliable source.--Joe (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that you were adding material not found in any of the sources you listed, such as the "censorship" charge and the quotation about driving Irving out of business. Adding unsourced or poorly sourced negative information about living people is a direct violation of WP:BLP.   Will Beback  talk  18:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment If this is the source the names listed appear to be included and the source appears reliable (although editorial process could not be found). I didn't verify the added content. I agree that it must be properly sourced, in addition it must be a relevant and notable event to be included. Merely being sent a letter, does not meet this criteria and seems like a POV push. The content seems like an undue weight issue better discussed on the article talk page, hopefully avoiding formal dispute resolution. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I too consider the source reliable, but I think it excessive weight and a probable BLP violation to put this anywhere but in the articles for Hikind and Irving. Adding it to American Express, or its officers, or the other signatories is in my opinion very problematic, and a violation of WP:SOAPBOX as well. According to the sources available, the true sponsor is Hikind, and not the others. The Financial Censorship article has been proposed for deletion as a neologism, as none of the sources use the term. I do not want to remove the material from the other articles myself on my own judgment since this is likely to be controversial, but I will support any other admin who does so. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• YWN is not a news source. They borrow their news from other sources and the 1% that is their own is not sourced. It is similar to a blog, which is not WP:RS. The site is closer to a blog than a real news source.

To repeat, I wasn't complaining about the quality of the sources. Instead, I've been complaining about inserting assertions not included in the source. Yeshiva World News doesn't list an editorial policy, and the unsigned post above may be correct that it's more like a blog.   Will Beback  talk  01:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

List of male performers in gay porn films - the quintessential BLP nightmare

List of male performers in gay porn films has been nominated for deletion half a dozen times, with BLP concerns being mentioned in every AfD discussion. It has undergone a "clean-up" since the most recent AfD, but this seems to have mainly consisted of adding images and dubious references, which should be unneccesary if the linked articles are properly referenced. The trouble is that many of the linked articles are not properly referenced. I have nominated a few completely unsourced BLPs for deletion (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brian Hawks, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bobby Madison, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christy twins) but the suggestion has been made at AfD discussion to merge them into, guess what, List of male performers in gay porn films.

The completely unsourced BLP of Mark Wolff was recently deleted and removed from the list as a red link. He was restored to the list as a red link with the edit summary "rvt, no reason he shouldn't be included here". The sourcing used is a link to Mark Wolff's own site and a brief piece in a porn industry website, neither of which establishes notability or comes anywhere close to meeting WP:PORNBIO, let alone establishing identity. Perhaps that is a reason not to include the red link. I haven't checked but I believe many, if not most, of the entries on this list would fail WP:PORNBIO.

I'm sure that award winning screenwriter and Lost producer Christian Taylor would be surprised to learn that he has been included on this list. If he were alive, perhaps Bradford Thomas Wagner could confirm that he performed in gay porn films under the name Tim Barnett, since the source used does not clearly do so. I'm sure there are more bad entries life these.

The descriptions are also an issue. Red linked Zach Randall is apparently a "featured performer at Boys-Pissing.com" complete with direct link to the site. The source used for including him in the list is an article from an LGBT porn site directory which is used for a reference for 41 of the entries on the list! Some entries have no description at all, some have multiple sentences mentioning specific companies and awards, not necessarily supported by the references.

Here are two more unsourced BLPs I came across while composing this post: Rick Chase and Rick Donovan. Both have been tagged as unsourced since July 2007. I suggest that this list be trimmed back rather than expanded, leaving only blue links to vetted articles. Someone needs to go through every linked entry on this list and ensure that (a) it links to the correct article, (b) the article is properly sourced, (c) the performer meets the general notability guideline and the WP:PORNBIO guideline. There's quite a bit of work to do here. Perhaps a small working group could be established on a subpage of this noticeboard? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Delicious carbuncle that this is a disaster; the random second wlink i clicked on is someone else completely, as a quick visit to the reference proved. All the redlinks should be cut out, and the real articles checked for correctness. I have no interest in this subject, but am willing to make a start to help out. Cheers, Lindsay 22:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing redlinks from lists is a standard policy-supported action that should be stringently enforced in BLP related lists and articles. Similarly, standards for verifiable, reliable sources should be most strictly enforced in all BLP related topics. Thanks for bringing this potential mess to attention. Doc Tropics 22:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving through this alarmist thread I'll try to make this brief. my "clean-up"' as Delicious carbuncle terms it has been much more than what is presented. When the last AfD started there was no references on it and I have systematically been sourcing every entry. To indeed show entries are notable I started with the porn notability guidelines by tracking down what awards existed and who got them. Delicious carbuncle dismisses this effort but they have shown a systematic and negative attitude towards me which I continue to see as both detrimental and a form of WP:Wikihounding. I addition to these cleaning up efforts I have also researched every new entry that appears, usually from anons, to verify if they are indeed gay porn actors or vandalism and have dealt with each accordingly. BLP interpretation here is pretty clear - if someone has acted in gay porn films and are male or male-identified, they can be included with sourcing. As clean-up efforts continue and incorporate all the international awards that govern these people I also am reconciling people who have articles that seem to belong in the category to verify if there inclusion on the list and category is supportable. With hundreds of articles an assumption this takes time is correct. Meanwhile Delicious carbuncle started edit-warring to remove an image (from the lede, and if they had their way, the list) of Michale Lucas from User:David Shankbone, people they apparently don't approve, or something. But no we have an AfD which will again be a spin of wheels but oh well. As for redlinks? We do indeed want those as "helpful" folks simply add wikilinks to the article we have instead of realizing it's better to show we don't have an article. This is done for ... wait for it ... BLP concerns. So now we'll sort out an AfD, much drama has been raised for nothing, and regular editing will ensue by folks who have our readers interest at heart.
For those wondering ... here we can see that Mark Wolff likely shouldn't have been deleted after all but certainly has loads of coverage by the industry newsource of record; Christian Taylor listing was disambiguated - it was quite easy actually; Bradford Thomas Wagner, as noted, is dead, ergo not a BLP issue; and those unsourced BLPs, not the lists' problem. What a colossal waste of time when simply doing the editing would have achieved the same result. If some needs to be disambiguated? Why not just do it? And CyberSocket actually writes about gay porn all the time, being listed in their annual top lists indeed denotes notability enough for a list for now. This keen interest in getting rid of anything that doesn't have an article seems like a surefire way to ensure that even more stubs will be created when many of those folks would be better off in a list. -- Banjeboi 05:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a colossal waste of time, because posting it here brought at least one (me and maybe two (Doc) new users to the list to help. Also not a waste of time because BLP concerns are important and need to be raised. Certainly doing the edits is easy, maybe easier than coming here, but this is a place a number of people in the community look at as a place to find (and correct) potential trouble. I do and did. Doc, apparently, too. So, i say "Thanks" to DC for alerting us. As well as, obviously, "Thanks" to Banjeboi for continuing to correct these troublesome entries. Cheers, Lindsay 11:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I'm sure everyone would appreciate it if you could please put your accusations against me aside for the moment and confine yourself to discussing the BLP issues here (you are welcome to make your accusations elsewhere). As this ANI thread shows, it would have been difficult for me to "simply' do the editing needed myself. To focus on just one issue here, the inclusion of red links is not desirable in a list dealing largely with living people and of this nature. People who are not male gay porn performers are likely to be offended if they are included in such a list. I've already documented one such case, so this is not a hypothetical. You have reverted the removal of one red link by Doc Tropic. If this person is notable, would it not be more sensible to simply create a stub article and link it from this list? Linked entries should stand on their own without the need for further references, which would obviate the discussion about the appropriateness of "references" which lead to the purchase page of gay porn sites. If these were unsourced red links that would be one thing, but the situation as it stands (with unreliable sourcing of claims about living people) is arguably in violation of the BLP policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

LindsayH, you're right of course, any extra help is definitely a help. What I should have stated was that any of these issues was easily resolvable but Delicious carbuncle has insisted on taking a very long route of edit-warring about an image to finally state the had BLP concerns. I'm glad that the BLP issues are being addressed but do wish it was without all the misleading dramatics and inflamed concern. Simply state the issue and work with other editors. As for Delicious carbuncle's new hypothesis - a porn star would be fine with being included. Someone who is "not male gay porn performer" or more accurately someone who is not "male and has acted in gay porn films" shouldn't be on the list, I would hope that is obvious. Redlinks are welcome on lists and are actually there to prevent mislinking, Once they are vetted it's easy to see who we do or don't have articles for - that's why we include them. If they aren't there? people add them, to the wrong person. We'd rather disambiguate them so it is obvious their only inclusion on Misplaced Pages is on the list. And which case you've documented I'm not sure but it could have been simply handled by mentioning it on the talk page - "gee we need to relook at ____, something seems amiss." As for that reversion you note - it seems likely we got the AfD wrong. But my job isn't to fix every entry the list is connected to but to clean-u the list. You may have noted I also added refs when I re-added so the entry was a bit more clear as belonging. And RandyBlue is in fact a notable amateur porn site that produces ... gay porn films. Those references that, for example "Jack Foo" indeed has his own page at the site absolves BLP issues that we are listing Jack Foo as a male who performs in gay porn films. A site showing he does exactly that is perfectly acceptable. It would be nice to show more that the entry indeed is seen as needing inclusion but we aren't there yet. First everything there needs to be cleaned up, then we add context of who meets which various requires of Porn and GNG notability. Then we have actual ground to state here is what an entry needs to be included or not, as is most of all the articles and listing are only part way there and all of the articles have been targeted in various ways removing content. Speaking of which, almost every case you've brought up, possible all of them, you simply been wrong - or at least mistaken - and a bit of research shows we generally had it right. This echos my experience on other lists that needed clean-up. Yes, they were vandalized but surprisingly just a bit of clean-up generally fixes any concerns, and once cleaned-up the vandalism ebbs away as it's easy to detect what is or is not correct. -- Banjeboi 20:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

if they have Misplaced Pages articles and the Misplaced Pages articles support the listing, it is not a BLP violation. If there is debate about the inclusion, the place to discuss it best would be on the article for the person involved. The question is the many redlinks. If any are red because Misplaced Pages articles were deleted, then clearly those names must be deleted here also. But for most, an assertion of an awards is made--if these awards are considered sufficient to justify their notability (I can not tell that , for this is not one of my usual subjects), then by our usual practices they could stay while the articles are being written--but I could also see making this list an exception and removing them until that time. I see no discussion of BLP issues on the last few months of the talk page, so I suggest that raising this is perhaps not really warranted--certainly it is not justified to say they are not resolvable. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with trying to set some rule like - delete redlink if the article was nuked at AfD is that we often get it wrong, I likely could have saved Mark Wolff if I had seen it as he does seem to fly over GNG, if not also PORN. Those discussions live or die if someone like myself knows where, and has the time to look. Anyone notable before 1995 or so has an impressively uphill battle as most of the publications that did cover them aren't online, so only having some massive vault and the resources to access it would have saved it. The industry has greatly changed but almost all actors who did more than a dozen movies - and note most of the gay porn articles that list movies were chopped down to six or less entries (sigh) - appeared in numerous light porn magazines, photo spreads and did both softball and indepth interviews for them. They also did mainstream gay press but most of those are also offline. As time allows I'm happy to give an insightful opinion on any of these issues and whether a good article as a stand-alone is possible. However I see a list as solving a number of issues including that our readers who want this information will basically get what they're looking for without having dozens of stubs that linger unloved. When an editor is inspired to launch a new article we can see what potential it has. until then a list is a great way to keep it all in perspective. -- Banjeboi 22:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I don't think anyone here has suggested that the problems are unresolvable. In fact, I suggested a working group so that this could be tackled cooperatively (including the linked articles) rather than the edit-revert dance that is happening now. It should be clear from the discussions on the talk page why I didn't raise the issue there. It would not have been productive or gotten other editors involved. As for the red links, WP:SAL advises "Don't use a list as a "creation guide" containing a large number of redlinked unwritten articles". Clearly if the article has been deleted on notability grounds the red link should be removed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindenet) The list looks basically sound to me, since entries are referenced. But the redlinks clearly cannot remain as they are. I'd suggest we need to:

1. remove the redlinks where the article has been deleted on notability grounds - in these cases there is currently a consensus that the subject does not merit an article, so we should certainly not be inviting one. If AfD got it wrong, then DRV is available - meanwhile we have to write respecting current consensus, not ignoring it and presuming it was wrong.
2. In other cases, we either need to remove the redlinks, or pipe them to Joe MacSmith (porn star). Otherwise there is a high risk that the next article that gets written under that name is a different Joe MacSmith. We know that's a real risk, because it had already happened in numerous cases here, and it is a regular complaint in OTRS that names are wrongly linked to a different individual. In the case of porn, that's not a BLP risk we can take.

Such moves should satisfy BLP and allow the article to exist without undue interference with its purpose.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Forcing redlinks, on just this or just porn articles, to a default disambiguate seems like a really bad idea. Is this a suggestion from the OTRS folks? How widespread is this actually and why can't simply resolving each cases as it comes up - like we seem to do with everything else - not work instead. This may be well intended but again feels more alarmist. Is there some documentation on this being a major OTRS issue? -- Banjeboi 03:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You may find that people who don't work in the industry are more cautious about mistakenly labelling someone as a porn performer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems quite disingenuous. No one is adding ___ is a performer in gay male porn on BLPs as this entire alarmist thread implies. Instead we are talking about wikilinks that go to the wrong articles and are easily cleaned-up that is being addressed. had you bothered to mention this on the talkpage likely it would have been a lot less dramatic and achieved the exact same result. Sweeping together multiple clean-up issues does not change that these are ordinary clean-up issues. If you have evidence that someone is maliciously adding is misleading wikilinks knowingly violating BLPs that would definitely be cause for alarm. But this is a simple clean-up issue and likely should be handled as such. In part I find this whole thread discouraging as it takes away energy from dealing with more pressing actual BLP violation s that are complex and deserve attention. FWIW I have committed to getting every listing confirmed we have the correct person linked. -- Banjeboi 13:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - what I have said about this list applies equally to List of actresses in the MILF porn genre, which seems rather similar in structure. Compare either of these to List of pornographic actresses by decade which is simply a stand alone list. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Those too should likely be addressed on each lists' talkpage and maybe at the Porn wikiproject. -- Banjeboi 13:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of blog to source allegations of criminal wrongdoing by named individuals

On Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, a couple of editors are seeking to add a paragraph that implicitly accuses individuals of criminal wrongdoing and cites correspondence between specific named individuals in support of its claims. The paragraph in question is sourced solely to a blog. After another editor pointed out the BLP violation I removed the paragraph. The issue is being discussed at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#FOIA section restored - some second opinions would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's some of what I said on the article talk page: The blog is written by a journalist and hosted at the Science magazine website. The journalist wrote (emphasis added): "niversity researchers may find themselves in legal jeopardy if they deleted emails requested under the U.K.'s Freedom of Information (FOIA) legislation, a crime under U.K. law." Neither was Phil Jones or Michael E. Mann anyone else actually accused by the journalist of doing that. The blog is a news or news analysis blog at a reliable-source publication. WP:RS states: Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. The magazine is at least as reliable as a newspaper. Given Phil Jones' statement in the email, (Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise) it isn't "speculation" to say "if" and "may" -- it's called reporting. It's what news organizations do. BLP was not meant to squelch legitimate description of an encyclopedic subject important to readers. It certainly isn't meant to protect WP:WELLKNOWN people from legitimate scrutiny. Phil Jones heads up an organization that has produced some of the most important work that's gone into reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's most influential body related to climate change. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See also: The Guardian news story from 11/23 it emerged last week that hundreds of their emails and documents had been leaked that allegedly manipulated data and destroyed evidence for Freedom of Information Act requests. Jones has been called (by a writer in the Daily Telegraph) without doubt, one of the world's most influential proponents of the theory of man-made global warming -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

While I see no general problem with citing this blog under WP:RS or WP:BLP, because it's hosted by Science for straightforward journalistic purposes (as opposed to commentary/opinion), I'm uneasy about citing a science journalist's blog when the central claim involved is an opinion regarding the law. I think it would be prudent simply to wait and see whether similar analyses are made by other sources, or whether the issue is openly raised by participants in the dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

HW, you asked for other sources -- here are two more, so we have at least four reliable sources (Science magazine, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail) saying that Jones' statements call into question whether or not he violated Britain's FOIA:

• The Daily Mail in the UK: Although there is no hint of evidence that climate change is not real, the emails appear to show researchers manipulating raw data and discussing how to dodge Freedom of Information requests. (11/25) ;
• Daily Telegraph story: Thousands of documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) also seem to show that academics on both sides of the Atlantic discussed deleting sensitive emails to evade Freedom of Information requests from climate change sceptics. (11/24)
• Here's what Phil Jones wrote in one of the released emails (09:41 AM 2/2/2005):

Mike,

I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it ! ...

Does the passage ChrisO deleted still look like a BLP violation to anyone? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And why not have The Financial Times of the UK join the party (registration required, but it's free) -- referencing the very blog post that's the supposed BLP violation: Lesson 2: Don't evade Freedom of Information requests. As noted in the Science Magazine link above, many of the e-mails discuss how to destroy documents in anticipation of Freedom of Information requests. That's a criminal offense in the United Kingdom (where the CRU is located). IT folks should be aware that an increasing amount of data (particularly scientific and research data gathered via public funding) is subject to FOIA. They should work with researchers to ensure documents are stored and organized with that in mind. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the homework, John. I agree, CRU's apparent FOIA evasion may well be the central sticking point in the whole Climategate affair, and it's a serious disservice to our readers to omit this well-sourced account from our article. I propose speedy reinstating of the FOIA sub-section, with the added cites from User:JohnWBarber's work, as this discussion is now moot. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Serious disservice" is, of course, in the eyes of the beholder. One might conclude that it is a "serious disservice" to the reader to use these sources to highlight the alleged FOIA violation while omitting the Daily Wail's lead-in (characteristic of a number of such sources): "Although there is no hint of evidence that climate change is not real..." MastCell  06:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Funny you should highlight that. My recent edits to the article talk page was to suggest we add sources to the reaction section that made points very similar to that. Of course, the sources were only used for one thing here: The subject at hand -- FOIA. We have so many other, more qualified, sources -- including the ones I suggested -- making the same point you make and making it with more authority. JohnWBarber (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast, Pete. We've heard from precisely one (1) person who hasn't already staked out a position on the article, and he said he is "uneasy about citing a science journalist's blog when the central claim involved is an opinion regarding the law." The world won't end if we wait another day or two for more outside comments. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

when the central claim involved is an opinion regarding the law Not so slow, Boris. It isn't an opinion that Phil Jones' emails about deleting files and obstructing FOIA requests may be violations of FOIA law, it is an observation based on the facts of the Jones' comments and the fact of the FOIA law. And it's a common-sense observation. That's why five different reliable sources make it. The source from Science magazine happens to have been the one that reported on this point in greatest depth. And that depth comes from this source having asked a lawyer who works in the field as well as the UK government agency that deals with FOIA. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And the reality (as opposed to the speculative world), is that you (or the science blog writer) have no knowledge of whether any deletions were made of this kind. All you have is interpretation of an email, where you do not have the full context, you don't know if they were joking (for instance i've joked about killing my boss with others in company email) or a multitude of other explanations.. Separation of fact and speculation is something that apparently is rather hard to people in this case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Kim, you really don't seem to get it: Multiple reliable sources have reported this story. The two principles (Mann & Jones) have separately confirmed that the "Delete the emails, Mike" email is genuine. Jones is on record, in emails that he's confirmed "appear" genuine, to actively planning evasion (at least) of the UK FOI law on multiple occasions, and encouraging colleagues to do so. I'd be surprised if he still has his job when this affair is sorted out (no, this spec isn't for the article} -- and you natter on about "joking" or "a multitude of other explanations." Give it a break, OK? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Again separate fact from speculation - its a fact that the mails appear genuine (as stated by Mann and Jones) - the rest is your speculation, based on incomplete knowledge. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"... the rest is your speculation..." No, it isn't. It's good reporting, especially by Science's Antonio Regalado, who's been working for Science for may, many years, and has a good reporter's nose and a finely-tuned BS detector. And we can WP:Verify his reporting, with other reliable sources, which is THE bedrock principle of the WP project. I'm not sure why you can't see this, but your position is (imo) untenable. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that speculations about legal issues on a science journalists blog, while interesting as such perhaps, isn't encyclopaedia material. The situation will most likely become clearer in the following weeks or months. WP isn't news, there's no hurry.
—Apis (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Kim, Chris and Apis, the issue of whether or not Jones and the others may have violated FOIA is -- just that: a public issue. If it were a very minor part of this subject and unimportant, or if these people were unimportant, I think you might have a point on humanitarian grounds, which are very good BLP grounds with marginally notable people. But the fact is, in terms of public policy, these are some of the most influential scientists in the world. Their work was influencial in IPCC reports, which are one of the reasons, to give one tiny example, that I walked by Priuses and other hybrids in the parking lot as I headed home tonight. Good science implies openness with data. That these scientists went so far in avoiding openness that five news organizations have brought up the possibility of FOIA violations is simply important. Since most of the coverage doesn't emphasize this, it's reasonable to say that this aspect of the subject doesn't warrant emphasis in the article, but WP:UNDUE has a flip side: this is important enough to include in the article. Whether or not Jones and the others actually violated FOIA is not the issue we're here to try to solve -- the point is that the revealed emails and other documents raise questions because on their face they look like (a) a lack of openness; (b) subverting the peer review process with bullying and politicking; (c) covering up bad practices. These are the issues brought up by various influential commentators -- for instance, this commentator (These e-mails depict the scientists of the CRU in the worst possible light: manipulating data to reach preordained conclusions, disparaging critics, stonewalling legitimate requests for information.) -- as well as other sources we wouldn't use). Some of the commentators -- in fact, quite a few -- who are critical of what's in the revealed documents are themselves not AGW skeptics, which should tell you that it isn't bias that's motivating all of the criticism, but real concern. Now you can admit or deny that there are real concerns out there (have any of you admitted that?), but those concerns, expressed by influential commentators and by scientists, are an essential part of this subject, which is a public controversy. Policy allows criticism and negative information on aspects of a subject that are integral to its notability. From WP:BLP: 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. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

FOIA complaint filed, government officials have opened an investigation. Clearly they think there's something worth noticing here. Source; Daily Telegraph. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It means nothing of the sort. The ICO is obliged to investigate non-vexatious complaints ; that has no bearing on whether the complaints have any merit. The fact of the ICO's response is noteworthy but no conclusions can be drawn from it. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, despite the fact that you started this thread, you have been completely unresponsive to almost all of the evidence I've put forward, referring to and quoting from WP:BLP, citing reliable sourcing and showing how, when Misplaced Pages covers the fact that questions have been raised in public, in prominent publications, about whether there were FOIA violations, fair coverage of that is not a BLP violation. You have no consensus anywhere that there is a BLP violation here because you no longer have an argument for it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You are not citing "evidence".. You have cited opinion of individuals primarily (the few RS's that you've cited are relating/repeating opinion from various people). The fact that you think its evidence goes a long way in explaining the problems. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"the few RS's that you've cited are relating/repeating opinion from various people" - Actually, we rely on WP:RSs for fact checking. If they print it under their own auspices we can accept it as reliable. Where they got it from is irrelevant for our purposes. --GoRight (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

2 opinion articles. Yep really really good BLP material. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is really good BLP material, since criticism is allowed in BLP articles. If magazines and newspapers with a professional knowledge of libel are printing commentary that contains criticism, that is relevant to WP:BLP. News articles that report on the matter, such as the Science magazine news blog, are best for sourcing facts in the article. There is no BLP violation in the passage ChrisO took out of the article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"New articles...such as (a) blog"... Hmm. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you read my first comment in this thread, the one where I quote WP:RS on just that point? Hmm? JohnWBarber (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is just speculation and it's from a few people who really don't carry much weight when it comes to judging the legal status of such matters. If there is any truth to any of this it will cause big headlines soon enough. No point in inserting wp:libel sourced from blogs.
—Apis (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You've ignored my previous comment, which refers to my first comment in this thread about news-organization blogs. There is no speculation involved in an "if ... may" statement -- it simply explains where the legal liability is, and the reporter sources that to a British legal expert. Here, let me put it right in front of you where you can't miss it: According to Hazel Moffatt, a partner in the litigation and regulatory department at the law firm DLA Piper in London, deleting emails subject to a FOI request is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, punishable with a fine. “It’s quite naughty to do that,” said Ms. Moffatt. Here's a statement issued by the ICO, the UK government agency that handles FOIA law: Destroying requested information outside of an organisation’s normal policies is unlawful and may be a criminal offence if done to prevent disclosure. The ICO has specific guidance relating to the destruction of requested information that can be found on our website. Please try to follow the discussion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously this should be included; it's one of the biggest questions any astute reader will have, and therefore it's just a waste of the reader's time to hide the existing research (I searched in vain for an answer when I heard the story). There's also no reason to think it is inaccurate that evading FOIA requests is a crime andno reason to doubt the reliability of the Science journalist. The word may conveys that the full circumstances will be determined in (or out) of court. Sidenote: we are not legal advocates on Misplaced Pages, and we should be presenting the full picture to each other. ChrisO's introduction, calling the Science blog "just a blog" (no mention of Science), was clearly disingenuous. Behavior like that needs to be called out discouraged to the fullest extent, because it wastes everyone's time. For the particularly legalistic among us, WP:RS has a sentence on these "blogs" which reads: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". I'm really disappointed in the behavior of some of the most dedicated global warming article editors here. II | (t - c) 05:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A primary source by the victim of an alleged crime is being directly cited to state that a crime has taken place. Those supporting the citation argue that the alleged victim is the best source of whether the crime took place. The current discussion is at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Citations_for_allegations_of_criminality Andjam (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not fundamentally a BLP issue, since the statement being cited is not about any identified living person - the identity of the culprit is not known. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Would that equally mean that Ibn Warraq shouldn't be covered by BLP (currently he is) because we don't know his real name? Or is there a difference? Andjam (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference. The University of East Anglia has said in at least two separate statements that (I paraphrase) "someone hacked our server and stole a number of files". No individual is identified and the university is the only source competent to make the statement that (a) its server was hacked and (b) its files were stolen - both of those things relate to property in the exclusive ownership of the UEA. Ibn Warraq, whoever he is, is an identified individual about whom a range of biographical information is known. It doesn't make any difference from a BLP perspective whether he's identified by a pseudonym or his real name - the point is that he is a specific identified person. Absolutely nothing is known about the person who hacked the UEA server. Now, you might have a point if the UEA had accused a specific named individual of the hack and theft, but it hasn't, for the obvious reason that it doesn't know who did it. Note that this only bears on who is responsible, not on whether the crime took place. There is no dispute whatsoever in reliable sources that the files were stolen: the UEA has been explicit on this point.

Here's a point of comparison for you. The top story on Misplaced Pages:In the news at the moment is 2009 Nevsky Express bombing. The Russian government has said that the incident was a terrorist attack. Since it's the investigative authority and owns the property that was attacked, it's the authoritative source on the incident. It's not an "alleged" crime and the 25 people killed are not "alleged" victims - the occurrence of the crime and the victims' deaths are hard facts. There is no BLP issue about quoting the Russian government's statements that the attack was carried out by unknown, unnamed terrorists. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Russian, but I can't spot any press releases being cited, just secondary sources. Andjam (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The pages relating to the UEA/CRU incident also cite secondary sources reporting the UEA's statements that the server was hacked and the file was stolen. In the interests of accuracy, the UEA's own words are quoted verbatim from its press releases, but secondary sources are also quoted in the article describing the incident from a second-hand perspective. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently, a mix of primary sources and secondary sources are cited to describe the actual events. Only the latter should be used, with the primary sources only used to describe UAE's comments. Andjam (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas_Gonzalez_(doctor)

An anonymous blog was used as a source in a biography of a living person. I removed it; another editor stated that blogs may be reliable sources and put it back. The blog is not by the subject, is highly critical of the subject, and is anonymous. This seems in opposition to the principles on the BLP page. --Golgibody (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a tough one, since I largely agree with the criticisms in the blog... but it probably shouldn't be in the biography. It might be a reasonable source for articles on the general question of nutritional therapies for cancer, but doesn't seem to meet the bars for blog sources set forth in WP:BLP. MastCell  06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Abuse in edit summary on 1948 Palestinian exodus

An editor has removed content from this article. In the edit summary, s/he claims that the source, a respected academic and historian, is "a discredited extreme leftist liar". Such a comment in the article or talk page could easily be removed as a breach of BLP policy. Is there any way to remove this from the edit summary? RolandR 12:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a way to remove that edit summary without oversight (WP:RFO). You can give that a shot. Aditya Ex Machina 14:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

actually, there is another way. I deleted the article, then restored it without that edit. It put a bit of a load on the servers, as the number of revisions is just within the limits for doing that without asking a developer. We will soon have a way of handling this sort of thing more properly ourselves as administrators. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:REVDEL, acceptable under WP:REVDEL#2 or maybe #5 (I think) nableezy - 05:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Defending America for Knowledge and Action

The article on Defending America for Knowledge and Action is seriously NPOV and has many unsourced defamatory statements. Ma_chups 12:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It was hard to get a read on the POV, but I have removed some coverage of disparaging statements made by the man behind the organization against a university PR functionary and a college student that were sourced only to the man's editorials in Front Page Magazine. They were pretty over-the-top BLP vios -- disparaging claims are not self-sourcing. Even if true and sourced, the fact that a provocateur gets in a pissing match with a PR agent, or wins a small claims court judgment against a college student, is not noteworthy and is not sufficient basis to besmirch their character here on Misplaced Pages. I'm also concerned that the organization itself is not notable. It's a front for a single person's extreme political agenda and as far as I can tell involves nobody else. There is a single reliable source, a rather long and well-written profile in the SF Weekly, a free weekly paper that itself has uneven editorial oversight. It's a very interesting article but I don't think it evidences notability by itself - that paper likes to publish long portraits of obscure people and organizations. If the organization were notable, surely there would be other mentions. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The article clearly states that the allegations were made by Kaplan alone. More to the point, there are plenty of Anti-Israel and left-wing organizations which have entries in Misplaced Pages that promote their own views from their own sources and include diatribes and insults against those with whom they disagree. Besides, Kaplan was making specific allegations against Burness, not simply making insults. It is my concern that BLP is being used disingenuously to censor events which may reflect negatively on persons are groups which are anti-Israel or left-leaning. With regard to the claims that this article is libelous, could you please specify which statements meet this criteria. All of this information has been published on several websites and deals with an incident that occurred several years ago. And there is no debate that Salahi did start a website that criticized Kaplan, that Kaplan sued him in small claims court, and that he ultimately won $7,500. This is a statement of fact that even Salahi admits is true (he has posted numerous rants about this on the Internet). Why this section in particular was deleted (I have restored it) remains to be explained.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

It doesn't matter that the article states that Kaplan alone made the allegations. Nobody other than Kaplan has covered Kaplan's allegaionts. Hence, they are not reliably sourced. If you feel there is some inappropriate anti-Israel stuff on the encyclopedia please deal with it or bring it to others' attention. That is no reason to introduce inappropriate anti-Arab stuff. Kaplan's so-called allegations have no basis other than Kaplan himself. Kaplan is a young extremist rabble-rouser. There is no reason to think that his personal account of alleged grievances while carrying on a radical agenda merit reprinting those accusations in the encyclopedia. The websites on which this are published are all fairly notorious agenda-driven websites, not reliable sources. Yes, one college student lost a small claims judgment - is that the stuff of encyclopedias? If you read the sources the judge admonished both parties for their "immature" antics, and asked them rhetorically if they had something better to do with their lives. A backwaters small claims court case does not rise to the level of reprinting here for the world to see, particularly on the charged issue of Arab/Israel recriminations. If we can't get some sanity in the article, the article itself ought to just be deleted. There seems to be nothing notable about this person's personal organization. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In your response, you accused me of introducing "anti-Arab stuff" into the article. Please enlighten me - What "stuff" that I added to the article was "anti-Arab?" My additions dealt entirely with allegations against specific people without any reference to their ethnicity. If you are going to accuse me of this, you should be prepared to back it up. Second, you describe Kaplan has "a young extremist rabble-rouser." The fact that he takes a pro-Israel approach to his work and sharply criticizes people who sharply criticize him does not make him an extremist. It's true that some of his tactics (e.g. going undercover in disguise) are certainly unorthodox and vexing, but suing someone whom he claimed had libelled him (and criticizing someone whom he believed was abusing his position to support an agenda) does not make him a radical.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

None of that is relevant, or under consideration here. You were saying we should include Kaplan's accusations against people (which, observing the obvious, on their face represent a radical pro-Israel, anti-Arab agenda) because in other articles we allow comparable allegations by those opposed to Israel. That's not the way it works. WP:BLP, WP:N, and WP:RS apply to all articles and are not relaxed in the interest of two wrongs making a right. If other articles have the same problems they need to be fixed as well. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

How is Kaplan's criticism of Burness and his lawsuit evidence of "a radical pro-Israel, anti-Arab agenda?" (Hyperionsteel (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

I do not claim they are evidence of that agenda. Rather, they represent it. The only way in which the agenda is relevant to the BLP violation is that you said we should include it because elsewhere there is equivalent content about anti-Israel organizations. Take away that argument you made and it doesn't matter what his agenda is: a BLP problem is a BLP problem. I'm not sure whether you are proposing anything here or not. As far as I'm concerned the article is now trimmed, as modestly as possible, to stay barely on the right side of the BLP policy: the litany of accusations Kaplan made against the PR official is replaced with a more general statement that says he made accusations, and the arguments he made surrounding the small claims court case against the student are condensed in favor of simply saying he won. That way the article mentions the facts of what happened without repeating claims sourceable only to Kaplan. The citations remain, so any curious reader can follow the links to find them. If you're okay with that, the question of where Kaplan's politics lie becomes moot. If you find articles where anti-Israeli activists (or anyone else) make comparable accusations sourced only to themselves, I think you should remove those too, and if people editing the articles object and you think it's a significant enough issue, bring it here and I'll back you up if I notice it. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

While I still have my concerns, I feel that the current version is best compromise that can be reached at this time.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

Good :) I'm serious about my offer, any problem articles you spot I'm happy to help. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sanjiv Tripathi

• Sanjiv Tripathi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I do not understand all that is happening here. Initially, I observed a page blanking and contacted the editor to offer some advice. They responded politely on my talk and blanked the page again. Looking at the article history, and the creator's talk page history, it appears it may be a re-creation of a deleted article. I do not know if the subject is notable, if the cited sources are reliable or if the treatment of the subject is unbalanced. In short, I need other eyes, please. // Tiderolls 16:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

imo, it is clearly an attack page, the ctations, (for what they are) look suspect, I suggest a speedy deletion, the ip has blanked it, so now is a good a time as any to delete it.Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted as a BLP violation and a repost of material already deleted after OTRS complaint.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Marcel Diallo

• I've just restored some disputed content to this article. It looks to me like it was properly sourced and only removed so that there would not be any negative content in the article, but maybe I'm wrong, so I'm reporting it here to get more eyes on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A diff would help since there may have been various revisions since you posted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Traian Băsescu

High-profile. Appart from the general poor state of this article, the current dispute is whether ongoing event's (until December 6) information (which is highly controvesial, and 100% political) should go to the section "2009 Presidential campaign" or to a separate article Romanian presidential election, 2009 with a resume to be added after that to the bio.

Previously (during the last two days), there was also a dispute about whether the "Controversies and criticism" section should contain all such info (about 1/2 of the article is controversy and criticism, which is quite unfortunate for a BLP), or if in cases where it is possible, the relevant criticism info should go section by section into the bio. I managed to convince the other editors that the latter course of action is more logical. Or if I did not convince them, they let it now be so.

Thank you for your help. Dc76\ 05:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

All edits in the last week were sourced only with reliable sources (mainstream International and Romanian media), and all opinions were attributed. The info are strictly about the subject of the article, not about the general Romanian campaign (his counter-candidate even declined to comment at all on the subject). Yes, the article is about 50% about controversies surrounding Basescu, but this is just because he is a very controversial person, and the mainstream media is predominantly critical of him. Since Misplaced Pages is sourced with reliable sources, we can't just put info sourced from blogs or internet forums just to "equilibrate" the article. There's no requirement to present positive and negative aspects 50:50, when the sources clearly concentrate on the negative aspects (again, the sources are all top mainstream non-tabloid Romanian newspapers).Anonimu (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone

Goldstone is/was a member of Human Rights Watch as evident from HRW's 2008 list and bio of Goldstone mission members. It is unclear whether he is still a member of HRW or not, and if not - when and under what circumstances he left.

Professor Gerald Steinberg of the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor and journalist Melanie Phillips said that judge Goldstone was a member of the Human Rights Watch board, resigning from it only after the UN Fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict began (see also primary source of Steinberg's words).

Is it OK to leave the Steinberg/Phillips statement, provided that it is not stated as fact but attributed to them and sourced to Haaretz and Spectator respectively? --Sceptic from Ashdod 09:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is, as long as you explicitly attribute it to them, and don't take any POV-ish stance on the issue. Aditya Ex Machina 08:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If two WP:RS says he is no longer a member, use first sources to say he was and latter to say he is not. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Tahir Abbas

Recently, this edit added information to the Tahir Abbas article alleges plagiarism based on this source. User Drtahir007 (talk · contribs), who claims here to be the subject of the article (or a colleague of same), has attempted several times to remove the information, but it has been restored.

Although the information is sourced, I believe this person qualifies as being relatively unknown, and WP:NPF applies. That policy requires in part that "potentially damaging information corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources...". At present, the information in question is single-sourced. I have removed the content in question, but suggest a further review of the situation by those more familiar with policy. Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I must strenuously disagree that WP:NPF applies here. This is a much-abused policy: it is typically applied as "well I've never heard of him". Abbas is a very willing public figure, happy to give interviews to the press whenever asked. His career depends entirely on having gained the expertise and recognition that brings reporters and others to go to him when they need a source on the topics he writes about. In this there is no doubt he has been successful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My views on this aren't as 'strong' as Nomoskedasticity above, but I agree that Tahir Abbas does not fall under the criteria of the 'relatively unknown people' whom WP:NPF is supposed to protect. Aditya Ex Machina 08:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, FWIW there is another source now on this issue. I have also framed it using language "was reported to" rather than bare assertions. All together, this ought to be sufficient to assuage concerns. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As of now, the content in question should be kept on the article because a second reliable source has been added. Netalarmtalk 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 14:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Drtahir007 (talk · contribs) indef for continuing disruption. Secret 15:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Robert Campagnola

Robert Campagnola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- need a clean from unsourced and self promotional material. Wikid 10:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Explain your need more clearly, please. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

need some BLP opinions on Diana Napolis

the article is about someone who reportedly suffers from a "delusional disorder", was charged with 'stalking' steven spielberg and also charged with making death threats against jennifer love hewett. the issue is that i dont believe the article should link to her personal blog, which does probably qualify as her official site, but adds no encyclopedic content. i believe that linking her site might have a deleterious effect on her mental health as 'legitimizing' rantings via a link from the encyclopedia might further propagate potentially delusional ideations. please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Diana_Napolis#linking_her_homepage and comment on whether this is a policy or editorial issue, and whether linking her site is in the best (or any) interest of the encyclopedia. Theserialcomma (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

what would ever make you think that i'm diana napolis? that makes no sense. if i were, i'd just take down the blog, and then the link would be removed as it'd be dead. and what would ever make you think that you can attempt to WP:OUT an editor, even if it's a ridiculous failure to out me? it appears that this situation might require admin intervention due to probable sockpuppetry and insane accusations. i believe that hipcrite is probably a sock of someone. i'll look into this more. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that if you are going to have a whole article filled with allegations about a minor figure, at least you should people a chance to see their viewpoint. What is done with other figures accused of crimes who put up their own pages? I see for example a link to a Leonard Peltier advocacy page and Jonathan Pollard's website. She should be treated the same, with link allowed to stand. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, we've gone from satanic ritual abuse, to how to handle mentally unstable biographical subjects, to outing, to accusations of sockpuppetry, in the first three posts. If the individual is notable they belong in the encyclopedia. This particular individual seems fairly notable for doing a number of strange, scandalous things that got her a lot of media coverage: being one of the more prominent accusers in the satanic child abuse witch hunts, and stalking celebrities. We generally don't include unproven allegations, unless the allegations themselves are noteworthy. In this case it's well-documented incidents and a guilty plea resulting in jail time. This being an encyclopedia rather than a courtroom, external links are to share encyclopedic information, not to give article subjects a chance to argue their case. Normally a bio subject's official blog / site is a valid external link, particularly if it is in part the subject of the article. However, there are sometimes good reasons to leave them off - hate or defamation sites, copyright violations, etc. I'm on the fence here. I see no reason to protect her from herself, but I question how much it adds to an understanding of things to kee the link. Wikidemon (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• i've posted about this situation to WP:ANI ] because i think the whole situation requires more scrutiny Theserialcomma (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nick Collins (composer) and Click Nilson

Two biographies recently started by the same author, about possibly non-notable persons. Given that their names are anagrams of one another, they were born in the same year, work in the same field, and both are associated with the University of Sussex (though not mentioned in Nilson's article, the info is online ) I am suspicious that Nick Collins (composer) and Click Nilson are the same person. I've left a message on the author's page , to no response yet. Another pair of eyes would be appreciated.... 99.155.206.57 (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Click may be a stage name of Nick Collins, though we'd need a WP:RS to say so. Looks like same guy in photos. I'd say get rid of Click and put a note on Nick's web page with link to article asking for more info, including WP:RS that they are the same guy. Article has potential and guy may be WP:Notable soon enough. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Edzard Ernst

The entire first section of this article is written in a biased and potentially libelous manner. It is opinionated and unreferenced, clearly being based on the author's personal beliefs. The contents include personal attacks on the subject's character and qualifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poonster (talk • contribs)

Ah. That's pretty clear vandalism - anyone can remove it, and I've gone ahead and done so. I'll keep an eye on the IP in question. MastCell  17:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution