Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:03, 15 January 2007

• 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

Jean Brault Template:Blpwatch-links

This article about a Canadian political scandal cited only other Misplaced Pages articles in stating that he had committed crimes and been convicted. I blanked all but the initial sentence, on the theory this constituted "poor sourcing" and because I could not access all the refs in the related articles Charles Guité and Sponsorship scandal to verify the details about this individual. Is that the correct course? Sponsorship scandal has a great number of refs, Charles Guité only has 2 and Jean Brault had none. Can an article about crimes by a living person rely on references in another article? How about when the link is dead like the one in Charles Guité about his conviction? Edison 22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No of course not. When it comes to putting negative information into the biographies of living persons, references must meet the highest standards of reliability to avoid liability. What you are describing is an outrage. Timelist 23:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be easy enough to copy the references into all the articles to which they were relevant. Just a comment. DGG 23:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

David A. Yeagley Template:Blpwatch-links

We could use some help at David A. Yeagley, where at least two anon IPs have repeatedly blanked the entire article and substitute a "hatchet job" bio containing negative unsourced statements. It's been going on for some time now and has escalated to the point of edit warring. I have left messages on the discussion pages of the anons, but in vain; they refuse to use "discussion" or edit in good faith without blanking the original text.

The offending editors are 64.238.136.39 and 216.177.172.11, with very similar edits having also been made by User:Brent Michael Davids, User:Verity Truth, and 162.83.249.112. An IP check is probably in order due to possible sock puppet activity to avoid 3RR or repercussions on the registered user names.

Thanks in advance for your help, Badagnani 02:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

129.115.102.13 has just joined in with the same behavior. Badagnani 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick Griffin Template:Blpwatch-links

Nick Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article contains libelous allegations of homosexuality/bisexuality. The editor of these allegations is extremely hostile to Nick Griffin and is obviously using this article to score political points rather than to make a contribution to a decent biography. I believe that speculations about his sexuality are in breach of Misplaced Pages policy but I also object to the prominence given to these allegations. The subject is a politician recently involved in high-profile court cases and elections but more prominence is given to the speculations about his sexuality than to either the court cases or the elections. (unsigned)

I have paired this section down.. It was a hatchet job full of weasel words. 1) the fact he's married with kids isn't relevant to his dislike for homosexuality or the allegations - that's just inviting people to make a morel judgement. 2) 'Allegedly provoked' - is pure speculation 3) yahoo groups is not a reliable source 4) 'so far has not taken up the invitation to sue him' - weasel words intended to suggest he's lying 5) 'According to some other sources, for example ' - NO one example will not do for 'some' 5) the allegation that Webster's sexuality was well known is inviting a conclusion by the reader. That again is weasel. Unless a relaibel source has drawn that conclusion, and we can report it, we should not infer it.

I fully expect to be reverted - so please do watch.--Doc 20:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How are accusations of homosexuality libelous? Sure, untrue claims should always be eliminated, but this is like saying accusations of being Catholic or left-handed are libelous.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Danielle Steel Template:Blpwatch-links

Danielle Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Yesterday, famous gossip columnist Liz Smith presented Danielle Steel with information in Danielle Steel that appears to be outrageous. However, the unfootnoted information has been there since September 2005 and Danielle Steel did not object to the information. See link. Thus, I did not delete the information. I put citation needed on the more outrageous facts and thought I would pass it on to the experts to decide what to do. Please review. Thanks.-- Jreferee 03:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't all that information be removed per Jimbo's comments? -- ReyBrujo 13:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! I removed any unsourced negative information, and also some of the excess personal details. Crockspot 19:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Steel didn't object to it doesn't mean it's okay to keep. She may just not think much of wikipedia or whatever. It is up to us to keep wikipedia to a standard we expect Nil Einne 12:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Anne Milton Template:Blpwatch-links

Anne Milton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A constituent, Tim Ireland, has an attack blog on Milton. This has been repeatedly reinserted and edit-warred over. As it stands there is a short para on coverage of the Ireland dispute in the press (fine by me) but the blog itself keeps creepong back in (not fine, per WP:EL, links to avoid). I have removed the link. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's an WP:EL thing though, not a WP:BLP issue. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Harlan Ellison Template:Blpwatch-links

• Harlan Ellison #Self-incriminating account of sexual assault in 1962 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I tried removing the offending material because the source is from a work of fiction, and there is considerable doubt as to whether the event actually took place. Other editors have also tried removing the text for the same reason. Yonmei continues to insert the libelous account, which is undoubtedly a personal attack on the biographical subject. The confusion lies in that Harlan touts this story as being true, as often fiction writers are want to do.

The source for the libelous account is from the story SCENES FROM THE REAL WORLD: I, THE 3 MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN LIFE, which appeared in a collection of fiction from STALKING THE NIGHTMARE copyright © 1982 The Kilimanjaro Corporation. From the dusk jacket of that book: ".... For the first time the author has embodied his belief that fantasy and reality have switched places in our time by including four essays he calls SCENES FROM THE REAL WORLD...." From Stephen King foreword from the same book: ".... one can almost see 'The 3 Most Important Things in Life' as a stand-up comedy routine (it's a job, by the way, that Harlan knows, having done it for a while in his flaming youth)...."

If we cannot be sure the events took place from a likely work of fiction, then how can we include this fictional anecdote as fact? The entire entry should be removed. 70.81.7.65 00:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Jill St. John Template:Blpwatch-links

Jill St. John is listed under American Scientologists, but I cannot find any evidence to support this.

• Unsourced/referenced category was removed. SkierRMH 03:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Afshar experiment Template:Blpwatch-links

• Afshar experiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Dispute, raging for several years, between Professor Afshar and various uncredentialed critics. Many of the statements can be considered to be libelous (and Prof Afshar takes them as such). The problem statements tend to be rather technical, but are along the lines of "Everyone knows that X=Y" with the implication of "Only someone incompetent would think otherwise". I've attempted to informally arbitrate over the years, but its not working. Some sort of banning/protection seems called for. // linas 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My recollection is that more of the pro-Afshar comments fit that description than the anti-Afshar comments. However, I haven't looked at the article in the past few months. Perhaps it's gotten worse. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pharrell Template:Blpwatch-links

• The page on Pharrell williams says he "plays guitar". This is not true, as his production partner Chad Hugo had to learn the guitar for their album "Fly or Die" specifically because neither of them could play the guitar. They previously used synths in place of guitar also for these reasons. I have tried removing this 3 times, but it gets automatically added back. The statement contains no source or reference anyway. He along with many others may at some point have played a couple of notes on a guitar (in the fashion that anyone could) to add to a backing beat, but he certainly doesn't play the guitar, and there is seemingly no evidence to support this. I however can find evidence to support what I've said above.

• • Have you added these comments to the Discussion page for him? That may solve this problem. MsDivagin 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross Template:Blpwatch-links

An anon contributor is removing whole sections of this article that are properly sourced on the basis that the material removed is too critical. Could some non-involved editors advise this user? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I presume you mean Rick Ross (consultant) since this is the one you appear involved in. Nil Einne 11:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dan Voiculescu Template:Blpwatch-links

User:Biruitorul called attention to it as a problem at Misplaced Pages talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board (I believe he has not worked on this article himself); looks to me like it has big BLP issues. Some of them might be solved by citation. - Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pete McCloskey Template:Blpwatch-links

This edit at least pushes the boundary. - Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Michael Langan Template:Blpwatch-links

The article is currently locked. However, there is a lot of material that is contentious, defamatory and potentially libellous on the talk page here. I tried to remove this edit from a newly created account twice, but it's been replaced by administrators who have shown occasional derision and bias toward the subject of the article and some of the editors who have edited out contentious content. I am a member of the bio Wikiproject, but am still not sure if I am communicating this important matter at the right location. Advice and help will be greatly appreciated! TIA --DrL 13:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how being called a "crank" is other than the opinion of the editor. It's clearly not suitable in article-space (unless sourced, possibly to Kevin Langan), but I don't see a violation in the removed text. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, you have recused yourself from dealings with this article in the past and it might be prudent to do so now. I don't know who "Kevin Langan" is but this seems to be a harassing comment on your part. It might be best to let a neutral admin make a call here. --DrL 14:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Before anyone wastes too much time investigating DrL's claims here, please be aware that the arbcom has ruled at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#Remedies that DrL and Asmodeus are both banned from editing on this topic due to aggressive and tendentious editing to inflate Langan's status. Any claims made here by these editors should be viewed in this light. FeloniousMonk 08:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Iraneditor Template:Blpwatch-links

I would like to file a complaint against the editor DMOSS. He obviously follows a hidden agenda in distorting the image of Alireza Jafarzadeh who is a major opponent of the Iranian regime. DMOSS very blatantly adds libel information about Jafarzadeh. His main source is the Iran Interlink site. This site belongs to the Iranian government’s Information Ministry. Along with a number of other websites, Iran Interlink’s only objective is to tarnish Iranian opposition figures and spread misinformation about them. This site is neither reliable nor unbiased. To get more information on it, please check: http://www.iranterror.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=47

http://www.iran-interlink.info/

http://www.iranterrorism.info/

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2160

DMOSS also removes any additions to Jafarzadeh’s bio that is not in line with his agenda of tarnishing his image. If you follow his other edits in wikipedia, you will notice a scheme to spread misinformation about opponents of the Iranian regime. He is in no way a fair and unbiased editor and should not be permitted to continue his smear campaign.

Richard Littlejohn Template:Blpwatch-links

I edited this article to remove a large number of unsourced controversial statements, which are plainly unacceptable under WP:BLP. However a number of users have insisted on reverting these edits, with one user describing them as a "whitewash". 217.34.39.123 13:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Much of what is being disputed is sourced and acceptable under WP:BLP, much of it is unsourced but not particularly negative, and some of it looks like attempts to build up 'guilt by association'. Needs more thorough investigation. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilan Pappé Template:Blpwatch-links

Several new users, including User:RanceRol, User:RanceRot, and User:Greenran have been adding defamatory remarks to this article. They are clearly sockpuppets for banned User:Fumigate and his many other banned sockpuppets -- see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/IP_check#Fumigate and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Szamuels. When one article is protected, this vandal apparently seeks another place to add his defamatory comments about both the subject of the article, and Roland Rance. Is there any way to prevent this continued harrassment and vandalism? RolandR 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Blpwatch

This article has been created by Ken Avidor. Ken Avidor is a known opponent (with few scruples) of Dr. Anderson's lifelong goals. I scanned the article and found at least one case of taking a quote out of context. The article focuses on local Minneapolis politics, which is not necessarily appropriate to a discussion of Dr. Anderson's achievements. In order to prevent a minor recurrence of the Siegenthaler incident I suggest a rigorous review of this article. Bob 04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC) (moved from WP:AN, Patstuart 05:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

I saw this while lurking AN/I, and took a look. Not only does the article suffer from a number of mis- or non-contextualized ironic statements, which standing alone present the appearance of a man who changes his opinion on his life's work with the wind, but it also features a large amount of redundant linking, which initially served to look like there was a LOT of opposition to his ideas. I took a whack at cutting the fat, and contetualizing some of it, but one quote absolutely had to go. I have NEVER heard of this guy before, but it's clean there's a LOT of POV-pushing going on at that article. ThuranX 05:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to block someone for willful POV pushing by creating an article about their enemy? I know there was the famous case where Misplaced Pages had to block the whole House and Senate because people kept on defacing their opponents' pages. Patstuart 06:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a long (one year) history with Ken Avidor, both here (see Talk:Personal rapid transit/Avidor) and off-wiki. He is virulently against PRT, and he has ridiculed PRT proponents on his web pages and blogs ( ). He commonly refers to Anderson as a "PRTista" and the "wacky professor". His anti-PRT campaign is so famous and widespread among the PRT community that there are two blogs devoted to debunking Avidor's claims ( - this one created by yours truly).

Having said all that, I've read the Anderson article and, compared to Avidor's typical work, it's actually not too bad. His opinions on this topic are so extreme that I honestly believe that this article is about as neutral as he is capable of producing on someone like Anderson. This is not to say the article is acceptable (ThuranX has already improved it significantly, and it still has a lot of issues), but rather, I don't think the POV pushing was necessarily "willful", or a sign of bad faith. I think it's entirely possible that this is his idea of neutral.

The question now is, will he fight changes to the article? He has already predicted (off-wiki) that "PRTistas (will) take a meat-axe to it...". So I think it would be best for those of us whom he views as proponents (User:Mr Grant, User:Dunning, and me) to avoid editing the article - maybe someone not associated with PRT can work on it instead? There's actually a lot of information there, and most of it seems pretty accurate, so it's really just a matter of toning it down.ATren 09:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Sarfati

I am following the procedure:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

The following in the article has been repeatedly reinserted.

I have to report it here, since the rule is being violated by two admins, FeloniousMonk and JoshuaZ, who have a strong ideological bias against the subject of the article, and are breaking this clear rule and the one against original research, and are hiding behind arbcom diktats to punish editors with opposing ideologies. How can we expect justice when it's admins who are guilty and heavy handed, unless we go above their heads?

He also accuses many origin of life researchers, such as David Bartel of MIT and Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute, of having a religious kind of faith,

although those scientists do not demonstrate any manifestation of religious faith.

He also misrepresents the work of ribozyme evolution. For example, he argued that the mutagenesis of those experiments employed high error rates, which would cause error catastrophe, but high mutation rates were needed in those experiments simply to reduce the amount of time it would take to satisfactorially mutate a population of ribozymes to a significant extent, as opposed to using normal PCR techniques. This link is just an ibid, so refers to which is Sarfati's own article, which would not support this critical paragraph. So this paragraph is unsourced and counts as original research as defined:

"Original research is a term used in Misplaced Pages to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. ... It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" Misplaced Pages:No original research. 58.162.2.122 15:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research?

I’m having a similar dispute on the biography of another living person, so I’d like to raise my questions here.

The first is that the transcripts from a criminal trial were published by a prominent local newspaper. Am I within Misplaced Pages’s rules in using those transcripts as sources, or is that considered original research?

My second question is illustrated by the following. One media report said the unidentified girl shown on the TV monitor in the courtroom was 11; a second report said she was 7. A third source said the monitor was positioned such that reporters couldn’t easily see it. There shouldn’t be any problem in including those three facts in the Misplaced Pages article as just stated (together with the sources). But I want to go one step further - just a small step - and point out that the third fact could EXPLAIN the discrepancy between the first two. (If the reporters couldn’t see the monitor clearly, then they couldn’t accurately estimate her age.) Now the third source doesn’t itself make this suggestion, so one COULD say that my suggestion is “original research”. But I would respond that it is merely PART of “collecting and organizing information” (see WP:NOR) - it’s a logical consequence of organizing the information - and is therefore permitted.196.15.168.40 04:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The main purpose behind the "no original research" policy is that you are not presenting your own theories or interpretations. In the first case, linking to the transcripts or citing them as a source is perfectly legitimate. In the second question, my opinion is that your new synthesis of the facts - the new conclusion that you draw - would constitute original research and would be inappropriate. BigDT 04:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

BigDT I think you forgot to mention that primary sources, such as court transcripts - must also have a secondary source in order to interpret them. Otherwise, it's very easy to misuse them. But please permit me to explain to you user 196.15.168.40. The article he is referring to is the David Westerfield article. He is a convicted child-killer. 196 has been trolling that article since March of 2006. 196 believes Westerfield was wrongfully convicted. At first, he stated he was here to correct the article and make it neutral. Well, all of that was done and yet he is still around. Thanks to him the article became the nicest article about a child-killer in all of wikipedia. 196 claims to "know a lot" yet he has never contributed to any article except the Westerfield one. When I bring that up to him, he claims that he doesn't have the time to contribute to other articles. However when he first came to wikipedia, to edit the Westerfield article, he was adding something new to it EVERY single day. So much so that an administrator was brought in to protect the article. Strange how he doesn't have the time now. Back then he had the time to contribute his bias and original research to the article. When he found out other users would thwart his efforts he toned down. 196 has made ALL efforts to make the article reflect Westerfield is innocent. Personally, I believe 196 is Westerfield's lawyers or knows somebody who knows the lawyers or are a relative of David Westerfield. A casual observer would not go through the lengths that he has made. For example, he is able to recite dates of testimony and who made them. Clearly the case is very close to his heart. So BigDT be careful what you tell this individual for he will surely find a way to abuse it. He has expressed contempt for the victims parents and blames them. If that's not enough he said deragotory things about the victim and her brothers. The victim is a 7 year old girl. To understand his bias go to the articles external link and go to link 8. Read the section he titled as "Guilty?"; he wrote the entire section. An administrator tagged the section as biased, but 196 conveniently saves the section without the tag. He cares nothing about wikipedia and has only remained here because wikipedia is available to anyone. Fighting for Justice 05:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to “Fighting for Justice”:

I posed two simple technical questions, and in reply you subject me to a long personal attack, only two sentences of which address those questions, and even that is wrong (just like the rest of your response). This shows the difference between you and other editors, like BigDT. Where does Misplaced Pages say that “primary sources ... must also have a secondary source in order to interpret them”? You removed important information from the Westerfield article even when I used secondary sources in addition to or instead of primary sources, so you are clearly just using this as an excuse.

You complain that, in the beginning, I added something new to the article “EVERY single day”. Those are the exact same words used by your predecessor, TripleH1976 - and it was he who asked an administrator to protect the article (something else you’ve got in common with him).

You speak as though it is BAD that I am “able to recite dates of testimony and who made them”. I’m not alone. This case generated considerable interest, resulting in vigorous debates including on internet discussion forums, which continued even long after the trial was over. Probably because the transcripts were published, MANY people were “able to recite dates of testimony and who made them”, even though they were not related to Westerfield or his lawyer. You - and Misplaced Pages - should be grateful that you have someone here who is actually KNOWLEDGEABLE about the case.

You believe the article is neutral. Let’s look at one current example. Westerfield was convicted of possessing child pornography. In fact, there is a WEALTH of evidence - most of it from law enforcement themselves - that he did NOT have any child porn. I added that evidence to the article, but you REMOVED it all (as did TripleH1976 before you). Yet you accuse ME of being biased! (So did he.) Quite apart from the Westerfield case, don’t you think the public would like to know what could happen to THEM, too? A zealous prosecutor could again override his own experts in his determination to obtain THEIR conviction.

I have been thoroughly disenchanted by this, my first experience of Misplaced Pages. I can see why it has a bad reputation. Just ONE determined vandal can effectively sabotage attempts to improve an article, and there’s NO guarantee that the administrators will intervene.196.15.168.40 05:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nelson Rockefeller

Despite repeated warnings user Tvoz has repeatedly violated the WP:Living rule regarding the Nelson Rockefeller entry. At the time of Rockefeller's death in 1979 there was much speculation, but no facts, regarding what happened. Tvoz had made multiple attempts to add salacious rumors to the effect there was a young women (he names her) involved, she had an adulterous relationship (this story follows details on his marriage), she helped cause his death from heart attack during sex, she had a motive for seeing him dead (named in his will), and she tried to cover up the episode and mislead police. There was no official report or criminal charge or lawsuit and no witnesses--it's all gossip--and it clearly violates our policy about negative statements and insinuations about living people (the women is in her mid 50s now). Rjensen 06:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The above was posted to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I originally recommended the user post it here, but I copied it myself after finding out the user has been blocked for 24 hours. Please note I am not endorsing the summary, there has been some discussion on the talk page which provides a different view Nil Einne 20:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In my attempts at mediation, I have addressed these concerns on the article's talk page. However, I believe that Rjensen is not representing the case accurately. A quick flip through the history of this article confirms this: the user in question, Tvoz, has inserted citations from reliable sources to document the controversy that arose after Rockefeller's death. She has not made the claim that Rockefeller and Ms. Marshak were sexually involved, nor has she said that she had "motive". (The fact that Marshak was named as a beneficiary in Rockefeller's will shows only that they had some kind of relationship: it could very easily have been a platonic one.) Her edits have been to improve the neutrality of the information and to provide sources for the claims, and thus I do not believe that it is in any way a violation of WP:BLP. I will continue to monitor the situation. -- Merope 14:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen's comments above amount to a malicious personal attack on Tvoz, as she did none of the things described. Take a look at what Tvoz did add to the article: (her subsequent edits have added even more references and refined the text). Nelson Rockefeller died under unusual circumstances, something that gained wide press coverage at the time (for example, it was the subject of a Saturday Night Live skit ). Note that although it was widely assumed that Rockefeller died during sex with Marshack (such as in this CBC editorial ), the Misplaced Pages article has never said so, and has followed an editorial line similar to that of Time magazine, among others (), scrupulously adhering to WP:LIVING in regard to Marshack. Rjensen's sterile revert warring and willingness to throw wild accusations about show little understanding of consensus or Misplaced Pages's core policies, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. ProhibitOnions 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sol Leshinsky Template:Blpwatch-links

Although there is no mention in his biographical article, this person is listed on at least two (2) pages as a Soviet Spy, presumably while being a U.S. government official. The person is still living and (as is the case for nearly everyone on these 2 pages) is presumed to be a Soviet Spy based on his inclusion in the 2 pages mentioned below, even though he was apparently never indicted for this behavior. There is no citation or source for his inclusion, even from texts that may have suggested his spying - which unless it is posted as he was suspected, with of course the citations and/or sources, this is openly and clearly libelous. The 2 pages mentioned are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_secret_agents#Perlo_group Template:Blpwatch-links

http://en.wikipedia.org/Victor_Perlo#Perlo_spy_ring_members Template:Blpwatch-links

Additionally, it appears that one of the Misplaced Pages editors has posted a warning on the TALK page about adding slanderous material, implying that there have been previous attempts to libel or slander this person...

This should be removed immediately. In addition, these 2 pages wildly assert a number of other individuals as being spies without ANY supporting sources or citations. In fact, these 2 pages may be the most libelous pages on Misplaced Pages... Stevenmitchell 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Amy Reid Template:Blpwatch-links

Sorry, I don't normally do any editing or revision on Misplaced Pages, so my format here is probably all wrong.

Today one article I saw positively scared me. It's on the pornstar Amy Reid. Someone has edited her article repeatedly and over a long period of time.I'll quote some of the choicer nuggets:

"She likes to claim she was born in Germany but is a liar"
"She also is a girl with low self esteem who was teased all of her life. Her IQ was proven to be very low."

But what scared me was the more personal, stalker/psycho level stuff:

"I currently did research on her and will be willing to expose how much of a phony person she is."
"She thinks nobody in her family knows who she is, but they will find out soon."

Something about they will find out soon made me decide to go the extra step and suggest that maybe the article should be locked, or in some way prevent that user from continuing their personal vendetta. It's scary, but a person might graduate up from just posting threats online to something worse - like how serial killers start out just torturing animals. Anyway, if something could be done, I think it would be wise. I've already gone ahead and reverted it to a more or less ok version.Aghostinthemachine 02:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)aghostinthemachine

• I spotted the vandalism independently of your notice here and did some reverting myself. Hopefully whoever it is who's doing the vandalism will go away shortly... Tabercil 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ron Jeremy Template:Blpwatch-links

This article contained many potentially libelous statements with no sources. I have removed everything but a single sentence so that properly sourced material can be added back. Frise 15:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Clive Bull Template:Blpwatch-links

Helper1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a new account, is repeatedly inserting this edit, which among others claims that the subject (who is married) seduced a woman via his late-night talk show. The edit alludes to various podcasts which Helper1 has claimed are publicly available - I have asked for him to be more specific as to where to find them, and I don't believe that the current references to them are adequate verification - at best they are too vague. Helper1 continues to revert. The article has been a focal point for hoax vandalism in the past, and I would like some more eyes on this. I have tried a Google search and found nothing relevant on the web. --Sam Blanning 22:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert Mueller

A determined IP vandal has repeatedly, for several weeks, attacked this page, replacing the FBI director's bio with a description of a company unrelated to Mueller. Block IP edits? RickDC 00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

When you revert a vandal, please consider placing an appropriate warning tag from Category:User warning templates on their talk page. That way, if they continue to vandalize from that IP, they can be blocked. It doesn't look like it has been frequent enough for protection ... fyi, the place to request that is WP:RFP. I have watchlisted the page so if I see anything, I will revert it, but if you remove vandalism here or anywhere else, please put one of the "test" tags on their page so that they can be blocked as appropriate. BigDT 00:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy Template:Blpwatch-links

Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This book, published by Doubleday and written by Hoover Institute research fellow Peter Schweizer, contains chapters entitled things like, "Hillary Clinton — Greedy Speculator, Corporate Shrill, and Petty Tax Avoider" and "Ralph Nader — Bourgeois Materialist, Stock Manipulator, and Tyrannical Sweatshop Boss". Is listing these titles a violation of WP:BLP? // Lawyer2b 03:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, reporting "X said Y", if, in fact, X did say Y and either (a) X is a reliable source of information about Y or (b) your article is about X is ok from a BLP standpoint. But good grief ... this article needs help. It should not be giving WP:NPOV#undue weight to the author's claims and it really needs to cite SECONDARY sources of information about the book. BigDT 03:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is essentially a recapitulation of the book, with a lengthy quotations for most chapters (that is, for each liberal person being attacked by the author). For example, the section (in the Misplaced Pages article) that discusses the book chapter on Barbara Steisand is over 500 words long. It contains sentences like Although she claims that the working men and women of America deserve higher wages, her production company, Barwood Films, usually films in Canada, where she can pay lower wages and receive tax breaks that she cannot get in the United States.

I don't think that the article about the book could possibly be considered NPOV unless it summarized each chapter in three sentences or so; what's there is way too much like mini-articles that present only one point of view (the author's). John Broughton | Talk 22:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

An article about a book should be primarily based on secondary sources. It should talk about the impact of the book, about what people have written about the book. It should not be an opportunity to present the POV of the author without balance/context, and it should not violate content guidelines. Guettarda 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have examined a few dozen WP articles about controversial and non-controversial non-fiction books, and almost all of them consist primarily of of a description of the contents. I make no claim that this is a proper study--just what is known as "range-finding". DGG 23:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

John Orr

Would someone mind checking this out? I've read a reasonably reputable synopsis of this dude, so can't bring myself to remove stuff I know is accurate, but I suspect it is in a poor state. If not, let me know so I can stop worrying. Thanx 68.39.174.238 06:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC) (PS. I don't have on hand the source I'm referring to, so I can't use it to source this... ARGH!)

Periyar RamasamiTemplate:Blpwatch-links==

It is potentially libellous allegations without any any citations which I have asked for.The wording are not encyclopedic. 1: Periyar being likened to Hitler is potentially libellous as Hitler was responsible for millions of deaths whereas Periyar was not guilty of even one.Further no evidence or citation is given this comment.Periyar turned the offer to become the head of the Madras Presidency in 1939 after the Congress quit but he turned it down now to compare Hitler is wrong.

2:Brahmins:comments like The population of Brahmins in Tamil Nadu, which was about 10% in the 1920s, is today less than 3% as a result of persecution by EVR and his followers are strange as not even a Single Brahmin has been killed in the entire Dravidan movement. Further Rajaji,Jayalaitha and Janaki who were Chief Minsiters were Brahmins and ruled Tamil Nadu longer than any other single community and these statements are not backed by citations or evidence which are required.Jayalalitha is the head of a Dravidan Party

3: And the wording should be encyclopedic none emotional and contraversial lines like Within a span of 20 years, the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu, who had been living there for more than 2000 years, were turned into alien immigrants by the DK's propaganda. The speeches called for the elimination of Brahmins from Tamil Nadu, and the enslavement of Brahmin women. The speeches harkened back to an ancient Tamil glory, similar to Hitler's revival of ancient Germanic culture are not abcked by citations or Evidence

4:Further some one blanked His Childhood and Education.Even today there was mass deletion by 192.223.243.6 which was reverted 5:Only 1 name needs to be used either Periyar or EVR not 2 creates confusion to readers particularly foriegners.Periyar is how he is known.Tamil Nadu Government refers to him as Periyar.http://www.tn.gov.in/government.htm.He is refered as Periyar in Tamil Nadu Government. Periyar University is called named after him and Also, convention suggests that the most common name be used as far as possible in the text of the article Vandalism is done by 80.195.10.170 who vandalised the page 3 times .Harlowraman 10:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place for disputes about deceased persons. Please following Misplaced Pages:dispute resolution. Andries 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche Template:Blpwatch-links and related articles

These articles are being used to showcase the theories of three minor critics, Chip Berlet, Dennis King, and Tim Wohlforth. These three all have similar views, which are esoteric and out of the mainstream. It would be proper to devote perhaps one paragraph to their shared theories. However, two of them are editors at Misplaced Pages: Cberlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and they are very aggressive about promoting themselves and their viewpoints in these articles, and apparently in other articles as well. I believe that some of their allegations may be libellous, but because they have been published (or in some cases self-published) it is argued that they must be included in the articles. They also have friends at Misplaced Pages who support them (as seen elsewhere on this page.) I think at the very least there are violations of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. --Tsunami Butler 15:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

These three all have similar views, which are esoteric and out of the mainstream. Both Cberlet and Dking are published authors, based on their user pages (and following a link); I suspect they can recognize libel when the see it, before they put it in writing. And it's pretty clear that Cberlet and Dking think that LaRouche is, well, to put it mildly, a bit unusual. Which would tend to make their opinions on that matter the mainstream view, actually.

It would help if you provided some diffs here (or even specific wording that bothers you), rather than broad generalities. Details will give other editors a much better idea of what you consider "esoteric" and what you think might be "libellous". (As far as undue weight, that's really a matter for talk/discussion pages of articles, unless an edit war breaks out.) John Broughton | Talk 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, these three authors allege that LaRouche is a fascist and that he is in favor or some sort of totalitarian state. I consider this possibly libelous because LaRouche has campaigned for over 35 years against fascism. These three make insinuations, without offering evidence beyond a technique of "decoding" where Dennis King, for example, says that photographs of galaxies that appear in LaRouche-affiliated science publications remind him of swastikas. Wohlforth equates support for government regulation of the economy a la FDR with support for a totalitarian state.

LaRouche has mainstream critics, of course, but they generally criticize him for being a conspiracy theorist, and do not accuse him of conspiring to bring about dictatorship or, as Dennis King does, having a "dream of world conquest." I think that one would have to draw the conclusion that King, Berlet and Wohlforth are themselves conspiracy theorists, and their ideas might deserve some mention, but not a central place in a biographical article. --Tsunami Butler 22:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a diff from yesterday, where Cberlet inserts his own libelous allegations into the intro of the article. --Tsunami Butler 15:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Similar material was added by Dking here in the midst of a rather extensive re-write, and when the potentially libelous material was removed, it was re-added by Phil Sandifer here. --Tsunami Butler 22:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The general case has already been resolved in http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2 Dennis King is a respected and published author on LaRouche, and Misplaced Pages is lucky to have him working on the article. Why is Tsunami Butler publishing on every possible noticeboard then? Because Tsunami Butler is simply another LaRouche follower who is attempting to whitewash any negative fact about LaRouche. Please be cautious when reading any statement of Tsunami Butler because many of them are simply incorrect. Mgunn 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Arbcom com case cited by Mgunn was closed in February of 2005. The WP:BLP policy was first drafted in December of 2005, so BLP issues were never raised in the ArbCom case. Mgunn's interest appears to be POV-oriented, as his edits and comments demonstrate that he is a defender of the neoconservatives (as are King and Berlet,) and LaRouche is an outspoken opponent of same. As I understand it, WP:BLP policy applies universally to articles on living persons. --Tsunami Butler 15:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheri DiNovo Template:Blpwatch-links

A series of anonymous IPs, which all resolve to the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre in Queensland, Australia, has repeatedly inserted unsourced allegations that DiNovo, a Canadian politician, was involved in a bank fraud scam in 1992, was saved from prison only by agreeing to act as an RCMP informant, and has misrepresented other elements of her biography. Edit summaries have included inflammatory allegations that a "legion of NDP attack queers" is conspiring to protect DiNovo by burying this information; one of them, charmingly, directly addressed me as "Bearcunt". In the most recent edit, this mythical legion of NDP attack queers even found its way into the article itself.

This has happened six times now. I have tried addressing the matter of BLP policy on several prior occasions, but each time the allegations simply resurface again, posted by a different IP number that still resolves to the same institution. I expect that since they're posting anonymously, the person in question isn't even seeing comments posted to prior IP talk pages. I even tried at one point deleting and recreating the article to remove this claim from the edit history entirely, but as the matter has resurfaced again I've restored the deleted edits so they can be reviewed here. I've even tried searching both Google and the Toronto Star news database to investigate the verifiability of the claims, but whodathunkit? Not a single verifiable source to be had.

Since this happens at completely unpredictable intervals, I'd like a few people to keep it watchlisted just in case this happens again at a time when neither myself nor CJCurrie (the other user who's done reverts on this) are online. And if anybody has any other advice on how we can make this stop, I'm all ears. Bearcat 19:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: the article has now been sprotected; instead, the anon IP has taken to removing administrator comments about the non-negotiability of BLP from the talk page, usually replacing them with a personal attack against whichever Misplaced Pages user reverted the previous attempt to do this. They have also vandalized the user pages of several Misplaced Pages users involved in the dispute, including mine and User:Blue520's. It's really time for this nonsense to stop — what other recourse is there besides continually reverting? Bearcat 18:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Derek Smart Template:Blpwatch-links

This article violates Misplaced Pages's guidelines for biographies of living persons.

It has been the target of frequent wiki lawyering, edit warring, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:V and similar violations. The frequent violators would intimidate the new editors and then call in their friendly admins who then ban such newbie editors as a result.

The biggest problem is that for many years (since 1996), this prominent game industry developer was net stalked, harrassed and libeled by a certain individual named Bill Huffman, an employee at NCR and who lives in San Diego. This guy has run the gamut from instigating a kid who lived near Smart to find out where he lives, follow him around the neighborhood, to spearheading a search to find out information about Smarts newborn daughter. He created a libelous website, which according to forum and Usenet reports, has repeatedly been closed by Smarts lawyers, only to pop up elsewhere. His friends have tried in vein to have his site added to the wiki and now they have resorted to engaging in wars on the talk page as a result of this consensus rejection. All further attempts were also quelched and repeatedly so.

This Huffman character showed up on Wiki a short while ago and even though his edits are not permitted on the article, he has been using the talk page to inject his usual brand of harrassment and libel on other editors as well as Smart. Both actions which violate Wiki. Please see..

Commentary and Criticism of Smart

Marriages and Divorces

Going with the strict WP:BLP guidelines, I started to remove his libelous talk page comments, but this morning I am told that I cant do that, even though I know for a fact that I can.

This is what has been happening and I fear that if I continue to try and impose the wiki policies, that I would be blocked again as I have been in the past.

I offer evidence of Bill Huffmans contributions to date.

We need an admin to please come to the page, read his contributions and draw their own conclusions. For someone who has stalked another person for nigh on ELEVEN years, why would any editor think that Huffmans intentions and appearance on Smarts wiki are anything buy nefarious and an attempt to push pov? WarHawkSP 13:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. WarHawkSP is a single purpose account who has consistently been edit warring on the Derek Smart page. He's been blocked multiple times for 3RR and edit warring on that page, and consistently misinterprets the BLP policy to suit his needs: recently he unilaterally deleted talk page comments he disagreed with, citing BLP's ability to remove libelous material: the talk page comments were CLEARLY opinion, which does not constitute Libel under U.S. law, and were fair comment on a public entity. I strongly advise any decision makers on this topic to ignore his request. PS: WarHawkSP's request has been filed while under the guise of informal mediation on the topic. The fact that he would go behind the back of the mediation and make a claim here, though he did notify the talk page, is rather disingenious to me. ⇒ SWATJester 06:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You're just wiki lawyering. Anyone looking at my ban record shows that I've been blocked for the same things that I am reporting. In that you folks show favoritism to those who don't oppose you. I don't care if you agree with me or not. I clearly posted here because we weren't getting anywhere and its people like YOU who have made the situation go from bad to worse. People like you act like you are infallible. That nonsense you are posting about opinions, is just that NONSENSE. Anyone who understands anything to do with libel and opinion, can clearly read the links I posted and recognize them for what they are: libel. You have no clue what you're talking about and its people like you that gives others who are making their best effort on Wiki, a bad name. Where is the policy that says I have to clear it with you and your friends first before I can post a grieviance on a noticeboard? Where were YOU during all the other mediations that that the page has gone through? Have you even READ through the history? No. One of your friends calls you up to come and block someone, and the next thing you know - just like others before you - you think you have all the answers and then start taking sides. To any sane and neutral person, your post above, when compared to my complaint, just PROVES my point. Unlike you, who offers an OPINION, what I posted is based on FACTS because I have the cites to prove it.

At the end of the day, this person said it best. WarHawkSP 15:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've repeatedly warned WarHawkSP for incivility, and yet he continues with the incivility and personal attacks against me on this page now too. I think this is a pretty good representation of what's going on. This needs to go to ArbCom. ⇒ SWATJester 09:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It always easy to claim incivility when you're on the receiving end of a strong opinion. I consider your first post in this section to be uncivil; but you don't see me crying about it. It was not my intent to be uncivil, sorry you feel that way. WarHawkSP 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This edit war has gone on for over a year, this would best be solved by taking a case to Arbcom for review. Quinsisdos 16:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm relatively new to Misplaced Pages, after looking over Quinsisdos' link on Arbcom I would have to agree with him. After working for almost a month to improve the Derek Smart page, I think we've exhausted all the other methods of resolving disputes to no avail. I offer my personal experiences with the two incidents here and here as evidence.

1. Trying to improve the edit results in reverts, with rationale such as "I don't know why you're tinkering with this" and "It's fine how it is."

2. Talking about the edit, citing evidence and describing my rationale results in the other editor ignoring my comments. After disengaging for nine days to cool down, I assumed consensus was reached, since four other editors agreed with me and the other editor hadn't responded to my evidence, although he was active in other aspects of the article during that period. I made the edit, citing this fact. Within 12 hours, a revert was made with no rationale beyond, "consensus hasn't been reached."

3. As seen here and here, formal and informal mediation with third parties has been tried to no avail.

4. Finally, surveys and straw polls have been tried on several occasions; when a consensus has been reached, the other side will ignore it later, citing "lack of consensus", or the fact that the methods are non-binding.

I admit that I'm drawn to this article because of the increased...interaction between editors that I don't see with some of my other edits, but at this point, it's become tiresome. Therefore, I support taking this to arbitration. Cardinal2 20:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Kerr_avon Derek Smart is a game developer who is known not for the quality of his games which have all been critically panned but for his aggressive and foul mouthed defense of his said mediocre games, which have generated >50,000 USENET postings. As such most commentary by authorities in the gaming industry and game reviewers on him in the internet are critical of him and bear citation and inclusion in his biography which does not contravene wiki guidelines as the sources are reliable and reputed. He was single handedly responsible for the longest running flame war in the USENET history, a fact which could be attested as when he stopped taking part in the discussions the flame war ended. The Derek Smart article edit war was mainly due to the SPA's WarHawkSP (talk • contribs) and Supreme_Cmdr (talk • contribs) whose IP addreses originate from fort lauderdale florida (Please see the talk page Talk:Derek_Smart) which is where Derek Smart resides. As such the biography possibly falls under WP:AUTO. Derek Smart himself has stated in his forums that he is going to start a "wiki jihad". Both WarHawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr who are suspected to be sock puppets of Smart himself have been repeatedly banned for edit warring and 3rrr violation contrary to accepted consensus, and for trying to push there own POV and biased agenda of removing any properly cited contructive criticism of Derek Smart. They cite WP:BLP for removing cited commentrary critical of smart but fail to demonstrate the relevant clause under which the said cited info is not permitted. Once both accounts were banned both the talk page and the article were subjected to vandalism by rotating IP addresses. One solution would be to ban WarhawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr and to leave the page in a semi protected mode where only registered users could edit it, with strict supervisations by admins, and a zero tolerance policy with regard to vandalism and POV pushing and SPA's. Failing that we can request arbitration.

You are the ONLY editor on that page who keeps claiming that people (not just myself or the accounts you listed above) are sock puppets. Get the facts straight. WarHawkSP 00:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I believe you are a sockpuppet of User:Supreme_Cmdr. Beyond that, I believe you are Derek Smart himself. However, this is irrelevant and totally not (practically, reasonably) provable. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is easy to claim that the opposition is a sock puppet. This is the usual Wiki strawman argument with no factual basis. You folks can't seem to make up your mind about who you want to be a sock puppet from one day to the next. If anything, given Kerr's MO on the page in casting Smart in a bad light at every turn, one can argue that he is in fact a sock puppet of Huffman as well. I for one can't think of any editor on that page who I can accuse (Kerr doesn't appear to be smart enough to pull that off without getting caught) of being a sock puppet, because mostly they are mis-guided, have no clue or history on the subject (in this case Derek Smart) they are editing etc. Instead, they rely on pov statements, tainted and unsourced material and copious acts of common sense abandonment when it comes to editing the article.Supreme_Cmdr 14:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that most everyone assumes that WarHawk, WarHawkSP, and Suprmem_Cmdr are all Derek Smart. They all have the same MO, the same writing style, the same set of lies they tell, especially about me. They have to all be Derek Smart. The only way I see that this edit war will end is if the article is deleted or everyone let's Derek write an autobiography for the Derek Smart article. Other than that his edit warring can only be slowed down by blocking/banning his current accounts etc.. Have fun, Bill Huffman 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Coming from you, color me shocked. Supreme_Cmdr 14:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary there was a majority consensus via a straw poll Talk:Derek_Smart/Archive4for inclusion of the werewolves site as a external link.The SPA WarhawkSP is true to form distorting the issue with false claims. There was additionally a recent majority consensus that since Smart became notable via his USENET postings that a USENET archive such as google groups could be used to cite facts.Kerr avon 08:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Once again your post has no basis in reality Kerr. Supreme_Cmdr 14:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything you posted amounts to the same thing you post on the Wiki talk page and which have been discounted and tossed out repeatedly. There is nothing factual now npov about your statements. Nothing new to see here. Please get some new material. WarHawkSP 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you beleive in the Goebbelsian theory of that "If a lie is repeated frequently it becomes the truth", The above statements are facts and they have not been discounted at all except by yourself by rhetoric and without providing evidence to the contrary as seen similar to the above statement made by you. Rather than talking rhetoric please respond on this prominent page to the above serious statements made by me.Kerr avon 23:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On a side note let me say that the presence of Smart himself is probably the most important reason for the wiki edit war to survive just like the USENET flame wars survived for years till he left the scene. Till Smart/WarHawkSP/Supreme_Cmdr stop edit warring the edit wars will continue, as they are bent on pushing their own POV disregarding accepted consensus and wiki guidlines.Kerr avon 05:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And where do you see 'the presence of Smart?'. Have you not been warned about this already and that all you've been doing are making personal attacks against others who disagree with you? Like Huffman, your SOLE purpose is to inject libelous, non-factual and derogatory info into Smart's Wiki. Which is why none of your edits have thus far been allowed. WarHawkSP 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not my sole view, it is the views of others too that SPA's like yourself(WarhawkSP) and Supreme_Cmdr both have IP addresses from fort lauderdale florida with bellsouth as their ISP. Smart's home is in fort lauderdale and his ISP is bellsouth. Isn't it quite a coincidence that you and Supreme_Cmdr who are two of the most rabid SPA's who have been repeatedly blocked due to edit warring by removing cited content critical of Smart too have the same ISP and operate from the same area as Smart. Additionally both of your writing style's are similar to the abrasive and haughty style of Smart which made him notorious in the first place. I restate that this bio possibly falls under WP:AUTO for the above stated reasons. I completely disagree with warhakw's allegations as anyone going through my edits will see that i have contributed a lot to Sri lankan articles and can no way be called a SPA unlike WarhawkSP.Kerr avon 23:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I too concur that arbitration is needed, but can i ask if it will practically accomplish anything. So far there are certain undisputed facts such as that there is no wikipedia guideline forbidding commentary critical of Smart if it is properly sourced from a a reliable source, in fact WP:BLP states that commentrary critical is permitted however it has to be properly sourced. The crux of the matter is that supreme_cmdr and WarhawkSP are hell bent on removing any statement critical of smart even if it is properly sourced. So IMHO arbitration may not give the desired result, as edit warring by removing commentary critical of Smart no matter how well cited will continue to go on till one party or another gets banned or quits. WarHawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr are simply not the type to comply with the arbitration process, as evidenced by their persistent blocking for reverting without consensus and repeated warnings for uncivil behaviour.Kerr avon 11:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Prem Rawat Template:Blpwatch-links

One contributor (Gstaker (talk · contribs)) thinks that information sourced to an article in the Washington Post should be removed because he thinks the Washington Post is not a reliable source.

Another editor (Momento (talk · contribs)) asserts that allegations of anxiety and heavy drinking can only be made by a qualified doctor if not, as is the case in this article, the article, according to him, violates WP:BLP policy.

I disagree with the reasoning of these two contributors. Andries 00:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that we are citing quite selectively from that article. For example, the reporter describe some outrageous claims made against Prem Rawat by Mishler such as that he engaged in practices to "subdue the ego" that included "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", that are obviously sensationalists lies (and that even the most staunch detractors will attest to these being lies). I would say that the reason why, whoever added that selective quote did not add the other sensationalist material, may because undoubtedly demonstrates the lack of credibility of these protagonists and of the source. As exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, one could argue that this one-only source is in this case a "poor source" as per WP:BLP. Also note that these sensationalist allegations were never described in any secondary sources, probably because of lack of credibility. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The claims that you classify are as exceptional are not in the entry nor does anyone currently wants to add them, so I think that your comments are irrelevant. I omitted adding that part of the Washtington Post article to the entry because I could find no corroboration, in contrast to the claims of heavy drinking. I cannot know whether the excerpts that you quote are sensationalist lies or not because I was not there, though again, I do not intend to add them to the entry. Andries 00:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good original research, Andries. Selective quoting from one article, based on your presumption of lack of corroboration for the part you did not quote, but omitting the fact that there is lack of corroboration for the part you did include, is violating NOR and demonstrates a lack of good editorial judgment in assessing the reliability of a source. Any editor reading the whole quote will know that this is sensationalist BS and will avoiding touching that source in a BLP as being "poorly sourced". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In contrast to what you state, there is corroboration of the heavy drinking allegation that I included both in reputable sources and non-reputable sources. For example in the book by Spohia Collier Soul Rush that is also used as a source for the article Prem Rawat. Andries 03:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I do not know whether what is written is sensational bullshit and I do not know how to find out. Andries 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

(ed conflict)Sources, Andries, sources. An editor can make the assessment that as these extraordinary allegations are not reported in any other source, and given that there are hundreds of scholarly sources on the subject that do not mention any of that, these cab be assessed to be extraordinary claims that do not have the necessary support to be considered anything than a "poor source", in particular given the context in which these were made. As editors we have some responsibilities that we cannot skirt by playing the "I don't know" card. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In contrast to what you write, there is not a single scholarly biography on Prem Rawat. In contrast a lot has been written about the related subejct Divine Light Mission. Of course, I can say write that I do not know when I really do not know and have no way to find out. Andries 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, please stop disingenously stating that there is no corroboration of the heavy drinking allegation. Apart from the already mentioned reputable source, somewhat doubtful or non-reputable sources for this are Dettmers statements, and Mishler radio interview. Andries 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your statement that I engage in Misplaced Pages:original research when I use my knowledge and my common sense to assess whether sources are reliable in a certain context. Assessing sources is the right and duty of contributors. Andries 04:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The source we are talking about describes the radio interview, so I do not understand what you are saying. There are no other sources corroborating any of these sensationalist claims. Who is the disingenuous here, Andries? Or is it that you believe that it is OK to selectively cite from an article based on an editors' presumptions based on "somewhat doubtful or non-reputable sources"? You may need to refresh your memory on WP:NOR and WP:V, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sophia Collier wrote in her book that Prem Rawat and his brother got slushed during Millenium '73. Andries 04:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, a 13 year old having some fun maybe?. But that is very different than saying that he "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol" alongside saying that he engaed in "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please stop mentiong off-topic quotes? That latter quote is not in the article nor does anyone intend to add to the article. Andries 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Because if you did add the quotes that you selectively omitted, it will clearly destroy the credibility of the other statement and of the person that made them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you want me to add it? Andries 04:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A thirteen year old having fun by drinking a lot of alcohol during an event that he himself described as the "most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America." is not innocent. Andries 14:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is okay to quote selectively from a reputable source based on common sense, personal experience, corroboration form other reputable sources, or non-reputable sources etc. Again, assessing sources is the right and the duty of contributors. You can quote more from the article in the Washington Post if you think that I have omitted something important. Andries 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Not OK, Andries, as per my arguments above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain? I do not understand your reasoning. Andries 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I will try: The article describes the opinion of Misher, saying that in a radio interview he said that PR "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol". The same article describes him as saying that PR engaged in "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools". These explosive allegations are not mentioned in any other source besides this article. None of the scholarly sources describe these traits even these sources that containing highly critical material, such as these from your favorite Dutch scholars. So, as a responsible editor, and given this is a BLP, we can safely assert that this source does not meet the threshold for being a high quality reference: Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives, WP:BLP advises us. And we should listen to that advise, not dismiss it on the basis of one's knowledge of "somewhat doubtful or non-reputable sources". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the reputable source the Washington Post the allegation of heavy drinking was also reported by Mishler and another inner circle member called Dettmers in an article by John Macgregor Blinded by the Light that appeared in Good Weekend - the colour magazine shared by The Age (Melbourne) and The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) August 31, 2002 (Page 38-42) and in The West Australian (Perth) dated Septembre 21, 2002 Andries 04:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. You forgot to disclose who exactly was the journalist that wrote the article, his trial for conspiring to steal data to harm PR and his students, the judge comments, and the affidavits he signed in which he says that "because of my media connections I was supported by the Group to publish articles that furthered the goal of defaming Prem Rawat and his students" and that "based on no factual evidence, I arranged to publish in two Australian print media publications", etc. So, these sources are as unreliable as these can be. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, the media articles were never retracted by the magazines. And there is another person who signed a similar affadivit in the same affair i.e. Tgubler (talk · contribs) who has not stopped being critical about Rawat. All this suggests that these affadavits were signed to get rid off a nasty litigation instead of a genuine change of heart. Andries 05:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the person that was the co-conspirator about which the judge said to "suffer from a credibility handicap" when he tried to retract his testimony? In any case, you are just speculating. Let these affidavits speak for themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, you do not convince me when you assert that the Washington Post is not a reliable source. Please note that the wording of Washington Post article suggested that Rawat's anxiety was not just a detail of Rawat's private life, but relevant for his notability because of Rawat's claim to bring peace. I admit that the Washington Post would not be the most suitable references if there were multiple scholarly biographies of Rawat, but there is none. Andries 04:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC) amended for grammar 04:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are abundant scholarly sources about Prem Rawat, see the article itself, and none of them support these statements, even the most critical ones. The arguments are all laid here for other editors to comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Untrue. The subject of these scholarly sources is Divine Light Mission or Elan Vital (organization). Not Prem Rawat. Where is the scholarly biography of Prem Rawat? Andries 05:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Untrue? These scholarly sources describe him, his youth, the succession, the arrival to the West in the 70's, his marriage, the family rift that ensued, the evolution of the presentation of his message, etc, etc. So again, there are substantial scholarly sources that describe Prem Rawat's life. Do these have the title "Biography"? no. But that does not mean that we do not have sources about him. We do, and plentiful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, untrue. If you think otherwise then please show me one scholarly article that has either an extensive description of Rawat's life or has Rawat as its main subject. Andries 16:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You can keep saying "untrue" until you get blue in the face, Andries. But the fact is that there are many notable individuals about which there is abundant sources describing their life-work, and do not have a biography with an "extensive description of their lives". That does not mean that there is no material about their lives to serve as the basis for article about them in Misplaced Pages, and furthermore, that does not mean that we should use material that is unsuitable (as per the arguments I made above), just because there is not such biography available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I have observed that you have made the same argument in the pasts in other biographies. These arguments are in contradiction with WP:BLP, in particular when BLP asks asks to be very firm about the quality of our sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How is the Washington Post not a high quality source? Andries 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a straw-man argument, Andries. I am not disputing the quality of the Washington Post. Please go to to the beginning of this section and re-read the arguments provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)As one coming fresh to this dispute, I see the Washington Post as a fine example of a reliable source. Further, there is absolutely no requirement that an associate of the subject be a medical doctor, psychiatrist, or psychologist to observe that he was anxious or stressed and that he drank a lot to deal with it. We as the readers can note that the quote is from a former associate and not from the man's doctor, who would in any event be forbidden from releasing such information by the strictures of medical ethics. The quote should be attributed to the person who said it, and should be complete enough that it is not taken out of context. Claiming that it is a "minority view" violating Misplaced Pages policy since most of the man's other followers have not described him as anxious or a heavy drinker is a red herring. The quote appears well sourced and should be included. If the other editors have a quote wherein a follower said in a reliable publication that he was not a drinker and was not anxious, they should add that. That is how a NPOV treatment of a subject works. Edison 00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Jossi is mistaken when he writes as I may sunmarize his way of reasoning that a reputable source completely stops being a reputable source if it makes an uncorroborated implausible statement. Yes, may be he is right that we should omit mentioning in the Misplaced Pages entry the uncorroborated statement that he considers implausible (which I did). But of course, we can still use the corroborated statements from the reputable source for the Misplaced Pages entry. I think Jossi's reasoning "demonstrates a lack of good editorial judgment in assessing the reliability of a source", to use his own words. Andries 14:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You summarise Jossi well - "maybe he is right that we should omit mentioning in the Misplaced Pages entry the uncorroborated statement that he considers implausible (which I did)". Exactly!. Be true to truth.Momento 15:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Edison, for your comments. Note that the discussion was not about about if the Washington Post is a reliable source or not, or if the comment made by these persons in the article can be attributed to them. The question was about the selective quoting from that source to avoid giving readers the possibility to understand the context in which they made these comments. Any sensible reader will most probably dismiss these outrageous allegations, if the have the opportunity to read all what they said. Andries decided to just add a specific allegatiion that in his opinion is plausible, while omitting others that are, in his opinion, implausible. My contention is that when you cite you cannot make these "editorial decisions", as you are engaging in a clear attempt to enhance the reputability of the source by selectively omitting material that shatters the credibility of the source. So, either we, as responsible editors do not use that source in a BLP, or we cite the comments of these people without selectively omitting other material. My opinion is that we should not use that source on the basis of it being "poorly sourced" in a BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I consciously added only material from the Washington Post that is corroborated and omitting that is what uncorroborated. I often leave out uncorroborated statements from reputable sources or statements that I consider implausible. I am not going to change my habit in this regard of making good editorial decisions. Feel free to add more information from the Washington Post that will allow the reader to make an informed decision about the accusations. Andries 09:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

An exceptional, sensationalst claim that is negative and uncorrororated from a biased, ex-employer who died in the 70's is unacceptable in a biography of a living person. That a newspaper reproduced this claim doesn't excuse it from failing every other test for inclusion.Momento 08:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it is a non-exceptional claim voiced in a reputable source (Washington Post) that is more or less corroborated by other reputable sources such as Sophia Collier's book Soul Rush and by another inner circle member i.e. Dettmers (in among others an article by John Macgregor Blinded by the Light that appeared in Good Weekend The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) August 31, 2002). In addition it is corroborated by yet another inner circle member in a non-reputable source. Here Momento admits more or less that it is a non-exceptional claim Andries 08:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw man argument, Andries. The Washington Post article includes material from the same person that is my all means and "extraordinary claim". You decided to "censor" that material and leave other material that you consider to be not extraordinary, when it is when taken as a whole. John McGregor's legal imbroglio, and subsequent ruling by a judge coupled with his apology renders that source to be of the same quality: "poorly sourced". As per BLP, that material has no place in a WP article. Your continuous efforts to keep a partially censored reference to that Washington Post article, without addressing other editor's concerns about that material is a case of WP:POINT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Extremely unconvincing Jossi, if you want the full story to be told to the readers then feel free to add more material from reputable sources. I have no problem adding it myself though you never answered the question whether you want me to add it. Do not censor well-sourced material from from reputable sources. Andries 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ask yourself this question Andries. If a 30 year old exceptional and sensationalst claim that is negative and uncorrororated from a biased, ex-employee who died in the 70's turned up in a local paper about (insert any notable person), would you include it in their autobiography?Momento 20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-exceptional, corroborated claim voiced in a national newspaper from one of the few persons who could know. Andries 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

MIshler is not a reputable source and no scholar or journalist has corroborated his claims. Jossi, could you please block Andries from the PR article?Momento 19:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You omitted some of material, because they shatter the credibility of the source. When taken in their totality, that material violates WP:BLP. You cannot cite only what you perceive as credible ands omit what you perceive as plausible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I only wrote down material from a reputable source that is corroborated but I have no problem to cite more even if this what you describe shatters the credibility of the source. Can you please explain how this violates WP:BLP without repeating your unconvincing arguments? Andries 21:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No reputable source corroborates Mishler. He is a biased source, making exceptional and sensational claims that are not corroborated by any of the scholars who have written on PR.Momento 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. Again, there is not a single scholarly reputable article let alone book that treats Prem Rawat extensively. If you think otherwise then please provide such a source, as I had already requested to Jossi without result. In the absence of such sources, it is perfectly okay to use secondary source material from reputable newspapers, such as the article in the Washington Post. I would agree with Momento that if multiple scholarly reputable biographies are available, like in the case of Adolf Hitler then it would not be okay to use secondary source material from newsapers. Andries 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Untrue? There are nearly 100 notes and nearly 50 references cited for the Prem Rawat article and not a single one repeats Mishler's claim. We know Melton was aware of Mishler's sensationalist claims (and probably all PR scholars) but he quite rightly ignored them. Your suggestion that in the absence of any negative evidence from the dozens of reserarched and scholarly articles, editors should include negative material from a biased, ex-employee would turn Misplaced Pages into a gossip column.Momento 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, untrue, again show me one single scholarly reputable article that treats Prem Rawat extensively. Andries 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not my responsibility to provide you with a scholarly article that supports your claim. I say they don't exist. You find one. Wiki policy is The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Misplaced Pages, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.Momento 20:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of sources used in that article, making it one of the most extensively and meticulously sourced in Misplaced Pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop evading my question Jossi. You motivated your exclusion of the Washington Post article by saying that there are many reputable scholarly sources on Rawat. I am still waiting for the title of one reputable scholarly source that extensively treats Prem Rawat. Andries 00:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Phil McGraw Template:Blpwatch-links

An anon is adding disgusting libel to this article. I've blocked them for 24 hours, but be on the lookout. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

John Cena Template:Blpwatch-links

On the article's talk page, we're looking to get consensus on whether or not putting statements about anal sex into his personal information section is relevant or not. To sum it up quickly, John Cena is a professional wrestler. Apparently in October, he made a statement on the Howard Stern radio show that he isn't into anal sex. It's been added, reverted, added, and reverted off and on in the past month or so. We'd like some outside views on this as to its relevance within the confines of the article (does the fact that the section is all about personal information open it up to something like this?) and whether this is an issue at all in terms of the guidelines for BLP. Thanks, Metros232 06:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is completely irrelevant, particularly since it's a denial. You may as well list all the arenas he hasn't wrestled in.Momento 21:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been added back again with no consensus to do so yet. So I'm not sure how to handle this situation. There are about 2 users who want it in and 2 or 3 who don't. I'd appreciate more input on the talk page. Metros232 13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Earl Mindell Template:Blpwatch-links

This is an author whose article is on the radar of several POV pushers who want to highlight the dubiousness of some elements of the subject's history and current activities. The main reason I'm posting here is because some of the sources for references (like quackwatch) are out of my experience as to whether or not they are acceptable. POV creeps into the article on a regular basis also. Anchoress 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Steven E. Jones Template:Blpwatch-links

Although I believe his research is nonsense, the talk page Talk:Steven E. Jones#Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense slanders him. I don't feel it's my place to remove the section, because both theories are WP:BOLLOCKS, but could some 9/11 conspiracy theorist comment? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Patricia Kennealy-Morrison Template:Blpwatch-links

My concern about this article is that the subject's own book is used to source the subject's own claims, with no independant verification of the subject's claims being used. I would politely request that the section in question is removed. The section which is poorly sourced is in relation to Ms. Kennealy-Morrison's claims to have married Jim Morrison. There are no sources cited, other than Ms. Kennealy-Morrison's book, 'Strange Days: My Life With And Without Jim Morrison.' I was under the impression that proper sourcing needed to be in place in order to allow publication of claims within Misplaced Pages. I would remove the offending material myself; however, a tendentious editor accused myself and others of vandalism when reasonable changes were made to the article. Maybe an editor is available to take a look at this (but please, not an editor who is already assigned as the 'regular' editor?). This is a high-profile article, when one considers that the claims centre around Jim Morrison, who is to put it mildly, rather well known on a worldwide basis.

BLP applies to unsourced material. This is sourced, and doesn't fall under BLP. The reliable sources guideline is broken, but even it allows the book to be used as a source. Books published by major publishing houses are not considered self-published. Moreover, the claim is very high profile, and I'd think that if there was anything false about it we'd have heard by now. Ken Arromdee 14:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been other sources which have commented on her claims. They could be included to discuss her book's reliability. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Eric Shinseki

User Zsero is repeatedly using a hatchet-job article from the National Review to claim Shinseki was close to insubordination. His/Her edit says that "According to one source, Shinseki came close to insubordination." The cited article is clearly politically biased. It merely quotes "According to an Army source". Does this qualify as the kind of "fact" worthy of Misplaced Pages? The article makes predictions that proved incorrect about Shinseki, namely that he had political ambitions: "Shinseki's retirement two months ago coincides nicely with the planned — but yet unannounced — retirement of Inouye at the end of his current term in 2004. Shinseki will run for that seat, and most likely will win." Inouye did not retire in 2004, and is still Hawaii's Senator. The article goes on to state "any general like Shinseki, whose political ambitions interfere with his willingness to carry out civilian orders, must go".

Frankly, I've looked at this case and I think it's pretty cut-and-dried. Zsero's claim that Shinseki 'came close to insubordination' is found nowhere in the opinion piece used as a source. The word "insubordination" does not even appear in the piece. Zsero calls his claim of insubordination "a perfectly obvious one-phrase summary of what the article says" but I believe any fair Wikipedian looking at it would have to call it original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I request that others come and examine the situation as well, as Zsero is very insistent upon this point. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Boris Stomakhin

I have created an article about Boris Stomakhin, a journalist who was recently imprisoned in Russia for exercising his free speech rights. User Vlad fedorov repeatedly inserts citation from an allegedly Stomakhin's article, taken out of context, to defame this imprisoned journalist as a fool and extremist (see last "Further political activity" chapter in the article about him - I will delete it again). Not only such citation is biased, but the cited paper may not actually belong to Stomakhin. The original source of the text is basically a blog run by several young people. Moreover, there are already claims in media that Stomakhin was convicted for articles he actually did not write. I summarized my arguments in Talk:Boris Stomakhin, "Misplaced Pages policy on biographies of living persons".Biophys 21:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Would it be possible to have an advice from a neutral person who is familiar with Misplaced Pages policies? Whatever such person decide, I would accept. My only concern is to have an objective article that provide information rather than propaganda from any side. Biophys 01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to resolve the situation, but apparently it did not work. My arguments can be found in Talk:Boris Stomakhin, but I would like to repeat them here:

"Let's assume that RKO website is a reliable source (which is not). Then, the cited fragment of the text has been selected to demonstrate that Stomakhin is a facist who wants to exterminate all Russians. However this is not true, which is clear after reading this and his his other alleged writings on RKO web site. He only means that military resistance to Russian occupation is legimate (including sabotage or what we call terrorism), because Russians are conducting genocide in Chechnya. He believes that it is as legimate as the resistance against Nazi occupation. That is what he means. No more, no less. He is strongly anti-Russian (you could call him a Russophob), because he wants to protect an ethnic minority (Chechens and others) from an oppression of the kind he believes Nazi did with respect to Jews. So, he is actually an anti-facist, not the facist. Everything is turned upside-down in this article."

You wanted to write that decision of administrator Alex Bakharev who found this source to be reliable and rewrote that passage doesn't suit you. He also found my translation to be correct.Vlad fedorov 19:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the segment of the text allegedly written by Stomaknin was impecisely translated to English. There is nothing else I can do. I will never again write any articles about "controversial" persons, because there is no way to protect their views and even facts of their life from crude falsification in Misplaced Pages. Biophys 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it not strange that Biophys who is russian by nationality living in USA, could do nothing with "wrong" translation? He could suggest better translation, which he didn't. Instead he claims that 'there is nothing else I could do" which is weird.Vlad fedorov 07:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

O'K, I added some statements of ARTICLE 19, Committee to Protect Journalists, Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, etc. in Boris Stomakhin article to show that I am not alone in this opinion. So, we need an objective article about him.Biophys 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, look at the article "Boris Stomakhin", talk page and its archive. Statement from Committee to Protect Journalists is taken by user Biophys from Blog, and the statement from Union of Councils for Soviet Jews contains false and libelous statements. For more details and facts of user Biophys abusing and violationg Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, please, look at the article "Boris Stomakhin" and its talk page.Vlad fedorov 17:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A proposal. The situation with Boris Stomakhin article is getting worse and worse. Obviously, we can not have a Misplaced Pages article dedicated to defamation of a journalist who is sitting in prison cell for free speech being "practically paralyzed". This article became an object of vandalism (see talk page), editing war between several partisan editors, and the Russian language sources are even more unreliable than I thought. For example, the texts of the most contentious alleged Stomakhin's paper "Death to Russia" are obviously different when cited by different sources (see talk page). The problem: Stomakin's writings are considered offensive by many Russians. I suggest the following way out of the trouble.

1. Find an arbiter who is not Russian. 2. Exclude any Russian language sources as difficult to verify by third parties. 3. Make an NPOV version of the article and lock it from any further editing. Me (as an original creator of this article) or anyone else can prepare a new version of this article based exclusively on English sources. The arbiter can make any necessary editing and lock it. Another option is to remove the entire paper.Biophys 17:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the user Biophys in his 'proposal' uncovered his real motives. Boris Stomakhin is a russian politician and talks only on Russian. Biophys wants actually to prevent non-russian users of Misplaced Pages from learning new information from reliable russian sources, beacuse russian sources are not in support of user Biophys views. The incident was already resolved twice by administrator Alex Bakharev and twice he found user Biophys to be wrong.Vlad fedorov 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, pay attention at the request by Biophys, he's currently asking to find 'an arbiter who is not Russian', next time he would ask to find 'an arbiter who will rule in his favor'.Vlad fedorov 19:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If this proposal about using only reliable English language sources and locking the article is accepted, I would not mind if Alex Bakharev was an arbiter and edited new version of the article that I could prepare. All links to unreliable Russian language sources can be also provided, but they should be marked as "articles allegedly written by Stomakhin", and so on. Biophys 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Biophys, please state here all your reasons of unreliability of Stomakhin's articles "Death to Russia". And why there are 'allegedly wriiten by Stomakhin'? For I could critisize any of your sources as 'allegedly written by the their authors' then. I complied with all Misplaced Pages policies by citing Stomakhin's article. May I bring to your attention that according to Misplaced Pages policy I could cite even a blog, but only in case it is written by the subject, e.g. Stomakhin? Vlad fedorov 04:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to pay attention of all people reading this section that Biophys consistently mentions that he could write NPOV article about Stomakhin. Is it not strange that this person consistently asks for such weird things like to remove all sources on Russian, to select non-Russian arbiter, to rewrite himself the article about Stomakhin which is the cause of the dispute?Vlad fedorov 07:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

O'K. I just edited Boris Stomakhin article using Russian language sources and included citation of "Death to Russia" by Sokolov (although I feel this is violation of LP). If Alex Bakharev or any neutral 3-rd party editor (I suggested non-Russians to avoid nationalistic feelings) verified this text now for consistency with LP policy and corrected it as needed, that would solve the problem I hope. Biophys 04:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not Ok. The version created by user Biophys lacks important facts, it cites third-party blogs (unreliable sources), it contains original research in citations of Stomakhin from court sentence. Biophys also deleted the most serious statements by Stomakhin, leaving his most moderate citations. He also excluded without any grounds the fact that Stomakhin political view is to exterminate all Russians. Excluded many facts such as false facts contained in Statement of Union of Councils of fU Jews. This perversions of the facts and personal edits of Stomakhin's citations by Biophys are intolerable.Vlad fedorov 05:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The user Biophys right now reverts my additions to the article which add citations of Stomakhin which are contained in the official court sentence for Boris Stomakhin. He deletes my additions without any explanation by telling me that he complies "LP policy". Is it LP policy to delete additions which are supported with reliable sources?Vlad fedorov 06:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see also http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#Death_.26_Putin.27s_birthday and http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#Unsourced_speculation to see that I am not alone who are fed up with Biophys political propaganda. Even non-Russians complain that Biophys publishes propaganda in Misplaced Pages.Vlad fedorov 08:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Mikkalai, the Boris Stomakhin article is better now. Still, the article is even more biased than the court sentence used for conviction of Boris Stomakhin. This is very easy to fix. Can I do it? I do not want to be involved in the editing war again. Biophys 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want you, Biophys, making any edits, since you have already made some. User:Mikkalai deleted the most extreme citations of Stomakhin, as he had written in talk page. The court sentence is never biased, with the same, your own personal logic you may dispute the legality of any court sentence and sanity of any person including me. The thing you must remember is that you ain't the only sane person in the world, and other people have their own opinion too and you must live with that opinion. The article must be balanced. You couldn't write that Stomakhin is innocent having an official court sentence that established he's guilty. The only edits you make is to make readers feel that Stomakhin is really innocent dissident and not a criminal, which contradicts to the facts and reality. These human rights activists (Novodvorskaya, Gannushkina) you cite have acknowledged that they never support 'extreme' opinions of Stomakhin, they ackonwledged that writing of Stomakhin were indeed "extreme" they also acknowledged that they do not share views of Stomakhin - which is not written in the Wiki article. You already have distorted the real meaning of their opinions, and I won't allow you to distort the article further.Vlad fedorov 12:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only this court sentence is biased; the entire case was fabricated. This is not my opinion. That was argued by journalist Vladimir Abarinov , ARTICLE 19, Elena Bonner, Vladimir Bukovsky and other notable people and organizations. Yes, Stomakhin was convicted for his "extreme" opinions and nothing else. But this Wkipideia article paints him as a fascist who was rightly convicted. This is done using citation out of context and unreliable sources. This is wrong. Biophys 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Would it be appropriate if we include in the article about Vladimir Putin everything that is written about him at the RKO web site you are using for Stomakhin? Biophys 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your personal opinion that 'Stomakhin case was fabricated' is already presented in the article. So I would like to cite again administrator Mikka's question for you: "What's your problem?". Should we include in all the Misplaced Pages articles your personal garbage and conspiracy theories? Look at George W. Bush article, isn't it pretty good article for a man who triggered 600 000 Iraqi civilian deaths? If you acknowledged that Stomakhin published 'extreme' opinions why had you deleted them regularly from the article? Why had you edited them thereby making original research? Let us assume that I believe that Western Civilization is barbaric. Should I write in corresponding Wiki article citations of Osama Bin Laden and Co.? Should I edit opinions of the Westerners like you did in Stomakhin article? I have established clearly that your sources are blog entries and contain false facts and accusations which contradict to prevailing majority (90 %) of sources. You also was caught writing your personal opinions referencing them to Novodvorskaya and Gannushkina. The problem with you is that you are bad faith conspiracy theories writer. Other people have told the same. Think over it.Vlad fedorov 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you believe it is appropriate to cite unreliable blogs by extremist groups (like RKO web site) or "yellow press" (like Sokolov) in the articles about living people like Vladimir Putin and others. This is great. Biophys 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) I left my answer to Mikka in Stomakhin talk page and can repeat my main point here. The texts of citations of alleged Stomakhin paper "Death to Russia" by Sokolov and extremist RKO web site are clearly inconsistent with each other (two first phrases in the continuous citation by Sokolov can not be found in the "complete" text of RKO site). Therefore, I believe both sources are unreliable and this citation should be excluded from the text of this article, although the link to "alleged" Stomakhin writings can remain. Another important point: the context of citations from the court sentence must be explained, as I did. Otherwise, this is misrepresentation (which in my field would be equivalent of scientific misconduct) Biophys 15:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Biophys are you psycho? You could read my thoughts? Explanation of citation from the court sentence which is reliable is a matter of original reseach. I find citations of Stomakhin from his articles at rko.marsho.net reliable. They include all that is cited by Izvestia. You intentionally trying to advance violently the idea of necessary comparison of every sources to establish their reliablity. If you will compare texts written at rko.marsho.net and zaborisa.narod.ru, zaborisa.marsho.net of course you will find discrepancies. Since the latter two sites were created when Stomakhin was arrested and it's clearly not Stomakhin who wrote (or edited) the articles (material) on them. So what you whine about? About your "inability" to find citations in Stomakhin articles. It's your personal problem. By the way, you cite Bonner and Litvinenko and Bukovsky from these same sites and you seem pretty well contented with the source. You cite statements of HRO from blogs and you find it pretty good.Vlad fedorov 04:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I cited Bonner and others from "zaborisa.narod.ru" which is not RKO web site. You took the text of court sentence from zaborisa.narod.ru.Biophys 23:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC) We must stop this discussion. So far, you have made several hundreds of edits in Misplaced Pages. Almost all of them are about defamation of Stomakhin or Jewish organizations. Biophys 00:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you chief here to order me to stop discussion? If you want to stop discussion, then you are about to leave Misplaced Pages, if you can't discuss, but to harass then quit. Your only contribution in Misplaced Pages except miserable copied articles on Biophysics - are directed against Russia and they consist of conspiracy theories unsupported with any evidence. Isn't that you who deleted citations from Guardian on Politkovskaya which said she was widely critizised? You don't like truth? Zaborisa.narod.ru and zaborisa.marsho.net - are copies of one and the same site. You even unable to study sources you write from in Misplaced Pages. I haven't been defaming jewish organizations never. If I wrote that the statement of a jewish organization contains false facts, then it was not defamation, clearly. By the way, applying the same criteria, you have defamed Russian Federation, Russian Courts, Serbsky Institute, Boris Stomakhin, Novodvorskaya, Gannushkina - because you attributed false citations of them. I have counted 6 persons which you defamed with one breath. By the way there are some jews among them and jewish organizations. Let's look at the talk page for Boris Stomakhin - I think it's no comment and everything is clear. How much times you've been falsifying ('summarizing') citations from these sources? The only thing you have against me is citing from what you personally consider "unreliable" source. Two Misplaced Pages administrators have found my source to be reliable. So, I repeat once more, what's your problem, boy?Vlad fedorov 04:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way you have just started edit war with administrator Mikka. I would ask him either to lock the article or to ban you from editing it.Vlad fedorov 04:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Marcus Allen Template:Blpwatch-links

Byron Allen interviewed Ronnie Lott on his syndicated interview show. During the interview Lott says that he and Marcus Allen would not have graduated if Byron Allen had not helped them cheat in an Anthropology class. Should this be included in the Marcus Allen article? --Gbleem 14:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible Lott was joking? If so, it definitely shouldn't be included in Marcus Allen. And even if Lott was completely serious, that doesn't make him an authoritative source as to what Marcus Allen's grades in the anthropology class were. So I would say, no, it does not belong in the Marcus Allen article. --Metropolitan90 23:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I put it in the article. I don't think I would have put it in if I thought Lott was joking. They did laugh about it but I think that is just because they thought it was funny in retrospect and not because he was making a joke. Assuming I can get a copy of the video what criteria should I use to determine if he is joking? I suppose someone could interview him again and he could say he was joking. --Gbleem 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point on the grades. If I remove the statement about grades could Lott be considered a reliable source on the issue of cheating? --Gbleem 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Elfriede Motzkuhn

At there are up for deletion 15 articles which state that various women were Nazi concentration camp guards. No references whatsoever are presented in the articles which state that they were guards, and that some of them were convicted, and that the fates of all are unknown. These articles were up for deletion before but the nomination failed for lack of consensus. In the present debate someone voted for deletion for non-notability but stated "She was born in 1917. That would make her 89 years old, and I am not overly worried about biography of living persons. " Does BLP fade away if the subject would be 89, or 103? I could see some elderly defamed person seeking a windfall for their family. I would normally be inclined to blank the articles but I'm not sure what to do when they are up for deletion anyway. Blanking a nominated article would seem to confuse the process, but blanking it if it is kept would also seem odd. The original article creators were probably working from a book or webpage, but did not cite it, and this sort of allegation smacks of the Siegenthaler incident, but goes back an extra 20 years. These articles have been mirrored all over the internet, and seem to be the original reports. Edison 15:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ross Gelbspan Template:Blpwatch-links

I'm not an editor of this article, but the subject of the article has reverted edits to make his entry more favorable. I flagged this for NPOV and expert attention. The Talk page has nothing on it, but these reversion and edit wars seem to be ongoing. I'm mentioning this article here because this may need attention, mediation, etc. I'm not sure if there are guidelines for subject reversions. Experienced mediation help would be great. JazzyGroove 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Proctor

75.8.103.125 had inserted an uncomfirmed bulletin board posting into the References section. -- 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin Template:Blpwatch-links

I recently added some material to the biography of Vladimir Putin that relates to the press censorship and other undemocratic actions of the Putin government. The material has been repeatedly removed by Alex Bakharev with the explanation that minor violations of civil rights should not be included in the biography. I have mentioned in my additions, the widely reported accusations of murder by the former KGB agent in London who died recently of Polonium poisoning. No one can deny that this event is a major news event and has strained relations between Russian and Britain. It should be included in the biography as long as it is carefully noted that it is only an allegation at this point. I call upon the editors of Misplaced Pages to carefully consider the possibility that these deletions in Misplaced Pages may have been instigated by the Russian government itself, a government that is extremely sensitive to criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.13.136.170 (talk • contribs).

I don't think this is a issue of BLP concern. Nil Einne 16:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking over Putin's article it seems like it is very much slanted in his favor.Steve Dufour 17:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

'Slanted in his favor' by users inserting unsupported allegations from mass media like Putin has killed Litvinenko, Politkovskaya and so on? You would like to mention he was behind murders of Kennedy, Mahatma Ghandi and Ceasar too, right? You have to look at "George W. Bush" article definitely.Vlad fedorov 08:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cardinal Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir Template:Blpwatch-links

Someone has vandalized the biography of His Beatitude Cardinal Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir by having questions included in the sub-article of his involvement in politics and the removal of information from this article to slander his work as an anti-Syrian nationalist..

Angela Beesley

Angela Beesley: I suggest for developers to delete all versions of her article that contain her date of birth. It is a sensitive private information of a non-public person. This info may potentially be abuses eg in identity theft. `'mikkanarxi 04:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, I agreee with you ... but she's an administrator ... so I would assume that if there's any troublesome revisions, she can take care of them. ;) At any rate, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight for the procedure to make such requests. BigDT 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

She's also a steward, which means she can give herself oversight and get rid of the information herself. MER-C 04:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can make the claim that Beesley is a "non-public person." Does she not sit on public boards? Quatloo 15:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst Template:Blpwatch-links

• Users hornplease and TwoHorned have been persistently editing some material into "Koenraad Elst" over the course of several months that are violations of WP:BLP. The following statements:

"He has also been accused of connections to the Vlaams Blok by Sanjay Subrahmanyam (a professor at University of California, Los Angeles) in the Times of India"

is based on one source and a newspaper op/ed to boot. It is an unsupported statements and has the connotations of an opprobrium, making it a BLP violation unles it is sourced more reliably.

"has contributed with other interventions described by Prof. R. Zydenbos on his homepage as emanating from right-wing circles in Belgium"

is based on the following linke:

It is a geocities site. It's authenticity cannot be verified. We do not know if it really belongs to Zydebos, who is not notable enough to have his criticism mentioned. Also, BLP#Reliable Sources clearly states:

"Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject"

This is clearly a diatribe written against Elst by this Zydebos chap who has not published it anywhere other than his "website" so BLP mandates that it be removed

These points have been raised, but hornplease and TwoHorned keep adding them in and mass revert-warring with a clear intent to defame Elst on wikipedia (as their talk page posts indicate) based on political biases and various degrees of ethno-religious bigotry expressed by hornplease.// अमेय आर्यन DaBrood 16:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

ConcurBakaman 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. TwoHorned's BLP violations were also discussed at an WP:RfAr, but we assumed good faith and didn't take any action then. User:Hornplease is a member of the BLP project, and regularly and often deletes "pov" from other BLP articles, so he should know better than supporting WP:BLP violations, and should also treat articles about people he dislikes the same way. (Though to his credit he recently removed OR from the article.) --Bondego 14:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Kathy Boudin Template:Blpwatch-links

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

The article shows rampant POV, seemingly looking to paint her as a one-dimensional mad leftist radical. The writer knows nothing about her or her views or the work she did in prison, or her dedication to peaceful change in the current time.

Note: The articles on her husband, as well as the Weather Underground as they are on the same touchy subject show the same bias. Fair treatment of individuals does not mean an indictment of their beliefs, no matter how radical they may be. Winnebagan 01:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Tony Martin (professor) Template:Blpwatch-links

This biographical article falls considerably short of the standards of Misplaced Pages; it is full of unsourced claims and it is completely biased in its presentation of a controversial, if obscure, individual. Tony Martin is "considered by many to be the foremost scholar on the life of Marcus Garvey"? Really: by whom, exactly? What is the rating system for evaluating scholars of Marcus Garvey? The article also claims that Martin's work, "The Jewish Onslaught"--one of the most patently and ludicrously anti-Semitic diatribes to have been published in America in recent years--was written in response to efforts by the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups to repress Martin's scholarship. Is this claim documented? Is it even credible? It is further worth asking why this article stops its narration of Martin around the year 1993: has he done anything of merit since then? Has he published a book since "The Jewish Onslaught"? Or have "the Jews" succeeded in their efforts to "silence" him?

Far from being a first-rate scholar of Marcus Garvey, Martin since the mid-nineties has been nothing better than a second-rate Leonard Jeffries. His Misplaced Pages article, to the extent that he merits an article at all, should reflect this.

I have attempted to clean up that article as much as possible to make it compliant with our content policies. It still needs the attention of an editor knowledgeable on the subject, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Viera Scheibner Template:Blpwatch-links

The information contained in the Criticisms of this living person's biography is POV and potentially libelous, and therefore should be deleted. POV criticism of the critics has also been removed demonstrating a bias. The habitual replacement of libelous material seemingly indicates a vendetta against Viera Scheibner.

Agreed that this needs watching, but not with the reason. This is about a content dispute between mainstream/skeptical editors (who view Scheibner as a quack) and supporters of her medically unqualified anti-vaccination activities. The article is under major sockpuppet attach from the latter. 82.25.234.106 15:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark Rathbun

He was a Scientology leader but has dropped out and seemingly become a non-person. About half of his article is taken up by conspiracy theories about him by another ex-Scientology leader, Barbara Schwarz. She seems to be saying that he is a bigamist. I tried taking this part of the article out but it was put back by the group of people who handle the Scientology-related articles here. Steve Dufour 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If the material is sourced, I don't see a good reason to remove it. I put in some {{fact}} tags, because sources are needed. It seems that he's notable for two things: becoming a Scientology Unperson, and being the subject of Barbara Schwarz's delusions. Because he's notable on his own, it's worth including the stuff about Schwarz. If he were otherwise not notable, that material would be better merged to her article. Argyriou (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Barbara's theories are already well covered in her own article. Steve Dufour 23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Dufour's claims are ill-founded. He is improperly combining what he believes to be true (i.e., that during the period in question, Mark Rathbun was married to Anne Rathbun) with what Barbara Schwarz believes to be true (that during the period in question, Mark Rathbun was married to her, Barbara Schwarz.) Mr. Dufour has not presented any evidence whatsoever to support the theory that Barbara Schwarz shares his beliefs about Mark Rathbun being married to anyone else. Only if one holds both beliefs would bigamy be implied, and Mr. Dufour has not presented any evidence whatsoever to indicate there is anyone out there holding both beliefs.

For Mr. Dufour to file this report (with no mention of it made on the relevant talk page, I might add) falsely presenting his conclusions, drawn from combining Barbara Schwarz's beliefs with his own, as what Barbara Schwarz "seems to be saying", is manifestly irresponsible. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If Barbara's theories are patently false then I don't think so much space, about half of the article, should be devoted to them. If her theories might be true then the article shouldn't present his marriage with Anne as a fact, as it does. Steve Dufour 06:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The last time I read WP:NPOV I didn't get the impression that it said "you must either describe what the vast majority of the world accepts as the truth as only something possibly true, or you must abstain from discussing the fact that anyone else has ever believed anything else." If you don't think that "about half of the article" should discuss Barbara Schwarz's claims regarding Rathbun, then please find us more information from reliable sources about Mark Rathbun and then the single paragraph discussing Schwarz won't be as large a part of the whole. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Should half of Queen Elizabeth's article talk about the theory that she is really an alien lizard from outer space? Steve Dufour 07:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that parenthetical claim "(which quite a few believe)". It's good to avoid straw man arguments. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

At least a million more people believe the queen is an alien lizard than believe Mark and Barbara are married. :-) Steve Dufour 16:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And so far not even one person has been presented who believes that Mark was married to Barbara and to Anne -- certainly not Barbara, which makes it an irresponsible misrepresentation for you to bring this here claiming that she "seems to be" making claims of bigamy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case maybe Barbara's theories should be removed from Mark's article. Steve Dufour 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Mr. Dufour. Please read carefully. The fact that no one believes your original research combination of Schwarz's beliefs and the general beliefs contradicted by Schwarz does not say a single thing about what should or should not be in the article. One might as well say that because no one believes that the Apollo moon landings were both real and faked, it means that Misplaced Pages should never discuss anyone believing that they were faked. Frankly, it seems you are trying to game the system -- first, filing a completely false report that Schwarz "seems to be saying" Rathbun is a bigamist to get the article onto this noticeboard, and then continuing to argue what you think should be done with the article even after it's been clearly shown that your excuse for bringing it here is purely your own misrepresentation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with having the article mentioned on the notice board? Do you not want people to notice it? Steve Dufour 06:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)p.s. If only one person believed the moon landings were fake I don't think it would be mentioned in the WP article on them.

What is wrong with sticking with the truth, Mr. Dufour? What makes you think that you are entitled to manufacture an issue to try and make things go your way? What you are doing is the Misplaced Pages article namespace equivalent of POV forking, and just like any determined POV-pusher called out on his misdeeds, you are trying to pretend the issue is whether you get your way, not the fact that you already made all the same arguments and when you didn't convince consensus, you did an illegal end-run to try and dodge consensus. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the consensus of opinion of Misplaced Pages editors is that a conspiracy theory believed in by only one person, as far as I know that is, should be allowed to take up half the space in an article? Steve Dufour 20:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that if you had a concern about the article which was actually based on the facts and which had not already been rejected by consensus, you would have had no reason to resort to submitting this false report. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the article so that it was clear that bigamy was not implied. I hope this is a fair representation of Barbara's views. Steve Dufour 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My edit lasted about a day until someone reverted it so that it still looks as if Mark is accused of bigamy. Hopefully a new version will be writen which is acceptable to all. Steve Dufour 16:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the words "the real" in front of Mark's name the first time it was mentioned in Barbara's theory. I hope this is ok with both Antaeus and Tilman as being a fair representation of Barbara's views. Steve Dufour 14:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Taylor (footballer)

There is an edit war going on at this page between at least 2 people concerning the name of his wife and child/children! Neither person quotes sources or signs themselves, nor do they seem to read the talk page asking them to do this. Hyperman 42 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Fred Phelps Template:Blpwatch-links

User:143.81.252.12 has added defamatory information about subject, and was reverted. He re-added the material, but included a {{fact}} tag, and was reverted. The second reverter (who beat me by seconds) also placed a warning on user's talk page; I added a note with further explanation. Hopefully, that will take care of the issue, but 143.81.252.12 may come back, and the material is a rumor which has been floating around a while; if he doesn't bring it back, someone else might. Argyriou (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Edward Speleers Template:Blpwatch-links

There is an edit war concerning this actor's date of birth. In particular, various sources I have found provide two different years (including the actor's website and IMDb). There is a small discussion as to the what the correct birth date is on the talk page, but the article is generally unstable due to the rate at which the birth date is change. We have also seen in increase in vandalism lately, but that is easy enough to remove on a per-case basis. // Todayisdifferent 21:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein Template:Blpwatch-links

This is a dispute concerning a edit I made to the biographical section of the article on Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist and professor at DePaul University. Dr. Finkelstein is well known for works challenging certain facts about the Holocaust and the State of Israel.

In all of his publications and public appearances, Dr. Finkelstein makes the point that his parents were survivors of the Holocaust. He has stated that his mother and father were both survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto, as well as concentration camps and labor camps.

Whether of not Finkelstein's parents were indeed Holocaust survivors is important because it lends his positions a degree of credibility that would otherwise be absent.

My edits changed the categorical statement that Finkelstein's parents were survivors to statements that these accounts were due to Finkelstein himself.

My changes were removed by another editor who made no attempt to contact me and characterized my changes using extremely disparaging language. I engaged him on the discussion page of the article, and offered to soften the language while preserving the fact that the status of Finkelstein's parents as Holocaust survivors is due to Finkelstein himself and has no independent, third-party verification. I have not been able to resolve this matter in that context.

I have read the guidelines on biographies of living persons and feel that my edit can be worded within those guidelines and that it adds important information about Dr. Finkelstein.

I would like assistance in resolving this dispute. The record of it can be found in the section on "claiming" in the discussion page of the Norman Finkelstein article.

Thanks for your assistance.

Robert E. Rubin Roberterubin 22:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)roberterubin

The question here does not seem to be so much a matter of WP:BLP as of original research, as I assume the parents are no longer living. Have any critics of Norman Finkelstein cast doubt on whether his parents were Holocaust survivors? If the answer is no, then there is no real issue. If the answer is yes, then the dispute can be described. I would avoid writing "the only source is Finkelstein himself" or some such wording, because it implies "I think he's wrong but cannot prove it". Sam Blacketer 13:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a serious problem protecting the BLP of anyone who has criticised Israel, even if they have credentials as good as Norman Finkelstein. It's very, very wearing to take out, over and over again, these unsubstantiated and utterly pointless edits.

Meanwhile, of course, it's impossible to insert any evidence against Zionist politicians, no matter how well referenced and indeed proud they may be of their murderous racism. PalestineRemembered 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Itche Goldberg Template:Blpwatch-links

• Itche Goldberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Two days ago an anon listed this person as having died. I can find nothing in news.google.com which even mentions him, let alone his death. I have reverted pending a source. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• • His death has been reported again, with the only reference being alt.obituaries. Still zero refs at news.google.com. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Finally found a reliable source for his death - . User:Zoe|(talk) 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Prem Rawat

Dispute between Momento (talk · contribs) and Andries (talk · contribs) about repeated removal by Momento of sourced information from the talk page that Momento considers poorly sourced.

This dispute deals with more or less the same material as the Criticism of Prem Rawat dispute that is also listed on this noticeboard in another section hereabove.

Andries 08:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ascended_master

There are a number of problems with the addition of a "Critical" section under "External Links". This article is about the religious belief that calls saints in Heaven "Ascended Masters" and is not exclusive to any one organization or church. It is not about a political party position or a scientific theory; it is simply a religious belief.

Having these "Critical" links does not fit the external links guideline because it is not relevant to the article, rather these links are related to the Church Universal and Triumphant and / or Elizabeth Clare Prophet. Therefore these links could be on the Church_Universal_and_Triumphant or Elizabeth_Clare_Prophet pages if desired by other editors.

Another issue, is from the Misplaced Pages: Three Revert Rule WP:3RR: Reverting potentially libelous material: "All users are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced blatantly defamatory, potentially libelous information about living persons, whether within a biography of a living person or elsewhere, including associated talk pages. As with vandalism, the repeated addition of such material is best dealt with by blocking and page protection, and repeated reversion should be used only as a last resort. Reverts made to enforce this provision are generally not considered contentious, because they are necessary."

>>> The repeated adding of blatantly defamatory, potentially libelous external web site links attacking any person or organization on a page describing the belief in Ascended Masters, a religious belief held by a number of organizations both in the past and present, is totally out of place - and a violation of the Misplaced Pages policy quoted above (Elizabeth Clare Prophet is still living). This type of behavior interferes with the possibility of Misplaced Pages becoming an objective, neutral, and useful academic reference resource. At the very least, it should be obvious that under no circumstances should "External Links" to defamatory personal attack web sites directed against any individual or church be on an encyclopedia article that is NOT about that individual or church organization. Aburesz 01:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am currently mediating a dispute on Ascended master, and I would like some opinions regarding whether the links in the critical section of the external links would violate the living persons biography rules or not. Aburesz feels that they are because he believes that they are either unsourced or not sourced properly. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify a bit more, do external links fall into the living person's rules, and if yes, would these links violate it. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick Baker (chef) Template:Blpwatch-links

I would be grateful for some guidance on editing this article. User Sparkzilla is repeatedly reverting back potentially libelous material on this BLP. His cited sources are of an unreliable nature as the contentious material only appears in two self-published articles contrary to WP:V#SELF. Sparkzilla cannot show that the author is a well-known professional journalist with articles appearing in reliable third-party publications. Now he is trying to invoke the WP:BLP "Using the subject as a source" section to justify it's inclusion. However I believe this to be irrelevant to the case. An authoritative interpretation would be much appreciated. David Lyons 03:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The user David Lyons is attempting to remove any criticism of the Baker case on the grounds that the criticism comes mainly from an editorial written by Mark Devlin, the publisher of Japan's largest English magazine, and a follow-up article in the same magazine. David Lyons want this removed as self-published material.

Contrary to Mr Lyons opinion, NONE of the information in the section comes from articles published by Mr Devlin. I have shown in the talk section, by going through each part of the disputed content, that Mr Devlin's criticism of Mr Baker's support group has at least one third-party confirmation (Swindon Advertiser article) and that in fact, most of the items in the criticism section come from the support group themselves, or directly from comments by Iris Baker, Nick Baker's mother.

Even so, if there were no third-party confirmation I believe that Mr Devlin's reversal of opinion is sufficiently notable, even if self-published.

I have also argued that when a person who is mentioned in an article has made a definitive statement about the case on their personal websites (as both Mr Devlin and Iris Baker have), that their comments should be seen as authoritative as per "the Subject as a source" section of BLP. I would be very grateful for comments and advice. Sparkzilla 13:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't bore the authoritative editors here, except to say that my response to Sparkzilla appears on Nick Baker's talk page. David Lyons 17:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I commented in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Spero Dedes Template:Blpwatch-links

• Spero Dedes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) repeated attacks on Dedes' geographic knowledge. Considering the stubbiness of the article, the attacks are taking up about half of the page. I have removed them twice and have issued warnings, telling one user who has at least been civil that he needs to provide sources which question his ability. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoe, you should discuss things with the other editors on the Spero Dedes talk page. References are provided in the article. --ElectricEye (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

References are provided now. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "attack" but then it was put back and a comment made on my talk page. Steve Dufour 14:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, its on my watchlist now. --ElectricEye (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I went ahead and nominated the article for deletion, based on the relative unimportance of Mr. Dedes as well as the attack nature of half the article. Steve Dufour 15:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw. Someone needs to provide more references demonstrating his notability. As it is now, the article is mostly about his "mistake". It is biased. --ElectricEye (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was. I fixed the article. Spero Dedes is a notable american sportscaster. --ElectricEye (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I voted to keep so I guess that the deletion thing can be removed now. Steve Dufour 04:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Salah Choudhury Template:Blpwatch-links

• Salah Choudhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Bangladeshi editor. Uncited negative content is being added. One solution would be to block the person adding negative content, but that editor probably won't be the last, given the level of dislike against him. Andjam 09:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Graham Coutts Template:Blpwatch-links

• Graham Coutts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - currently lacks sources, which given that we're talking about a man convicted of murder is totally unacceptable. I haven't deleted anything because (a) it should be easy to find sources for most of it, but I don't have time right now, and (b) I think the article is important as it documents a key part of an ongoing political debate in the UK. JulesH 15:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Tahir-ul-Qadri Template:Blpwatch-links

• Tahir-ul-Qadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - completely unsourced and a major cleanup project. The article is periodically subject to the insertion of an opinionated paragraph deriding this individual's teachings and linking to a youtube video. --BigDT 07:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Roach (Buddhist) Template:Blpwatch-links

Michael Roach (Buddhist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The article is mainly based on the sources published by Michael Roach and his followers. However there is also a controversy on him. My wish was just to include a link of a critical website related to that controversies. The website lists the person in charge by name, but keeps the authors of the article hidden. User:Ekajati found that

• That is, the content is still anonymously authored. These people need to have the guts to put their name on their complaints if they want to be linked to from Misplaced Pages. The same legal issues apply. The site is still just a bunch of anons talking shit about somebody. Gossip does not deserve to be linked to from WP.

I replied that they offer also statements by the Dalai Lama who states the obvious that "We have seen a photograph of you wearing long hair, with a female companion at your side, apparently giving ordination. This would seem to conflict with the rules of Vinaya, and as you know, the Gelug tradition makes a point of upholding these very strictly. This unconventional behavior does not accord with His Holiness's teachings and practice." and that is surely not Gossip. Then she argued:

• that the publication of those letters from the Office of HH the Dalai Lama violate copyrights.

So what to do? Do you think it is against WP policies to include that critical site or not? Thank you very much. --Kt66 20:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Ekajati goes into more depth on the copyright issue on the article talk page (near the bottom). Apparently the site may be violating the copyrights of the subject of the article by publishing letters written by him w/o permission as well, which I think may be more significant than republishing letters of the Dalai Lama, who is more of a public figure. It appeared to me when I looked at the site that all the letters were intended to be private, not public, which may weigh against linking to this site, though for copyright reasons rather than WP:BLP reasons. A Ramachandran 20:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If one checks the site there are no letters written by Michael Roach published there, and never have been. Letters by HHDL's Office are published with permission. I think the main point here is this...

1) The site does have a constructively critical emphasis

2) There is no defamation now liable on the site

3) The site is well backed up by references and quotes from known and respected parties

(220.226.46.53 06:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC))

Yes, there are copyvio letters written by Michael Roach and other documents belonging to Roach and/or Diamond Mountain there. They are in PDF format and linked from http://www.diamond-cutter.org/references/documents.html. The copyvios include the links titled

• Letter to Lamas (open does not mean anyone else can publish without permission)
• Diamond Mountain Spin (this one has a copyright notice at the bottom)
• Spiritual Partners Poster (poster image rights belong to Diamond Mountain)
• Yoga of Business Poster (ditto)
• Tantra in America (transcript of a talk, rights belong to Roach)
• Magic of Empty Teachers (another talk, has Diamond Mountain logo on it)

These are all copyright violations. The site has no right to publish any of them. A Ramachandran 05:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS FAIR USE, NOT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.......

Diamond-Cutter.org makes use of materials written and published by Geshe Michael Roach and his projects, as well as various Buddhist scholars and the office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

The use of these materials does NOT constitute copyright violation as it falls under the definition of "Fair Use" as specified by the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works: Article 10 (Fair Use)

(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries.

(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union, and for special agreements existing or to be concluded between them, to permit the utilization, to the extent justified by the purpose, of literary or artistic works by way of illustration in publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings for teaching, provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice.

(3) Where use is made of works in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article, mention shall be made of the source, and of the name of the author, if it appears thereon.

Referenced from - http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/10.html

US Copyright Law defines "Fair Use" in this way:

Section 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Reference from - http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

NOTE: The US Copyright Law does not stipulate that only a portion of a work may be used as "Fair Use". Under US Law, and entire article may also be used as "Fair use".

It is obvious that Diamond-Cutter.org's use materials copyrighted to Geshe Michael Roach and his organisation falls under the category of "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,"... stipulated as "Fair Use" by US Copyright Law. Diamond-Cutter.org is a non profit Educational Site

Diamondwatcher 23:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Anshe Chung Template:Blpwatch-links

Blatantly, blatantly, violates BLP. This article is about a person best known through an online avatar, and it seems like all her online enemies have added unsourced negative material to the point where the largest part of the article is the "Controversy" section, almost all unsourced, accusing her of various things. Someone else helpfully added citation needed tags, but didn't delete the negative material. I'm going to delete it, but it'll probably get restored; someone please keep a watch on this. Ken Arromdee 03:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Debbie Schlussel Template:Blpwatch-links

More unsourced "controversies" being added. Need some extra eyes and perhaps someone who's better at working with newbies to deal with this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message on the user's page referring him/her to relevant policies and guidelines. It seems like the additions in question are message board posts, which are not verifiable anywhere. --BigDT 04:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh Template:Blpwatch-links

We're having trouble on Rush Limbaugh with some editors consistantly reverting additions quoting Rush Limbaugh on his views of appropriate punishment for drug crimes in the section about his personal drug debacle, claiming that the placement of the quote is POV and libelous per WP:BLP. There seems to be a consensus against this view and in favour of inclusion of the quote, if one can consider collaboration in phrasing the quote to be consensus for inclusion. Could someone please come by and offer us a fresh pair of eyes? GertrudeTheTramp 05:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, not a BLP issue, as the statement is sourced. Please consider making a request for comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Politics to ask for an outside view, if desired. --BigDT 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Julia Allison Template:Blpwatch-links

I along with another editor are having a dispute with Julia Allison. The subject of the article (an "opportunist") is constantly reverting (violation of 3RR) here, here, and here facts and is claiming via e-mail to "report" me for editing "her" article, as well as other threats. I removed her last name, because she was stalked in college, and is afraid of her last name being revealed, because she doesn't want to be stalked in New York City, since she is a sex columnist (Note: Sex is not included because this will harm her "image"). So, I have agreed. But, she wants to upload pictures that I don't feel is necessary to be involved in the article. I pointed to WP:AUTO, but I don't she is understanding or ignoring the policy all together. Would someone please comment on this, because I really am too nervous to sleep over this because I am afraid that she might sue Misplaced Pages over some bull. She has also been a part of controversies as well (i.e. plagiarizing an article in college...I didn't source this because of legal threats) and wants to re-write history. Bearly541 11:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted a somewhat lengthy comment at Talk:Julia Allison. I hope it leads to a constructive conversation. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reports Bearly. First, please assume good faith and be civil in your comments here: 1. Calling her an opportunist is not necessary; 2. The diffs you posted do not show a violation of 3RR; 3. She followed WP:AUTO and commented on the article talk page about it and hasn't edited the article since; 4. Saying she is part of controversy and has plagiarized is also unnecessary; 5. What legal threats?; 6. Re-write history?? --ElectricEye (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

She took out information after I e-mailed her about WP:AUTO. I am being civil on my comments here. What I mean by threats is: that she was going to report me to Misplaced Pages because I edited her "article" and she is the only person to edit her article. And, she wants certain facts to be said about her...etc. Bearly541 01:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella Template:Blpwatch-links

It seems that a couple of editors, one anon 209.217.124.237 (talk · contribs) and one new-ish account Happy Fun Toy (talk · contribs), are keen to promote an attack site critical of the subject of the article. Deleting the offending posts should be sufficient. Bucketsofg 14:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ira Berlin

Berlin is a historian who writes about slavery and editor joelrosenblum (who has a huge beef with Berlin) has repeatedly posted assertions that Berlin is pro-slavery. He bases this solely on a reading of one of Berlin's books done by students at a high school, citing no scholars who agree with him. I have repeatedly removed the Berlin-is-pro-slavery section (called "Controversial Book Passages") because I think the argument that Berlin is pro-slavery is unbelievably wrong, because I think there is no "controversy" just because one editor and some high school students who obviously don't know much about history say there is, and because calling a historian of slavery who is still alive "pro-slavery" risks libel charges as far as I'm concerned. I'm sick of the edit war and am hoping someone else can weigh in. For now the "Controversial Book Passages" section is in the article (joelrosenblun re-instated it) but I'm arguing that it should be removed entirely because it is absurd and, more importantly, potentially libelous. There is relevant discussion at Talk:Ira Berlin--Bigtimepeace 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Danny Pinaturo link to pornographic web site

The following was added to the Danny Pinaturo Misplaced Pages page by user 172.193.116.59 on January 7th at 19:28. It was removed by CieloEstrellado at 22:19 and reinserted again by 172.193.116.59 on January 8th at 4:41am.

According to Campfire Video , Mr. Pintauro has taken out an add on the adult gay male website http://www.manhunt.net/ advertising that he is looking for sexual playmates. The ad includes nude photographs of Mr. Pintauro. " I think the link is inappropriate for both the content the link points to and the link connection to a "for profit" web site. It also violates the Misplaced Pages living biography policy in my opinion: Articles about living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, must adhere strictly to Misplaced Pages's content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page:

I have removed it again and advised on talk it has been turned over to Biobraphies of living persons/noticeboard. Philbertgray 14:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncited controversial claim on LL Cool J page

There is a statement in the Trivia section that says LL Cool J has only 1 testicle due to a childhood accident involving his mother and a meat cleaver. If true, this should be cited. Otherwise, it should be removed. ohaqqi 13:09, 8 January 2007 (EST)

This was vandalism to the article. I has since been removed. WJBscribe  21:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Biography on Les Balsiger==Template:Blpwatch-links

There is a page on a Les Balsiger that is an obvious bio of a non-notable living person and is also an attack on this individual. "140.211.55.195 22:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)",

• Comment - this article is currently being considered on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Les Balsiger (2nd nomination). I took a look at the article and don't see it as an attack article. --BigDT 05:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the article is about a living individual who is really not notable at all and is only sourced by religous articles from the source claiming to be wronged and a blog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.81.43 (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Self-contradiction - This is the exact opposite of the comment made by 71.111.81.43 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute) in the first Les Balsiger AfD while deleting another participant's comment:
    • "I do not agree, he is a well known person in Oregon and think he should remain"

--A. B. 19:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill Huard Template:Blpwatch-links

• Bill Huard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - subject of the article edits as User:Hueys20. The article is almost completely unsourced and could use a general cleanup and some assistance, particularly form anyone familiar with hockey, in finding sources. --BigDT 05:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

George A. Ricaurte Template:Blpwatch-links

• George A. Ricaurte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This has been a battleground for views on animal testing and the scientific method. Large chunks of unreferenced text with only a peripheral connection to the article subject have been repeatedly added. I have been reverting it to a stub and have said on the talk page that additions require verifiable sources. Could do with someone else having a look to see if you agree with my approach and to help to keep it in shape. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Gammell Template:Blpwatch-links

• Stephen Gammell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this article about an author of children's books stayed vandalized for over a month with some nonsense claiming he was publishing pornography books. Several other editors have added unsourced negative information. Please keep an eye on it. --BigDT 05:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no problem when I checked. However...I almost hate to bring this up because he sounds like such a nice guy....but the article is completely unsourced and really gives the impression of a puff piece. Steve Dufour 05:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yisroel Dovid Weiss Template:Blpwatch-links

• Yisroel Dovid Weiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edit war, mainly dispute about whether subject is rabbi, per every source, or not per certain editors unsourced opinions. Should be noted that it is debatable whether in the subjects milieu (haredi judaism) there needs to be a formal granting of 'ordination' (semicha) for him to use this title. Although this is a secondary point, as despite claims like 'common knowledge' etc. not a single source has been offered even questioning his claim to the title. There is also the problem that some of these editors wish to introduce rumours about homosexuality, paedophilia, etc. Thanx in advance,  ⇒ bsnowball  16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Clay Aiken Template:Blpwatch-links

• Clay Aiken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edit war pushing POV. This article has been through mediation and arbitration was requested and then withdrawn when a consensus for the topic format was reached. The history is in Archives 10-12. Hoponpop69 (talk · contribs) is now pushing POV edits regarding the sexuality issue and has reverted the page 4 times today. I don't want to get into an edit war and put a warning on his talk page which he ignored. Can someone please step in and help. It appears this user has a history of disruptive edits and has just come off a block. This is the edit that has the consensus Maria202 01:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

2006 corruption scandals in Chile Template:Blpwatch-links

• 2006 corruption scandals in Chile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) New, well referenced article with much potentially libelous text. The references are in Spanish, which I cannot read to determine whether the statements are true. The article may need someone to review it who reads Spanish. Thanks. -- Jreferee 01:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura

• Yoshiaki Omura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article is a biography of a living person in which the content is clearly disputed. While it is protected from editing and correction, false and misleading, poorly sourced, irresponsible and potentially libelous material is being exhibited, and Dr. Omura's reputation is being damaged. This is unacceptable. I have repeatedly removed such material and it was repeatedly replaced, and now I am disabled from editing the article though I am not unregistered or newly registered. PLEASE HELP. We should not need a law firm to help us remove such material.

Sincerely, Telomere+ Telomere+ 07:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the statements in the article are indeed negative to Dr Omura, but these statements appear to be clearly referenced. What do you mean by "poorly sourced"? Andrew Dalby 13:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Kelsang Gyatso Template:Blpwatch-links

Kelsang Gyatso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - nothing specific at the moment, but the primary editor of the article is a critic of the subject. There seem to be few other editors, the article is dense, and I think it could use a few more eyes... A Ramachandran 14:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put it on my watchlist. Andrew Dalby 14:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sidhoji Rao Shitole Template:Blpwatch-links

Sidhoji Rao Shitole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Terminator III (talk · contribs) keeps adding Category:Cult leaders to the article. A Ramachandran 01:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

User warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Huizenga Template:Blpwatch-links

• Wayne Huizenga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Not an experienced editor - This page keeps getting both vandalized and random possibly libelous comments added to it. I am having a hard time keeping up and I am not sure how much of the unverified information to delete. // Butnotthehippo 05:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Nathan Braun Template:Blpwatch-links

• Nathan Braun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The subject of this article was once accused of having sexually groped a woman while they were among a group sleeping on the floor at some conference. The accusations were widely disseminated on the internet, and a special website was even created for the purpose. Some time ago I removed the allegation from the article due to the lack of a reliable source. A better source has been found and the allegation has been added again, by 70.111.245.52 (talk · contribs). I'd appreciate a different set of eyes to look at this and decide if this new source is sufficient. (Slightly complicating matters is that the subject appears to have edited Misplaced Pages in order to promote himself in a number of articles. He hasn't been active recently, so far as I know). -Will Beback · † · 00:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The sources seem to be sound, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This is one of the bios which made me glad to see WP:LIVING. -Will Beback · † · 10:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher) Template:Blpwatch-links

In Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), several editors seem intent on adding information from and a link to an anti-Cohen blog. It has been repeated pointed out on the talk page by several other editors that blogs are not reliable sources and may not even be linked to in external links, but these editors persist in resinserting these unreliable sources. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administration
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution