Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:35, 15 April 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

WP:BLPC

I created this page, as a simple category, to flag BLP concerns quickly: WP:BLPC. It seems like a good idea. - Denny 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Watch it fill up. :-) SlimVirgin 21:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully it clears even faster. :) - Denny 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Very good idea. Nice one. -- ChrisO 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP recentchanges

A link to Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people has been added to the RecentChanges page under the "Utilities" row, titled BLP. This can facilitate the finding of vandalism to biographies of living persons to avoid a "Sinbad (actor)-type" incident happening in the future. Cross-posted to WP:VPN, WP:AN, WT:BLP, #wikipedia, and #wikipedia-en. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Michael Langan Template:Blpwatch-links

I question whether the section in question was libelous but it was absolutely and without question a violation of WP:NOR, and an excellent example of why NOR is such an important rule in Misplaced Pages. Interpretation of complex evidence from original sources is extremely difficult and dangerous, which is why we must avoid it, and especially in WP:WLP situations.--Jimbo Wales 12:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There is currently an ongoing dispute in relation to potentially libelous material in this entry. That the material is potentially libelous has been argued by four editors: Asmodeus, DrL, Sheerfirepower, and FNMF. User Asmodeus is the subject of the entry; DrL is the wife of the subject. Other editors disagree that the material is libelous. Asmodeus and DrL are presently banned from editing the entry. In my opinion, not only is the material potentially libelous, being a one-sided representation of an uncontested lawsuit, but the material is totally non-notable and unimportant in relation to the subject of the entry. For these reasons I believe the section should be deleted. The editors that disagree have a clear antipathy toward the subject of the entry for several reasons, and I do not believe they are in an objective position to judge the issue, despite some of them being long-term editors of Misplaced Pages. It is my opinion that the bad faith of many of the editors of this entry extends far beyond the particular issue I have raised here, and constitutes a campaign in violation of Misplaced Pages's official policy in relation to living persons.

I believe the potential libelousness of this section of the entry has been raised in this forum previously by user DrL. But whatever was the outcome of that process, the current state of the dispute is unsatisfactory.

I wish to point out that I have no association with Langan, am not a proponent of his ideas, and am not a proponent of intelligent design (with which he has been linked, a link he insistently contests). But I am appalled at the editing which has afflicted this entry.

As is the way with these things, there are an endless number of potentially relevant diffs. Here, however, are the diffs I consider to be the most critical:

• 1. Asmodeus: original request for removal of potentially libelous material
• 2. Response by Arthur Rubin
• 3. Response by Asmodeus
• 4. Opinion of Sheerfirepower
• 5. Sheerfirepower
• 6. Response of FeloniousMonk
• 7. Further comment by Sheerfirepower
• 8. Opinion of FNMF
• 9. Edit deleting section by FNMF
• 10. Reversion of deletion by Arthur Rubin
• 11. Comment on reversion by FNMF, indicating all the violations of official policy by editors of the entry
• 12. Undoing reversion by FNMF
• 13. Comment by Guettarda
• 14. Reversion of deletion by Guettarda
• 15. Comment on reversion by FNMF
• 16. Undoing of reversion by FNMF
• 17. Comment by Guettarda on User talk: FNMF
• 18. Reversion of deletion by Arthur Rubin
• 19. Comment by Guettarda
• 20. Comment by FNMF on User talk: Guettarda
• 21. Comment by Guettarda on User talk: FNMF
• 22. Comment by FNMF on Langan talk page
• 23. Comment by FNMF on User talk: Guettarda
• 24. Comment by Guettarda on User talk: FNMF
• 25. Comment by FeloniousMonk on Langan talk page
• 26. Comment by Guettarda on User talk: FNMF
• 27. Comment by Arthur Rubin on Langan talk page
• 28. Comment by FNMF on User talk: FeloniousMonk
• 29. Response by FNMF to Arthur Rubin's comment on talk page
• 30. Note left for Jimmy Wales explaining circumstances of the dispute

I hope this helps make the issue clear. I believe this is a serious and ongoing policy violation with potential legal consequences. I believe outside assessment is necessary, given the antipathy to the subject by the involved editors. FNMF 04:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Jimbo; however, WP:BLP applied to the Mega Society, itself, requries that the Mega Foundation be excised from the article if some reference to the dispute between L and the Mega Society is not there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The above argument by Arthur Rubin is ridiculous. The references in question are to Langan's work. The notion that mentioning a foundation of which Langan is a member and a founder is somehow libelous, just because there was, in the past, a legal dispute with another foundation, is nonsensical. It is also evidence of the destructive editing pattern afflicting the entry. FNMF 13:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above is the comment I left on the Langan talk page here.

A summary of the arguments for and against removing the links to published secondary references accessible on Langan's website has been made here. FNMF 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Certain individuals are disruptively editing this entry in an attempt to slant POV. Users FeloniousMonk, Arthur Rubin, and Guettarda have reverted reasonable edits that were worked on by a number of editors who established consensus. Instead of involving themselves in the collaboration process, they simply revert. As admins, these individuals should be fostering a cooperative environment rather than editing in a disruptive fashion. --Honorable citizen 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A few impassioned disputants are still, pardon the expression, going nuts on the article talk page (some even arguing that the term "autodidact" should not be used in the introduction but that "self-taught" should be used because autodidact is, what, too obscure? excuse me, in an encyclopedia? when it's linked to the article yet?) but if they understand Misplaced Pages policies well enough that the article itself will remain at least as encyclopedic as it is now, this section can be archived. That's a question, hence I'm not archiving it yet. — Athænara ✉ 01:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out a couple of things. The dispute about the word "autodidact" was initiated by a party previously not involved in editing the entry at all, and I don't believe is going to be an ongoing issue. Some of the issues above have been more or less resolved (such as the NOR violations in relation to the lawsuit). Others persist. Several editors continue to treat the entry as a battleground about intelligent design, despite little or no evidence that the subject of the entry is an advocate of ID. Because of the perception by some editors that Langan is an advocate of ID, however, they remain hostile to the subject, and persist in a campaign against improving the entry. The most recent problem is the question of whether to include a section describing Langan's ideas. False objections are being raised to the idea of including such a section, arguments such as: that it would unnecessarily "promote" Langan's ideas; or that Langan's ideas are not notable enough to describe in an entry devoted to him; or that to include such a section gives his ideas undue weight. See the recent talk page discussion of this matter. Problems may well continue with this entry, so long as some editors continue to view the entry as a battleground in the war on ID, and so long as they do not attend sufficiently to the requirements of BLP. Any assistance in this matter would be most welcome. FNMF 01:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I take your points as cogent observations of the situation.

The trivial dispute about "autodidact" is symptomatic—a few editors are far more interested in squabbling about tangential issues than they are in improving the article. The latter is the primary purpose of any article talk page as per Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." — Athænara ✉ 02:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be worth watching this entry for another few days. FNMF 09:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett Template:Blpwatch-links

→ See also: Talk:Stephen Barrett#Request for comment: Board certification.

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

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

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

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

David Gaiman Template:Blpwatch-links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel Pipes Template:Blpwatch-links

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

Peter Dobbie Template:Blpwatch-links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Hicks Template:Blpwatch-links

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

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

Muhammad al-Durrah Template:Blpwatch-links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louise Lanctôt Template:Blpwatch-links

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

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

David Miscavige

This person is the president of the Church of Scientology, and as such an object of controversy. An accusation against him was added to the article based on the statements of a former church member posted to three anti-Scientology websites. The charges may be true but it doesn't seem to me that they can be stated as fact on WP. I have removed them twice and they were put back. Steve Dufour 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• The information was from a sworn affidavit. The information should be reinserted back into the article, but with correct clear attribution given to the source of the statement. Smee 05:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

• Isn't it the case that anyone can basically allege anything in an affidavit? I'm not sure we can regard such a document as a reliable source given the lack of any editorial controls or verification. A court judgment might be a different case, but an affidavit doesn't seem to me to be a very satisfactory source. -- ChrisO 06:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• In a sworn affidavit, the person is under oath. Theoretically, they'd face the same penalties as lying to the court from the witness stand. AndroidCat 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That still does not give us the right to repeat the charges as if they were a fact. For all we know the person giving the testimony could be mentally unstable. Steve Dufour 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, why not remove otherwise citable references for everyone? They might be be mentally unstable too! AndroidCat 20:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of them are not making charges against living people. Steve Dufour 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue seems to be now resolved. Steve Dufour 01:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to take that last comment back. The statement has been returned to the article. Steve Dufour 10:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Casey Serin Template:Blpwatch-links

A US Department of Justice IP of 149.101.1.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) got reported to AIV over this, possible BLP issues. - Denny 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

John Cornyn Template:Blpwatch-links

• John Cornyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The "Casino investigation" section has no sources, and therefore is a serious breach of BLP. I strongly considered deleting the entire section, but have waited for input. But if none is forthcoming, the whole section has to go. Corvus cornix 23:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A brief search found this as a possible source for some of the material. The CREW item on their filing can be found here. That's obviously a primary source, but it could be used to support the fact that CREW indeed made a filing. JavaTenor 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Those sources look sufficient to me. Someone removed the section though. Can we/should we put the section back? Fieari 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ted Nugent Template:Blpwatch-links

• Ted Nugent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There's been a complaint about this being a biased article. A quick read over it and the 'controversies' section, gives me cause for concern. Some sources are very poor. I've no time to do this properly but some bold editing and removals look like being in order. Can folk deal with this?--Doc 11:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This bio is terrible. It needs a full re-write with some fact checking. The subject's (purported) just came through and deleted some extensive info, possibly justifiably. -Will Beback · † · 11:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI to anyone who cares, I have deleted that revision as the edit summary contained a phone number. --BigDT 15:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald Template:Blpwatch-links

• Glenn Greenwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I don't know a lot about the subject of this article; however, it has been the subject of a protracted revert war as of late over one section in particular. The article is about a fairly notable blogger, and the section in question discusses a "controversy" in the blogosphere where someone accused the subject of sockpuppetry on other blogs to support himself and his own views. The article cites 3 sources; 2 are partisan blogs, and the other is the subject's response on his blog to those allegations. My understanding of WP:BLP is that it applies very clearly to this paragraph, and explicitly disallows it in the "Reliable sources" section. The user advocating that the paragraph should stay, David Spart (talk · contribs) has not been able to provide a reliable source (though he has claimed that the blogs cited are not, in fact, blogs, and are "very very reliable"). He has also accused a number of accounts reverting the edits reinstating the paragraph of being sockpuppets. I attempted to interject in the discussion on the talk page as (what I felt was) a neutral third party, to no avail, so I am asking for further third-party input. Is my reading of both policy and this particular situation correct? Thanks in advance. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the "sockpuppetry" section carries a negative POV and must be considered libelous. WP:BLP begs Editors to "especially" avoid potentially libelous material. --AStanhope 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This whole article seems way too heated. Steve Dufour 03:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello David Spart here, the comments above are entirely shameless and mendacious in misrepresenting my position. It gives the impression that I as saying that blogs are "very very reliable" sources, when in fact the reliable sources the section are based on are Townhall.com, US News and World Report and Greenwald's own defense, which is actually the bulk of the 70 word paragraph. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 02:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not my intention to misrepresent your position or attack you (by all accounts, you are an excellent editor). However, the Townhall.com source is a blog (and a partisan one at that, which WP:BLP specifically addresses). The U.S. News & World Report source is a partisan blog. I am unsure whether Greenwald's own post on his blog about the issue makes the issue salient if we have no reliable sources that cover the incident in the first place. And note that I said that I am unsure — one of the reasons I have asked for 3rd party input here. I have no objections to the text itself, if it can be sourced to a (or preferably multiple) reliable source(s), as WP:BLP explicitly requires. I am positive that your position is held in good faith and in an attempt to make the article adhere to a neutral point of view. However, at the moment, from my interpretation of the facts and BLP (which is non-negotiable, overarching policy), the section cannot remain in the article. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that some major publications and outlets publish some of their material unter the heading "blog" does not in any way impair the WP:ATT status of the material in question. It has the same editorial overdight, and legal accountabliity if for example someone were to sue.Townhall.com is one of the biggest online outlets and is owned by a major corporation. The US News and WOrld Report is a major journal. Is the Gaudian's Commentisfree not a reliable source? Are the comoment pieces in any number of newspapers not reliable simply becasue when they are put up onine they are under the title blog? Is printing on paper the Gold Standard of ATT? No, if major coorporations are putting millions of dollars on the line to disemenate contention information then that satisfies ATT. No ATT problem, no NPOV problem, no BLP problem. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 05:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the editorial oversight on all 3 of the blogs sourced is nil, which is exactly why blogs aren't allowed to be cited as reliable sources per BLP. The amount of money being paid to disseminate information has no bearing on whether a source is reliable or not. I'm sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with your position. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 14:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Outednt. You are wrong about that, for practical legal reasons. Here is the blurb about the commentisfree blog:

I can't find any staffing information for the US News and World Repost, but I asure you the same applies, as it does with Townhall.com owned by Salem Communications. If a major organisation is disseminating information through its own staff, you can sure there is editorial oversight, because anything libelous puts them at unlimited liability. There will a team of fact-checkers and a lawyer, as well as sub-editors. So, I guess we now have a question to ask the oracle. Are articles disseminated by major publication online under the title "blog" count as blogs or as reliable sources? Where do we go to get this question resolved?David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is something that's been bothering me for a while, too. I would suggest a simple metric. The criterion for reliability isn't whether it's a blog, per se; it's whether it has editorial oversight. The Guardian's commentisfree site clearly does. It's unclear whether US News and World Repost does and we shouldn't assume it in the absence of evidence. I would suggest excluding major-publication blogs if there is no evidence of editorial oversight, but including them if there is such evidence. However, this would require a change to WP:RS. Given that, this discussion would be better continued on Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources rather than here. -- ChrisO 11:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Straight, Incorporated Template:Blpwatch-links

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

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

Roger E. Billings Template:Blpwatch-links

Roger E. Billings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Billings is a promoter of hydrogen cars who had an article about him a couple of years ago on Time. However, he's also revered as a "prophet and patriarch" by a small breakoff sect of Mormonism located in Missouri. This sect has always been very secretive, and information about them has maily been in news articles and court documents. One member (or former member, according to her) of that sect, User:Firewriter, has been attempting to fill the article with unverifiable information about Billings that portrays him in an absurdly glowing light (i.e., he supposedly invented the PC, networking, and the hydrogen car), while ignoring the published information about his links to the religious sect. User:Firewriter works with Billings in their underground Academy, and as far as I know, may even be a relation. Her contribution amounts to creating a vanity article for her religious leader. I've attempted to limit the article to documented published sources, but she insists on adding material in violation of the BLP policy. Please help! // MotherHubbard 23:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Firewriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Treepoet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

Also to be watched is User:Treepoet, who admits she is another member of Billings' organization. Treepoet and/or Firewriter may also have been using sockpuppets, because I've traced an anonymous IP to Missouri, where Billings' organization is headquartered. MotherHubbard 23:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting a car to run on hydrogen is not terribly hard, similar to converting to natural gas. Anyway, the article looks like it's been improved. I'll keep an eye on it too. -Will Beback · † · 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Gene R. Nichol Template:Blpwatch-links

• Gene R. Nichol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• College of William & Mary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yehuda HaKohen Template:Blpwatch-links

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

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

Cat Porter (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

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

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

Michael_Kim_(director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Michael_Kim_(director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Palialumni (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

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

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

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

Todd Goldman Template:Blpwatch-links

• Todd Goldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Potentially libelous accusations of plagiarism from trivial unreliable sources like blogs and message boards have been repeatedly added recently. See, for example, here. // Dragonfiend 08:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nick Baylis Template:Blpwatch-links

• 192.188.101.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nick Baylis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:192.188.101.10 has repeatedly written that the subject is a "total fraud". I'm going to be away for a couple weeks, please watchlist the article and block/semiprotect if he continues. // Rhobite 11:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Merril Hoge Template:Blpwatch-links

• 71.96.155.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.252.184.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.242.150.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Merril Hoge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An article about a somewhat unpopular ESPN NFL analyst. For some time now, this article has seen the repeated insertion (mostly by anons) of claims about Hoge's supposed "bias", "hatred", "vendetta", etc. toward Tennessee Titans quarterback Vince Young, based on his criticism of the QB in a few on-air spots. Requests for reliable sources regarding his supposed "bias" or the claim that he is "noted" for this criticism have gone unanswered. I could use some outside input on this one. WarpstarRider 22:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nadine Gordimer Template:Blpwatch-links

Please see the entry for Nadine Gordimer. Ongoing violations of BLP have been occurring there for months. In summary, the issue stems from an attack and robbery at her South African house. There has been months of argument about whether to include mention of the race of the attackers. No reliable and legitimate secondary sources have been provided establishing that the race of the attackers is notable for the subject of the entry. There is clear evidence of POV-pushing, and a general refusal to edit this BLP entry with sensitivity. I have only begun contributing to this entry today, making clear my view that no justification for including discussion of the race of the attackers has been provided, and making clear my view that this is a clear violation of BLP, NOR, and NPOV (see Talk:Nadine_Gordimer#BLP_and_notability). FNMF 05:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• BLP does not say "several legitimate and reliable sources." On the other hand, an article's subject is notable "if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself." Gordimer is notable. Nobody denies that.

• The race of the attackers is not questioned as a verified fact by either side. The material is based on reliable sources, is accurate and relevant per RS and BLP. The Sunday Times of London and Daily Telegraph are RS. It's an NPOV debate, not BLP. Yakuman (数え役満) 07:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Nobel writer Nadine Gordimer, 82, attacked and robbed". The Sunday Times (London). October 29, 2006.

"Gang who robbed me should have jobs to do, says Gordimer". The Daily Telegraph (London). November 2, 2006. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

• The entry has been blocked for a week by user Durova, who did not take a position on the dispute. However I refer others to the discussion mentioned above, at Talk:Nadine_Gordimer#BLP_and_notability, in particular my detailed explanation of the policy situation here, as well as to the explanation I gave to Durova here. It seems to me that rather than a dispute-resolution process, the clear violation of BLP occurring at this entry requires more decisive action. FNMF 08:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I further note that user Yakuman has insisted on posting the disputed material on the talk page of the entry (in a section called "Missing material"). If the material is indeed a violation of policy, then its inclusion on the talk page (as it already is numerous times) is another violation of the policy, and ought to be removed also. FNMF 08:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy St. Louis Biography

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

Template:Dominionism Template:Blpwatch-links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it really a good idea to have a template for someone's views, even if they are run-of-the-mill and reflect those of a large segment of society? Is this template really needed at all? It could also be asked why are people interested in dominionism at all? Why are they talking and writing about it? Do very many believe in it? Are people interested in learning about it? Or do they think that by talking about it they might influence the outcome of the 2008 elections? Steve Dufour 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack Ingram Template:Blpwatch-links

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

Mindy Kaling Template:Blpwatch-links

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

Vic Sprouse Template:Blpwatch-links

• Tracy112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.165.2.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.217.102.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Vic Sprouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Thank you. There has been several cases of changes to the 'Vic Sprouse' bio that includes information about alleged infidelity and information on a recent divorce. It has been removed on several occasions and continues to reappear. Can this be stopped? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VicSprouse (talk • contribs)

I have added the article to my watchlist. Obviously, the addition of unsourced negative claims violates Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living persons. If the vandalism returns, the user in question can be blocked from editing or the article can be temporarilly protected from being edited by new users. --BigDT 00:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Kris Weston Template:Blpwatch-links

• 81.96.161.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kris Weston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Kris Weston, a former member (early 1990s !!!!) of the techno/ambience/experimental British act The Orb, complains that the article regarding him is full of mistaken info, sourced on faked info taken from untrustable and malicious "paparazzi"-style sites. He really doesn't want to have an entry here, though he is (or was very) notable, I think he's the right to ask such removal. He no longer want to talk to this site 'cos he feels that many mot..fuc... are here just to have fun on him.Doktor Who 16:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• He has been highly uncivil when dealing with us and has not even attempted a dialog not filled with death threats and cursing. None of the sources are from paparazzi sites, but from British print newspapers. There is no attack/negative information in any articles about him, so I really don't know what his problem is. I don't understand what specific information is contentious. Wickethewok 01:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, this story is very simple: he feels that over a dozen of ppl are deliberaterly misrepresenting him and some of his past; therefore he regards almost everyone here as a potential and actual harrasser. Anyone would behave like him. Furthermore (but this is just my opinion), I sadly realize that none took some minutes of his/her time to talk to him politely, avoiding at the same time the use of any term or sentence that may sound so "Misplaced Pages slang".Doktor Who 02:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administration
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution