Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Taylor Trescott (talk | contribs) at 23:07, 15 November 2013 (→Shavarsh Karapetyan: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

Request to remove an address

A reader contacted Wikimedia. VRTS ticket # Ticket ID parameter missing. She is a relative of the current owner of a home mentioned in Enfield Poltergeist. She is understandably unhappy that the exact address is listed.

I realize that the address is a supported by a reliable source, so we have to right to include it, if we think it contributes to the reader's understanding of the article.

I don't think the readers' understanding of the events will be diminished if the street address and number are removed.

It is causing distress to the current owners of the home, who are unconnected (AFAIK) to the people involved in the event. As noted in the policy, articles should be written with regard for the subject's privacy. While the current owner is technically not the subject, that adds to the issue, rather than mitigating it. We should balance the desire for privacy against the value that it adds to the article. I don't see this as a close call, and think it should be removed from the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree - I dont see that the exact address adds anything to that article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed address, rephrased, and placed a warning comment. Jim1138 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Many of the references list the address, one article's title and URL is the address of the house. I would guess the current tenants get many unwanted visitors, most probably not from the article. Jim1138 (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be useful for a link to this discussion to appear on the article's talk page (since I've only discovered it after reverting Jim1138's edits). However, the address is a matter of fact, supported by various sources, and the current occupant is not the subject of the article. There isn't, as far as I can see, a valid reason in Misplaced Pages terms (eg WP:PRIVACY for removing it, any more than there would be a valid reason for removing the address of any other notable event from their respective articles.Ghughesarch (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Leave out the addresss. I don't see how the address contributes to the article. If someone is very interested in it, they can and will find the address elsewhere. Jim1138 (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I support the address removal and now on my watchlist♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous. Just clicking on links from the article reveals the exact address. It's a pity the current occupant apparently has trouble over it (I wouldn't know, as I can't see the ticket, how reliable that claim is), but we don't engage in that sort of censorship. The genie is out of the bottle on this one, and it's pointless - and wrong - to try to put it back. Ghughesarch (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It isnt censorship as the address isnt required, we can only affect what goes into wikipedia not what happens outside and we have a BLP policy to avoid distress to living ppl and there is no question the occupants of the house are living ppl and so our BLP policy MUST include them♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation of how the BLP policy is adhered too is absolutely wrong. We avoid contentious unsourced or poorly sourced claims. As this address is sourced, it doesn't run into BLP. Does Inlcuding the address help the article? Probably not. Does it hurt it? Of course not. Perhaps a happy compromise would be to include the street name and leave it at that.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY specifically says that articles should not include postal addresses for living people, regardless of whether they are poorly sourced or not.

Furthermore, I find the argument "it's okay because this is not the address of the subject, it's the address of an unrelated third party" to be wikilawyering. The intent of the policy is to prevent the publication of private information of people, not of "subjects", regardless of whether the literal wording refers to subjects only. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It might be possible to suggest mentioning the street name on the talk page but as a choice of including or excluding the street name, under no circumstances should the postal address be included. BLP also demands we respect people who arent notable, not merely those who, for whatever reason, are notable. The address belongs to these living, unnotable people and of course BLP and wikipedia supports protecting their privacy and not walking all over it♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The intent of BLPPRIVACY is clearly defined: to prevent identity theft. Would we not publish the address of the Sorbonne because a caretaker lived there?Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Err, we dont publish the address of the caretaker of the Sorbonne, or that of any caretakers throughout the worl. If these ppl in Enfield were making money from living there such as running a museum there it would be entirely different, and indeed we might not publish the address to avoid supporting an outside party's commerial endeavours. We do publish George Osborne's address but it isnt a comparable situation as Osborne chose to live where he does, indeed had to fight for the privelege♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 04:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The caretaker of the Sorbonne would be aware of the privacy situation before taking up residence. The current resident of Green likely not given the request. Jim1138 (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with laws in the UK regarding a stigmatized property, but I would assume disclosure would be mandated even for a rental. I've no idea how council housing works. As I've said before, there really isn't a problem with removing the address, but the privacy issues raised here by some are nonsense. The full address is readily available in the linked sources, anyone that is remotely interested in finding the exact location will have no trouble doing so.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Sorbonne is not deemed to be only a location for Poltergeist activity, a claim in this article that is currently backed up by non-reputable, credulous sources. The claims are unevenly moderated ("The activity occurred...") and it's written as if it's trying to tell a good ghost story rather than inform that actual people were acting fraudulently. It's not just the address that should be removed. It's a deeply unbalanced article that is not fair to the people living there now. __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There really isn't any more of a WP:PRIVACY issue here than there is for the current occupants of any similar location, eg 112 Ocean Avenue, Amityville The Amityville Horror, or neighbours of the site of Borley Rectory, or the neighbours of the former 16 Wardle Brook Avenue, Hattersley Moors_murders#Initial_report. The address where the events took place is known and widely publicised in articles on the "poltergeist" activity, the current occupants' names or other details are (rightly) not given in the article, and expecting this to be made a special case because of some (alleged) sensitivity on their part would set an absurd precedent. Ghughesarch (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

However, as Green Street is about half a mile long and includes 350+ addresses, it seems (perhaps) a reasonable compromise, to me, to give the street name but leave out the number? The matters raised by Elaqueate really have nothing to do with this particular issue and belong on the talk page for the article Ghughesarch (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

BLPPRIVACY doesn't say that you can't publish the address on Misplaced Pages, unless it's in a reliable source. It just says you can't publish the address on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is the #1 site on the net for a lot of searches and putting the information on Misplaced Pages greatly increases its public profile, even if it's already published somewhere else.

There really isn't any more of a WP:PRIVACY issue here than there is for...

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to ignore policy. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY is about the privacy of people who are the subjects of an srticle, not about people who happen to live at a location where an event took place which is itself the subject of an article. The logical extension of your support for removal of any part of the address from this particular article is that any article about either any building where anyone lives or works, or any event, cannot have its address given. Ghughesarch (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You could not be more wrong, Ghughesarch, BLP is about every living person on the planet, otherwise we would gaily mention the names of non notable children of notable ppl cos BLP only covers the notable ppl not their unnotable children, pure nonsenseof course and not the way we work at all♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Er, no it isn't: in a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted.--ukexpat (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

BLPPRIVACY is actually very clear that it is about living persons not merely the subject of articles. You could try changing the policy but I wouldnt count on success in doing so as to make BLP only valid for notable people would essentially invalidate the policy and show a contempt for anyone who isnt notable, its just a non-starter♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. People live here, for example Highpoint I, and here 85-91 Genesta Road, so the addresses shouldn't be given in those articles? I'm not using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, by the way, you say articles must not include addresses.Ghughesarch (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum much?--ukexpat (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really, no. According to User:Squeakbox, the BLPPRIVACY policy is that addresses where people live should not be published. End of, as far as I can see. And yet Misplaced Pages publishes addresses all over its articles. As for OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, The Amityville Horror is by far the closest parallel to what went on (supposedly) at Enfield, in terms of the date, the interest it received at the time and subsequently (and it's worth reading OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to be clear that it cuts both ways - it isn't always a valid argument to be used in dismissing similarities between one article and another), but that was dismissed, since although that article does include the address, we are (apparently) dealing with something else here, in WP terms. We aren't. But as for the suggestion that the street name (half a mile long, 350+ addresses on it, so surely suffiently anonymised?) should be included, there seems to be no agreement - can we agree on allowing at least that? Ghughesarch (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." So this isn't a discussion that should be here at all. It's simply not a BLP issue that someone (apparently) happens to have moved into the house where the notable events are said to have occured, 35 years afterwards. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin

Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have had no prior involvement in this article or in the history of Bangladesh. However, I am concerned that the article currently refers to Mueen-Uddin as a war criminal for the following reasons:

• 'War Criminal' is a loaded term
• the court which found him guilty has been criticised by human rights groups and does not reach the standard of international courts
• the trials are politicised and emotionally charged, with only the losing side on trial
• After one of the accused was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, the 2013 Shahbag protests resulted in the rules of the court being re-written to allow an appeal by the prosecution, and also to allow the death penalty.
• Those involved in writing the article are too close to the issue to be neutral.
• Mueen-Uddin is also a well-known figure in the UK, setting up the charity Muslim Aid and working for the NHS at a high level. These are much more recent, and positive events, but they are not given nearly as much weight.

I would appreciate a third person (or five or six...) reviewing the article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 19:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 Shahbag protests created pressure on the parliamentarians to change a law so that the prosecution can appeal. Earlier only the defense was able to appeal against a verdict. Neither the parliament nor the protests have any relation with the outcome of a court, as the judiciary is a separate institution in that country.--Kaisernahid (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at this a little bit. There are two guys who have been convicted recently by this Bangladeshi court in absentia for the 1971 killings. One guy is Mueen, who is a citizen of the UK located in the UK. The other guy is Ashrafuz Zaman Khan who is in the US. So, there are similar issues with the Khan article. The Khan case actually seems a bit more interesting at first glance; whereas the UK has a policy against extraditing to countries that might use the death penalty, I don't think the US has such a policy. Anyway, better put both articles on the BLPN radar.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

WOW! User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry didn't notice that, Here is a discussion going on! I have placed my points on article's talk page.--FreemesM 11:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin was recognized as war criminal, long before the creation of International crimes tribunal. See this Twenty Twenty Television's documentary on Mueenuddin's War Crimes involvement, directed by David Bergman (journalist)‎ and aired on 3 May 1995 The War Crimes File: Dispatches, Channel 4, 1995. Not only that, there are lots of evidences to prove him as a war criminal. All the allegations against International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) mostly circulated from Human Rights watch and other media just echo that. HRW is not a angle type organization, there are many criticizes against them. Their report against ICT is highly biased.. Few more organizations are there, who talk against ICT just for heavy lobbying of Jamaat-e-Islami (Mueen-Uddin was a member of this party). So it is logical to treat him as war criminal. See these sources-

Above para was written by me. I forgot to sign. Sorry.--FreemesM 03:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is a description of the brutality of al-badr from an eyewitness of the event. These reports provide evidence that Mueen is a most wanted war criminal since 1971, long before ICT accused him. - Rahat | Message 13:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Your job (to call it something) as a neutral editor of Misplaced Pages is to present the facts as they are put forth by reliable sources, not argue that this or that shows X or Y, or that something is biased or etc, etc. The article as it stands right now is not balanced or neutral. If you're going to call someone a "balloon juggler" then you must have a source that calls them exactly that. §FreeRangeFrog 17:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with §FreeRangeFrog. Just to clarify things a bit, I think the original source of this article is a court, Rahat presented additional sources in reply to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's criticism of that court.--Kaisernahid (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

But on Misplaced Pages, WP:BLP trumps all that, particularly WP:BLPCRIME.--ukexpat (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

He is clearly a 'Convicted War Criminal'. Verify here- . Don't you think these sources are reliable? If you want to take the convict's denial, then almost 99% of convicted criminals around the world will claim that there innocent! that doesn't men they are actually innocent. Moreover you must keep in mind convict's payed lobbying effort. . this news report may clarify your concept about Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin--FreemesM 04:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

He has certainly been convicted in absentia, but it is by no means clear yet whether Britain and Bangladesh will work out their differences regarding extradition. Without extradition, there can be no punishment. Britain is concerned not only about the death penalty but also about fairness of the trial: "Britain may still agree to send him to Bangladesh but only with assurances he would receive a fair trial and that he would not be executed if found guilty." Under these circumstances, the BLP should take an explanatory tone per WP:BLPCRIME, rather than making blanket statements and applying pejorative labels. Different criminal justice systems may result in seemingly contradictory results.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me clear my points once again. Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin has committed war crime in 1971 in Bangladesh. Then he escaped to UK and got citizenship there. Now Bangladesh government has established a tribunal to punish war criminal's of 1971. As there is sufficient evidence against Mueen Uddin, tribunal declared him as war criminal. Mueen-Uddin knew that the evidence against him is very strong and he could be sentenced to death (I want to inform you that, in Bangladesh the capital punishment is death sentence), that is why he did not appeared to the court. Beside this he and his party Jamaat-e-islami started hiring paid lobbyist to prevent this trial process. Here in this article, I am not concern about whether UK and Bangladesh govts will agree to bring him in Bangladesh. Until now he is a convicted war criminal and none of any court declare that he was not convicted. So I think it is legal to term him as "convicted war criminal" according to all WP policy.--FreemesM 07:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If the UK extradites this British citizen to face punishment in Bangladesh, then I will strongly support writing "convicted criminal" and "war criminal" all over this Misplaced Pages article. But until then, we are getting conflicting signals from two different governments, much like we got conflicting signals from the acquittal of O. J. Simpson followed by his loss in a civil suit for wrongful death. When Misplaced Pages gets conflicting signals like this, we're not supposed to use labels and make blanket statements, but instead we are supposed to use a more explanatory tone. There is no urgency here to write "convicted criminal" in the lead of this BLP, so let's just wait and see what the UK and Bangladesh can negotiate. Maybe he will be extradited for an entirely new trial, in which case he would be presumed innocent even in Bangladesh.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. I don't understand why CM's war criminal conviction depends on UK's decision, where Bangladesh is a sovereign country?--FreemesM 11:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I appreciate your concern for WP:BLP. As per WP:BLPCRIME we have to first make sure whether current article has "different judicial proceedings result(ing) in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other", so we may need the verdict of a second judicial proceeding. In addition to that, can you provide the reference of "getting conflicting signals from two different governments" from the spokespersons of the two governments?--Kaisernahid (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's well known that the UK has thus far refused to extradite.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I added "as UK has abolished death penalty" after "although the United Kingdom has thus far declined to extradite him" based on Daily Star as it says: When asked, Warren Daley, spokesperson of the British high commission in Dhaka, said: “The UK has made clear its support for Bangladesh’s efforts to bring to justice those accused of atrocities committed in 1971. Along with our EU partners, we are however opposed to the application of the death penalty in all circumstances. We will consider any extradition request received from Bangladesh within the terms of the Extradition Act of 2003. But in line with this Act, the government will not order a person’s extradition to Bangladesh if he could be, will be or has been sentenced to death for the offence.” But Anythingyouwant has revert back the changes. I would appreciate very much if a third person reviews this. Thanks--Kaisernahid (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is how the lead should summarize stuff that no one seems to be objecting to in the body of the article, regarding extradition. See talk page discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I was out of town, just came home. A lot of change has done without any consensus. I will join from tomorrow.--FreemesM 10:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand, why Anythingyouwant trying to remove CM's war crime involvement info from info box. That is not a good sign of wp:goodfaith. He is also trying to push 'extradiction from UK' issue, which is surely WP:UNDUE. Please do not push WP:POV.--FreemesM 05:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to explain again about the infobox. The template "Infobox person" has a variety of parameters, and three of them are explicitly for information about criminality. It is redundant to also include such information under other parameters like "known for". There is no reason to put "1971 killings" under the parameter "known for" when it is already in the Infobox using a criminality parameter. If you look at the Ted Bundy or Charles Manson articles, we don't use the "known for" parameter to repeat information that's already in the Infobox under another parameter.

Additionally, this article about Mueen falls under WP:BLPCRIME, and it's very similar to the example discussed in BLPCRIME regarding OJ Simpson, who was acquitted of murder but still held liable for wrongful death in a civil case. Similarly, Mueen was found guilty in absentia of murder by a Bangladeshi court, but Britain has thus far declined to extradite him, due to concerns about getting a fair trial and about the death penalty; Britain has also thus far declined to prosecute. So we need to treat this like the OJ Simpson example in BLPCRIME, by using an explanatory tone rather than sweeping labels.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. It appears that "Chase Me Ladies" (who brought this matter to BLPN) has gone away, and I'm the only one attempting to make this article BLP-compliant. I'm getting kind of tired of it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anythingyouwant, please don't take it personally. As an experienced wikipedian you may know, an article should follow wp:undue rule. When you are introducing him just a member of few Islamic organization, it doesn't present his true identity. Moreover we should arrange those chronologically.--FreemesM 06:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Gilligan

Andrew Gilligan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There's a dispute about the degree to which we can use blogs to source a BLP. My feeling would be that we can't, but what do others think? --John (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The Adam Bienkov blog is not an acceptable source. Per WP:BLP, "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." So, your edit is correct insofar as it removes that blog. Bienkov is a journalist, but the blog is not hosted or edited by a news organization.... it seems to be just his own.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that the Bienkov blog as the primary source would not be acceptable on its own. The more pertinent question, raised in the talk page, is whether blogs hosted by news organisations can be used as secondary sources; in this case, the Guardian, the New Statesman, and the Independent. Further views on this matter would be welcome, as the discussion on the talk page has not drawn in any fresh perspectives. UsamahWard (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this the edit in question? (How pleasant it would be if the edit in question could be provided so that others don't have to go searching for it.) Regardless of the quality of sources: it's a ridiculous edit. It could only work if more detail were provided -- but greater detail would require using dodgy sources. So leave it out. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed the paragraph in question. The main discussion so far has been here on the talk page. UsamahWard (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, when I asked John about this page, I wasn't talking about that point - I was talking about another;

in a case of child abuse which he had wrongly linked to a mosque. The Telegraph deleted Gilligan's article and issued a correction, though he later denied any story he had written had been corrected.

1. UK Muslim extremist leader jailed for molesting little girls while they recited religious texts Andrew Gilligan (original source deleted)

2. East London Mosque The Telegraph

3. Daily Telegraph Publishes Corrections East London Mosque

4. East London Mosque just can't stop digging Andrew Gilligan

The above is firstly referenced to a news item which was later retracted, and then "supported" by a blog source; you can note that the last reference states "I'm a senior reporter for the Daily and Sunday Telegraph. This is my personal blog" - and thus not an appropriate reference at all.

I think it should be removed, but last time I tried removing poorly-sourced 'facts' from that article, I got myself blocked. I'm not at all interested in Misplaced Pages machinations, but I am hoping others can perhaps do something about the ongoing problems with this article. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The references you have given are not from the current version, but from a historical version - why? Current sources are from the Leveson Enquiry (there previously, but you don't mention it) and two from the Telegraph itself, only one of which is from Gilligan's blog. As for using Gilligan's personal blog, WP:BLPSPS clearly states "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" (my emphasis). The original article is in the Internet Archive, which is a better source than the blog that was previously used. The Telegraph removed the article then published a correction (which is sourced). UsamahWard (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have been involved in some of the talk page discussion on this question. It appears to me that there is a strongly-sourced fact that an article was written and later retracted. Trying to source the content of that retracted article has led to the use of various blogs, some of which eg Gilligan's official DT blog (source 4) are fairly strong, and others are less so. Martinlc (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well if you're accepting that weak sourcing, you must also accept that he said, "It is untrue to claim, as the mosque and its echoes in the blogosphere often do, including in its latest statement, that the Daily Telegraph has corrected any story I wrote about it: the correction was to a news-in-brief item (six months ago!) written by someone else." - ref'd to the same .

The current article spins that into "he later denied any story he had written".

This is a pathetic blog-argument, not based on any reliable sources, and does not belong on Misplaced Pages. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor above has decided not to wait for the outcome of this discussion initiated by John, and has now removed not only this, but several other parts which may be considered negative, regardless of the sourcing, or the ongoing discussions, or the comments of others such as Martinlc above. I have not reverted his edits, as this might look like an edit war. But in my view these edits have removed properly sourced, notable content. UsamahWard (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes? 88.104.20.198 (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If the purpose of inclusion of the deleted article is to demonstrate the untruth of the quote, then that is poor justification. This isn't really an argument about sources it 's about the interaction of UNDUE, NPOV and BLP. Martinlc (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree this shouldn't be about sources. Unfortunately, the IP editor who removed it did so precisely on that basis, citing "blogs" in his edit; then he tried to justify this not on the basis of the sources as they stood, but based on the sources of an earlier version before you, Martinlc, had tidied them up. Also, he omitted entirely the source of the Leveson Enquiry itself. He has subsequently removed other material he felt was negative, including most of the introduction; he has not used the talk page to discuss these removals. Normally on Misplaced Pages, we discuss and hopefully we reach an understanding, just as you and I discussed the Keith Vaz edit and, indeed, the sources for this particular edit; in both cases, I eventually accepted your arguments and moved on. In the case of this IP editor, he has removed a lot, accepted no compromise, pre-empted the lastest discussion here on the latter edit, and in my view made weak and inconsistent arguments to support his edits. The entry for Andrew Gilligan has suffered because of this. UsamahWard (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor has returned and is deleting content despite strong sourcing. Most recently, the IP editor removed part of the already brief introduction, despite a strong source quoting Gilligan himself as having this view. The second removal regards the matter above, which is strongly sourced, and does not use the sources wrongly implied by the IP editor. He has removed both parts twice today, with no explanation, nor any attempt at discussion. I obviously don't want to get into 3RR territory, so could someone look at this and suggest a way forward? UsamahWard (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The above is, of course, complete bollocks.

I have not 'returned', I merely noticed when - a week after the previous discussions - the user above had reinserted the text, with no agreement. I removed it again, in accord with BLP policy.

"with no explanation"? What about all the discussions directly above, and on the talk page? There has been no consensus shown for inclusion of either of these poor claims.

The user above keeps reinserting this extremely weakly-sourced negative information into the BLP, despite the discussions.

See also Talk:Andrew_Gilligan#Introduction_and_Leveson. 88.104.20.161 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It is verifiably untrue that either of these edits were discussed on the article's talk page. The IP editor has provided no reason why the introduction's source should be regarded as "extremely weakly-sourced". Neither has he offered any reason why the Leveson Inquiry or the Telegraph should be regarded as extremely weak sources. He has also violated WP:3RR. UsamahWard (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Is on Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Andrew_Gilligan. 88.104.4.74 (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Indira Sharma

I don't even know where to start. The first sentence, uncited, is about a psychiatrist. The rest of the article is about her son, who murdered someone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Now it's just the first (unsourced) sentence. Will see if I can find any sources for the actual subject. Abecedare (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Abecedare ... that editor is creating messes all over creation, so that it's hard to keep up and deal with all of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

While I can verify that the current details in the article are indeed correct, I didn't find anything that would allow us to write a biographical article on the subject. The only available independent sources seem to be related to her son, or this relatively minor controversy. So I am prodding the article for now, and will take it to AFD if that is opposed w/o better sources being found. Abecedare (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Almost everything User:Xyn1 has written has been prodded or AFD'd (hitting my medical watchlist). He says on his talk he will create Utsav Sharma, so you might want to watchlist it. Thanks for the help; he's taking lots of editor time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The allegation by SandyGeorgia that her son murdered somebody is completely incorrect. He merely injured two seperate people across a many years of gap.If you check out the coverage this incident has recived "Utsav+Sharma"| here, you wll come to the conclusion that it meets notability guidlines. Also, as I previously mentioned, she is willing to take flack for her son. On a related note, I think this heavy bombardment of traditional wikipedia policies wont work for articles based in poor or developing countries. Even a minor goof-up matters (which gets only mention, but turns viral in the net). Associations, especially professional ones usually don't like the limelight. The news sources haven't developed that much. Thus, every tiny detail matters. Xyn1 (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Xyn1, you say "wikipedia policies wont work" (sic). If you are correct, then the solution is to change the policies, not to violate them, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Xyn1: I'd highly recommend that you (a) become familiar with wikipedia's notability and BLP policies, and (b) slow down your pace of editing so that you are creating fewer pages that others have to clean up/put up for deletion. Your editing is verging on disruptive and if you continue exhibiting such a cavalier attitude towards BLP articles, you are heading to a block. Abecedare (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been now through some of Xyn1's other articles (they're popping up right and left on the Medicine deletion list), and it appears that he is on a tangent about the poor quality of mental healthcare in India. Right as he may be (and there are plenty of sources that back that up), that is not good reason to create articles that don't meet notability, BLP vios, and POV articles. He's been quite busy, and I hope he will slow down before he needs to be slowed down. Xyn1, learning Misplaced Pages policies and writing articles in accordance with them will be a more effective use of your time, and ours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

First, remember the 5th pillar. Second, remember the media in underdeveloped countries is not up to the mark to meet wikipedia's high standards (which are successful in the anglo-sphere where institutions are strong). I still feel you should continue to maintain such high standards in the anglo-sphere related articles. But, since, the coverage of wikipedia's anglo-sphere articles have reached saturation point, we need to be more lenient when it comes to articles emanating from the non-anglo-sphere. Third, you should also ask yourselves why the number of wikipedia admins have gone down over the last 5 year. (source) Is it because of applying hostile policies to non-anglo-sphere topics/articles? Is it because of excessive weeding and not enough gardening, as is the case in some sciences: (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/180/3/280.full source)? Lets face it, it's perhaps both, the hostility must be reduced and the 5th pillar honored (by way of respecting milder powered sources, in terms of non-anglo-sphere-topics). Perhaps its due to the former, that that the number of admins -- usually from anglo-sphere -- are going down, in relation to the number of articles emerging from non-anglo-sphere sources. This is where the problem begins. As one of the user said: Thanks for the help; he's taking lots of editor time.. Well, you see, Mr. Editor, your workload could have actually gone down over the years, by attracting new editors via providing a more collegial atmosphere to noobs and semi-noobs. You see, the thing is, you are addicted to inserting {{some-warning-in-a-template}} and running away. Rather than clearly stating what more is required from the article writer for it to be suitable for Misplaced Pages and the best way of achieving (i.e. google). The latter is more meaningful in both, creating new articles as well as attracting more new regular editors. It seems to me that the admins are merely a hive mind. Essentially, having a list of attitudes which are considered politically correct (and vice-versa)in their own little realm. This may also be a generational gap. You see, the older cohort who used to be active are gradually thinning in their ranks, the newer generation of editors, who are, from their ousted, more inclined to make sporadic edits, some of them conforming to guidelines, but most of them, being, greeted by warning templates in excruciatingly technical language from Mr. Editor. Clearly, Mr. Editor ostensibly has good intentions, but, the unintended side effect of his knee jerk reaction is that, for one, the sporadic editor is not attracted (or reduce the frequency) to edit Misplaced Pages anymore. The second resulting unintended side effect is even further thinning of ranks in the top. The third unintended consequence is of the increased workload of Mr. Editor. The forth resulting unintended consequence, from the former, is the increased urge to place padlock on an even greater number of articles as well as preventing noobs from creating new articles, thus reducing breath of wikipedia. The latter two consequences completely runs counter to one of the main objective of this website. .... I hope sanity prevails. Xyn1 (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Some sanity is always nice. Xyn1, it looks like you've got a lot of good energy. You've only got a few hundred edits so far, and I hope you have many more. BUT, the fifth pillar does not say what I think you think it says. Regarding Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines: "their content and interpretation can evolve over time". It doesn't say that they can evolve one way for one person, and another way for another person. Right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

And I've now been through Xyn's talk page history, and see this has been going on for years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know I'm a shitty person. Xyn1 (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As I note here Xyn has also been liberally misrepresenting sources. This is a big waste of wikipedia editors' time and resources and detrimental to the readers. Abecedare (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Indira Sharma should be listed at AfD, and hopefully deleted; there's no substantial references, just very much 'passing mentions; no good sources about this individual. <I'd list it myself but I can't, as an IP> 88.104.18.246 (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Jawed Khan

Jawed Khan (Template:Lang-ur) (born October 18, 1967) is an Investment Banker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawedkhan (talk • contribs) 22:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a notice board to bring to the attention of a wider group of editors potential issues in articles relating to living people that are not currently being appropriately addressed. Do you have such an issue or are you in the wrong place? If you have such an issue, you will need to provide more details such as a link to the article and a description of what the problems are. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, a least he's not a merchant banker. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Given the editor's signature, the editor is also reminded of Misplaced Pages's policies concerning autobiography here. Dwpaul 13:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Depp and Amber Heard dating?

Comments are needed with regard to reports that Johnny Depp and Amber Heard are dating each other. Neither of them have publicly confirmed that they are. Therefore, I and others maintain that this information should not be included in these actors' Misplaced Pages articles. However, the information is occasionally added and then reverted/removed. And hours ago, an editor commented on both of these Misplaced Pages talk pages that we should report this dating matter because WP:Reliable sources have reported it; see here at Talk:Amber Heard#Johnny Depp. Flyer22 (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. They are dating. It has been confirmed by reliable sources. Time to put this nonsense to bed, and move on... - thewolfchild 03:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

By the lack of commentary here on this matter, I take it that everyone is okay with Thewolfchild's additions to both of these articles? Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see the sources posted at Talk:Amber Heard look borderline. The highest quality sources (People, Hollywood Reporter) do not mention them dating as a plain unqualified fact and the sources that do mention it as plain fact are low quality and/or only mention it in passing. The lower quality sources are not consistent with each other regarding details either, claiming it's been ongoing or on and off, some claiming it's been "confirmed" or "announced" when apparently they have done neither. Combine that with them apparently actively refusing to discuss or confirm it, rendering it at least somewhat contentious, and it all just looks really borderline. I personally wouldn't add it based on this sourcing, but rather wait for high quality sources to state it as plain fact. Put it this way, if it is added right now, what exact verifiable wording would we add, and which exact sources verify that wording without being contradicted by other sources? Siawase (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Taus v. Loftus

I have recently stumbled across the article Taus v. Loftus and am quite concerned by what seem to me to be BLP violations. However it is clear to me that this quite a complex issue, and so I would very much value additional opinions in case I am simply over reacting.

Ostensibly this is an article about a law case, but it contains quite extensive discussions about the personal lives of two individuals, Elizabeth Loftus and Nicole Taus. It is built around seven sources, four of which were written by Loftus, and one of which was written by Carol Tavris, described elsewhere as a personal friend of Loftus . A sixth source is primary, a report of the court case. The final source deals only with historical background.

It seems to me that this selection of sources cannot possibly give a NPOV of what is clearly a highly contentious issue. At several places personal opinions of Loftus are presented as facts (and there seems to me to be quite a lot of SYNTH as well). A (fairly cursory) search for other sources suggest that most sources support the Lofus/Tavris point of view, but that simply reflects the fact that most of these sources were written, either directly or indirectly, by Loftus, Loftus's publisher, or Tavris.

I have added a brief discussion on the talk page and a number of warning tags to the aricle as an interim measure, but I would very much appreciate thoughts on a more constructive and effective way of dealing with this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks to GregJackP Boomer! who has done a brilliant job sorting this out. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Zack Kahn

Zack Kahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Zack Kahn wiki page makes many unsourced, unverified claims and is written in a self-promotional style that does not seem to meet wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddyboy3013 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct on all accounts. You also forgot to mention the formatting sucks too. I'll take look.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Derek Corrigan

Sometimes the press sees things before we do. It seems a week ago a new account made a single edit to insert content in the mayor's BLP criticizing the city's policies and procedures. Comments? Suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose having some of that there, since it seems it has received coverage. But the original insertion is a bunch of OR, primary sources, opinion and undue weight. §FreeRangeFrog 18:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

OK I've cut it down. See what you (User:FreeRangeFrog) think. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

@Keithbob: Much, much better. Good job. §FreeRangeFrog 17:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Inmate parent

When we have sources stating that a person's parent is/was an inmate, does that content deserve the same prominence as a parent's occupation would otherwise get. See Cliff Alexander.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Above where it says See Cliff Alexander I should said See Cliff Alexander where the content once read "As of 28 November 2011, Terry was incarcerated. Alexander picked up basketball late due to the lack of available safe courts to play on in his Chicago West Side neighborhood known as the Brian Piccolo community." before the first of these two sentences was removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say exclude the term inmate or, in this particular case, exclude tangential information regarding incarceration. An occupation is generally neutral, whereas inmate has clear negative connotations. Parents are not the subject of the article. Bahooka (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Except where it is relevant to the subject of the article as it arguably is to Cliff Alexander. When the subject is an athlete that is the child of another athlete, as Alexander is, then it is natural to question what sort of career the parent had. Incarceration that cuts the parent's career short is not WP:UNDUE. On the other hand, the subject of this article is a minor child so the incarceration of their parent is less likely to be useful information. On the gripping hand, reliable sources specifically mention the effect that this, and other environmental actors, had on the development of the subject's athletic skills. On balance, I think one passing mention doesn't violate BLP, but that's just me. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

At the moment I've removed the sentence as lacking WP:RS. The WP:BURDEN for keeping it is on the editor who wants it in the article. Overall, though, the material about the father's personal circumstances is tangential to the WP:TOPIC of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)22:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The RS is there. It supports "As of 28 November 2011, Terry was incarcerated. Alexander picked up basketball late due to the lack of available safe courts to play on in his Chicago West Side neighborhood known as the Brian Piccolo community," but you have removed the first of these two sentences. I.E., it supports two sentences and immediately followed them before you removed the content. Would you like the citation repeated after each sentence. P.S. "Wants it in the article" is a bit off. It is not like I am trying to shackle him with the burden of an unsavory parent. I am just trying to summarize the sources. As the biographer, I am still a bit confused on his father's status because as the article also states, he visited colleges with his parents. I am not sure if his biological father is the same as the man who is now giving him parental guidance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI- This article is a current date request at T:TDYK, where the hope is to have it on the main page at the time he makes college choice public via his official verbal commitment on Friday November 15th on ESPN.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if this should be resolved before or after the press conference.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, note that the original placement was in the personal section at the bottom of the article. It is also common to describe parents and other ancestors at the beginning of a biography. I sort of feel describing his father as an inmate at the bottom was a compromise between putting it at the top and not including it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake is a BLP mess

I have spent the past 4 or 5 days over on the Rupert Sheldrake article. I was going to jump in and help when I heard of the problem from the BBC coverage of the issue on the page. After going through it, I don't think I nor anyone can do much of anything and I don't want to get harassed like other editors who seem to jump in and help do. It's ridiculous to see what is happening there and no progress is getting made on very simple things like listing the man as a scientist with his proper degree, an argument going on for months now with no resolution. Rules are being stretched left and right. It's just a tit for tat that is going nowhere. Philosophyfellow (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Philofellow...I have sadly spent the last month+ on this article, if only to prevent it becoming some sort of whipping post for radical 'scientific ideas'. Mr Sheldrake's page is becoming a war zone. His intro should ONLY contain his name, date of birth, job description, (that he is a scientist, was a scientist and will continue to be one regardless if certain people disagree with that point, he's referred to as such in a number of UK publications which I have already referenced, but have been ignored) and what he is famous for.... The problem is certain people don't agree with his theories, and think that scientists ONLY investigate certain areas of research, which completely misses the point. His name and data should be on this page, regardless of certain people's OPINIONS. It's now surfing very near to being libellous and as my husband is a lawyer and I'm a published author (so I'm very aware of libel issues) and have read most of Mr Sheldrake's books, I'm trying to help keep the peace and keep the intro on track but I was dismayed to read the words decidedly pseudo bla bla tonight and have made a revert, which I'm sure will be removed in less than a blink of an eye....I will persist, if only because I happen to like the man......This article is at pains to make Mr Sheldrake appear as some sort of wacky being, when in fact he's an intelligent, caring and interesting Human Being.....and since this is a biog of a LIVING person, surely we must be careful of certain people's opinions??/ I apologise for adding this comment here, but I added it at the end of this piece and it got rattled and wouldn't save so I've added it at the top of the page as it's extremely important to make sure a living biog article is not defamatory... xxxx Veryscarymary (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

VSM, you have been making the claims that the lead should be blanked for "potential libel" for a long time and you have been pointed to WP:LEAD and WP:BLP multiple times that the lead covers the important aspects of the subject of the article including any major controversies that are reliably sourced. Since Sheldrake's only notability is for the controversial pseudo-scientific works he promotes, they must be covered appropriately in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is entirely consistent with WP:FRINGE. Mainstream viewpoints are represented.

Isn't it strange how Philosophyfellow (talk · contribs) turns up in November 2013 apparently partially familiar with Misplaced Pages policies? Weird. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the morphic resonance that people scoff at. Its obvious that the more people who know and use Misplaced Pages, the quicker new entrants will come being familiar with the systems. (except for some reason the mental block at comprehending WP:VALID never seems to go away) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, wikipedia, where editors are WP:NICE. Here is the second half of WP:VALID -- "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." (Translation: if it ain't mainstream, don't call it mainstream, nor imply it is.) "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them,"... (such as in an article about something completely unrelated per WP:ONEWAY) ..."and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world."

    There is nothing here that says, if you the editor dislike some of the ideas that some BLP has put forward, that you can omit Reliable Sources of your choice, cherrypick what facts to include in mainspace, and in general call anything reliably sourced you want to exclude WP:UNDUE. It is an absolute abuse of WP:VALID to say, that omit-stuff means we can downplay the fact the guy has a PhD, since if readers *knew* the guy had a PhD, that would unduly legitimize his work. Similarly, it is a horrid abuse of WP:FRINGE, to say that because *some* ideas are "accused of being pseudo" as Barney puts it below, that therefore every idea and every action and every BLP-detail are thus *also* now WP:FRINGE... including their religion, their mainstream professional credentials, and their philosophy-books... as opposed to just specifically their scientific-theories-or-pseudoscientific-concepts (which themselves must be kept firmly separated for folks like Sheldrake which have published both kinds of things).

    p.s. WP:AGF may help explain why PhilosophyFellow knows something about policy... just like myself, perhaps they read the five pillars prior to editing, and used their anon editing for some time, before signing up for a registered-username-account. But if you want to discuss who started editing when, introduced to wikipedia by whom, that info might be helpful in answering Roxy. Suggest instead that you stick to being WP:NICE and WP:AGF, plus specifically quote the sentences you are using to justify your actions, rather than always saying WP:PG is the justification for your actions. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I still dont get where you are coming from. we cannot /not/ cover the fringe concept because that is why the subject is notable, and so we must cover it as the mainstream academics cover it - ranging from dismissing it as irrelevant to considering it harmful pseudoscience that misguides the public and leads them to not understand science.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the article is consistent with WP FRINGE but that's the problem. It's a BLP page, not a page about some spook hunting theory. Editors, especially the ones responding here, are twisting all kinds of logic to create an impression of a living person that flies in the face of proper encyclopedia editing. That's just one of the problems. The other problem is that no matter how many times new voices come into the page to state the blatantly obvious - editors get attacked or harassed or are given circular argumentation and no progress ever gets made. If anyone is wondering why there would be IP editors or new editors coming in with fresh accounts, consider that they are probably just protecting themselves from harassment over arguing something as simple as the first sentence in a BLP. The only solution at this stage is just block all current editors from the page for the next 30 days and let a new crop of editors not associated with either Psi or Skepticism and let them work it out. Philosophyfellow (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that some people are so fanatically committed to declaring people in areas of interest to them as "fringe" that they constantly violate "Misplaced Pages" policy. Maybe you have to document the issues and take it to WP:ANI to get an article ban on them or a topic ban if there are a series of related articles. I don't think it would hurt to tell editors who tried to edit and were harassed off about the WP:ANI, would it? Sometimes it takes several anis and visits to noticeboards before people figure out there is real bias (and probably hidden COI?) involved in stifling WP:RS info about individuals. Biased editors often try to get long quotes of criticism in, without there being even a one or two sentence explanation of overall views. That's probably your problem too. CM-DC talk 21:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) - the issue here is partly that a number of pointed criticisms have been made. It's not just "he's completely crazy" (I've left those out for BLP reasons). The criticism, repeated over and over again, is that his ideas on MR are so vague as to be worthless, and not scientific because they're not falsifiable and also not testable, inconsistent with existing scientific theories, and fail Occam's razor by invoking forces for which there is no evidence, avoiding peer review, and distorting the public's understanding of science. I've tried to find Sheldrake's responses to these criticism, but apart from one complaint that Steve Rose was basically being nasty to him, I can't really find where he's addressed it. WP:BLP doesn't mean whitewashing the article of all criticism (especially because if we don't summarise it and cite it and present it his fans try to claim said criticism doesn't exist). Yes, you are right that WP:ARB/PS applies and I wish it would be enforced more. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Every single statement in this diatribe is false. It's the criticisms of Sheldrake's theory that are "so vague as to be worthless." Morphic resonance is not only testable (and therefore by definition falsifiable) but has been put to the test several times, though of course any edit describing one of these tests is almost instantly reverted. Morphic resonance is in no way "inconsistent with existing scientific theories" and does not fail Occam's razor precisely because it does not invoke "forces for which there is no evidence." Sheldrake would love nothing more than to see his theory widely tested, with the results published in peer reviewed journals. I challenge you, Barney, to find a single source that provides substantive details behind any of these claims. And when you're done with that exercise in futility, how about reading one of Sheldrake's books, say, A New Science of Life? How about educating yourself on the man before disrupting his biography page? Editing the Sheldrake page requires two things: a knowledge of science and a knowledge of Sheldrake. I see no evidence of the latter in any of the editors currently controlling the page. Alfonzo Green (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) - so highlighting quite specific issues with philosophy of science is vague and meaningless is it? Just because this topic (philosophy of science, sociology of science, seems to be beyond your evidently meagre ability to understand basic topics, doesn't make it "vague and meaningless". Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

To get specific, you need to explain why morphic resonance isn't testable despite many apparent tests having been conducted, which scientific theories it's incompatible with and what forces it invokes for which there is no evidence. Otherwise you're just repeating vague claims circulating in the media. While there's no reason the Sheldrake page can't include these claims, that doesn't mean we have to work under the assumption that they're true. When we do that, we're involving ourselves in a dispute rather than just reporting it. Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney -- once again -- WP:NPA. "your evidently meager ability to understand basic topics". WP:ROPE. WP:NICE. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) WP:BLP is not a whitewash.

Philosophyfellow can you please state specifically what if anything is unsourced or is not representative of the mainstream academic perceptions of Sheldrake and his work? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that Misplaced Pages has a general problem with BLPs of the originators of or noted campaigners for fringe theories. Supporters of such theories regularly (but quite improperly) try to use the BLP as a way of sneaking in support for the theory. But opponents of such theories also regularly (and in my opinion equally improperly) try to disparage the BLP subject as a way of attacking the theory. Frequently such opponents "win", as it is relatively easy for them to quote policies usuch as WP:FRINGE in apparent support of their editing, but this approach is confusing, for example, Rupert Sheldrake with morphic resonance: a BLP is not an article about a scientific theory. Uninvolved editors need to watch carefully for both types of error. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones (talk) Yes, you put it more succinctly than I. A sense of neutrality is lost on the page and it's become a tit for tat between the skeptics and the supporters. Misplaced Pages not a place for that battleground and we have to watch this carefully. The fact that this made it to the BBC and I have since found a number of bloggers covering this issue for the past few months is sign enough that this battleground needs to stop. Philosophyfellow (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Jonathon is correct... and, if you look into the edit-history, there once *was* no conflation between the man and his theories. Over on deWiki, they still *have* two articles, but on enWiki there was an ill-advised merge-n-delete of the article covering morphic-stuff. Undoing that mistake was one of my first suggestions, but one of the editors involved in the merge-n-delete claims that Sheldrake-the-BLP and also Sheldrake-the-BLP's-theories-about-various-things must all be in the same article, because otherwise wikipedia will have a POV-fork. In other words, the *goal* seems to be the ability to apply WP:FRINGE to questions like the BLP's religious stance, and to whether or not the BLP has a PhD, and so on. If there were two articles or more articles, WP:FRINGE would only be rarely applicable. That said, there are deeper problems here, about whether or not wikipedia editors are permitted to discount reliable sources they disagree with, on that basis only. Especially, there are several attempts to discount *parts* of sources, through an abuse of WP:UNDUE. It is a sordid business, but many appearances at noticeboards, not to mention in the BBC and New Republic, have failed to bring sanity to the mainspace, or even the talkpage. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Re the opening sentence, the conversation is only a day old. The root problem is that people either do not participate or do not participate constructively. vzaak (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The conversation is not a day old. If anyone goes through the talk section, they can see the same issue being addressed over and over in other topics going back some time. I went back a few months and it's the same questions and the same responses all with the same argument - 'Sheldrake cannot be listed as a biologist or a scientist even though the majority of all secondary sources refer to him this way as well as the primary sources because to do so would lend credibility to his work on morphic resonance'. Some editors at one point did not even want to refer to Sheldrakes 'Hypothesis of Formative Causation' as an actual hypothesis because that too would mislead readers on the page that the idea has scientific support. All one needs to do is collect the sources on the page that are being cited, find other proper RS sources and compare what the majority say. They say he is a biologist. They say he is doing scientific research. Because he is a biologist and because he is doing scientific research does not make his theories accurate. He could be absolutely wrong and still be a biologist doing scientific research into telepathy. If this page is having problems with the simple stuff like the opening sentence and can't use common sense to asses a sticky topic, the rest of the page is hopeless. Please, let's get these editors out of here and invite a new team to come in. This is becoming more about dynamics between editors and egos and it's never going to get resolved this way. Philosophyfellow (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

In that section I spent some time outlining the essential problem (conflicting sources) and presented possible solutions. However instead of engaging the issue, people are just asserting that their opinion is obviously correct and drawing caricatures of the other side. Both sides are doing this. vzaak (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Any conflicting sources to Sheldrake either being a scientist or a biologist are in small number compared to the high number of quality sources that list him as such. How does Sheldrake list himself? As a a biologist. How many secondary sources support the primary source? Plenty. University of Cambridge should be enough, but even his most recent appointments list him that way. It would seem to make matters simple to list him as a biologist, or at least as a scientist which appeared to be the compromise before it was reverted. Any editors who have problems with morphic resonance or issues with Sheldrake performing faulty science can list those as quotes where relevant and that satisfies WP Fringe. This is such a simple issue to solve. If there are issues with conflicting sources, just use common sense and be careful not to interpret. The fact that the problems on the talk page prevent this easy step from occurring is why I think we need a change of the guard here. Philosophyfellow (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not a simple issue, though people on both sides seem convinced that it is. Please, make your argument addressing conflicting sources at the talk page, not here. Remember I got reverted, too, after adding "scientist"; that is why that talk page section exists. If I add "scientist" again it would basically be warring. I wanted people to make arguments in that section, but that hasn't happened in any serious manner. vzaak (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't happened in any serious matter apparently for months. The warring has been going on for awhile. That's why we need to get a new team in here. Philosophyfellow (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The team is fine; it's just that policy does not support having an article that hides the contrast because Rupert's fringe views and those of mainstream science. MilesMoney (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If people are Not pushing a fanatical agenda, it should not be that difficult to have a description of what his views are and what the criticisms are, in a balanced manner. But when you find that people won't even admit what multiple solid refs show is their field of study or area of knowledge, then you have a major problem, just like you would if all criticisms were removed. I just read the Depak Chopra article "The Rise and Fall of Militant Skepticism" in the SF Gate about editing this and other articles about organized bias on wikipedia and I've found that problem in a number of areas. Let's be aware of it and figure out how to get editors to be more neutral - especially on BLPs. Unfortunately, as I found in editing a couple of them, some times threat of sanctions is the only thing that cools down temperatures. Trying not to get involved in more articles, but may take a look... CM-DC talk 01:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of organised sceptic activity on the Sheldrake page as suggested by all the gullible press reports, initiated by a blog post from a "psychic" editor? Instead of making wild accusations, present this evidence please. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

When you see the same issue jumping up on three noticeboards at once, you know something's up. And the description of issues above sounds like that. CM-DC talk 01:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Organised or not, one of the truly depressing things is that despite everyone seeming to recognise that there are differences that are being (re)hashed out on the talk page, a NPOV tag keeps coming and going at a dizzying rate - the very tag designed to alert readers to underlying disagreements of this nature! The Sokal/Dawkins stuff in the interactions section is a shameless display of WP:OR triumphing over WP:RS - how is is possible to edit constructively under such circumstances? Blippy (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone experienced with noticeboards should notice that this report is content-free—there are plenty of generic claims, but no specific issues. It's pretty simple: what text at Rupert Sheldrake is a BLP problem? Why?

@CM-DC: It would be better to examine the issues at the article before taking sides. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with @Johnuniq:. No specific issues have been mentioned. I read the article lede and everything seemed fine. What specific issues are there with this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well these responses are indicative of the problems faced. Numerous issues have already been flagged here. The NPOV tag, the Sokal & Dawkins content, the use of the word "theory" to describe MR, referring to Sheldrake as a biologist/scientist/biochemist. There are others. Or are you simply dismissing these out of hand as content-free generic non-specific issues? Blippy (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

THe issues, Blippy (talk · contribs) have been addressed. WP:IDONTHEARYOU isn't an excuse. You've been told why we can't call it a theory, you've been told why we can't use the Dawkins story, you've been told why we can't endorse him as a scientists if he is being accused of not doing science you've been told you must justify the NPOV tag with reference to sources and policy (especially WP:FRINGE). If these tired old refuted arguments are the best you can come up with, it's not good for your case now is it? Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney, please remember that this is a new noticeboard, and that people who have not been following the Sheldrake talkpage since the sea-change in mainspace this summer, may not understand exactly what you specifically mean when you say the "issues have been addressed". Please give the one-or-two-sentence-each summary, for 1) why reliable sources that call Sheldrake a biologist are kept out of mainspace, 2) why reliable sources giving Sokal's actual *serious* views on Sheldrake's work are kept out of mainspace (different Sokal's purposely-false-views expressed in the hoax-paper as you well know), and in particular 3) why wikipedia cannot "endorse" him by calling him a scientist "if he is being accused of not doing science". Are you saying that some animals are more equal than others, and some reliable sources trump others? Misplaced Pages is supposed to describe the conflict in Reliable Sources, not pick the winner. This is no place to WP:RGW, and try to keep gullible readers from thinking Sheldrake might have highly respectable scientific credentials... *especially* when those credentials are the very reason his telepathy-like theories allowed him to co-author half a dozen books. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Johnuniq (talk). The opening comment from myself lays it out pretty clearly. The very first opening sentence in the article is the problem in question. I specifically mentioned the issues with referring to him as either a biologist or a scientist. I'm not sure how much clearer it could have been but hope you have clarity now. Any issues being brought up about 'organized skepticism' on the page are irrelevant. Organized or not, there is a battleground happening on the page between two sides of an issue.

@Barney, you're not being very forthcoming here. The fact that you would even write 'he has been accused of not doing science so we can't refer to him as a scientist' is a perfect example of biased editing that doesn't serve Misplaced Pages well. Let's get a new team in here who are not so emotionally attached to the outcome or how the world perceives Rupert Sheldrake. Philosophyfellow (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

calling or not calling someone "a scientist" is not a BLP issue. (particularly someone who has made their living for the past 30 years as a author) "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine any scientist would feel defamed if an article on Misplaced Pages claimed they were not a real scientist. Also, a BLP needs to be accurate, even if it's not libelous. Surely you are not suggesting that inaccuracies or misleading articles are acceptable as long as they are not defamatory, are you? Also, I have not seen one source that shows that Rupert Sheldrake has made his living for the past 30 years from writing books and has divorced himself from scientific research. The fact that these little opinions or interpretations of Sheldrake are making their way into a BLP is why we need a new team to come in and clean this mess up. Philosophyfellow (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Show me where the article claims that he is not a scientist ( that is not a reliably sourced quote from an expert)? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It's the editors who are claiming he is not a scientist doing real science and that claim informs the article. Diff 01 Anyone can see this diff which claimed he was a scientist was removed. Diff 02 citing the arguments listed here. Now he is not even listed as a researcher, just an author and lecturer. Surely any fair minded person would agree that it makes no sense to have either supporters or detractors inform the content of the article. Philosophyfellow (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

But no one is stating they want to include "Sheldrake is not a scientist" in the article. You still have not identified any actual BLP concerns. You have identified that Sheldrake would like to have his article read as a promotional POV CV, but that doesnt really matter-we dont do that.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Case in point: I could not ask for a more clear response that highlights the problem with biased editors in question. I rest my case. Philosophyfellow (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

While the article never says "Sheldrake is not a scientist" the article's history is littered with examples of the word "scientist" or "biologist" being deleted or reverted with dismissive edit summaries. And the Talk page has whole sections devoted to hammering home the proposition that calling Sheldrake a scientist or a biologist violates WP:FRINGE. The same argument can be found in the archives. Also, easily found in the archives and edit history of the article are crusades against describing morphic resonance a theory or a hypothesis. TRPoD, you have made these arguments and edits. It's extraordinarily disingenuous for you to argue that "no one is stating they want to include "Sheldrake is not a scientist" in the article." I imagine that sentence is true. But it's misleading, in the extreme. DiffsExamples to follow. David in DC (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake arbitrary break 1

Examples of disingenuousness on current talk page:
"scientists do not cling to magical proposals. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)"
"He is NOT a "proponent of an alternative scientific world-view" and mis-labeling him as such in the lead sentence is a non-starter.WP:NPOV / WP:VALID his is a pseudo-scientific world view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)"
"The intro sentence must provide a basic context around the subject and why they are notable. Sheldrake is notable because of his lecturing and writing on fringe subjects and the rejection of those subjects by the mainstream. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)"
"Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Discussion:_theory_.2F_hypothesis_.2F_. "Hypothesis" has multiple meanings, some of which are completely inappropriate for this article. There are other words that do not contain the same chance of presenting words in a way that would be able to be misinterpreted by our readers. We take the path that avoids misinterpretation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)"
"and he may still be carrying out "research" but as has been shown multiple times, to call it "scientific" research is to put a false label on it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)"
"I must have missed something. How does having a doctorate mean that everything that you do (even if what you are doing does not follow scientific standards) is qualified as scientific research? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)"
""resting your case" on Content in Misplaced Pages is a very tenuous position to put yourself in. He is now an author on parapsychology and not a scientist at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)"
David in DC (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong noticeboard for everything posted in this section. Even if disingenuousness of editors on a talk page could be established, this is the BLP noticeboard and the only thing relevant would be to explain what existing text is a BLP problem. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, John. The heart of the problem with the page is a determined, tooth-and-claw effort to derogate this Living Person by marginalizing him. We must not call him a scientist. We must not call his idea a theory or a hypothesis. That approach might be OK on an article about Morphic resonance. But not in a Biography. We MUST treat biographies of living fringe theorists differently than we treat their theories. When a principal warrior appears on the BLP Noticeboard to argue that "no one is stating they want to include "Sheldrake is not a scientist"", that argument must be contradicted, in the same place. The examples above and the archived sections below establish, dispositively, that there are indeed ones (including TRPoD) trying to make this biography "say" that Sheldrake is not a scientist.David in DC (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A deletion of "Hypothesis"
and a couple of archived talk sections with TRPoD arguing vociferously against using "hypothesis" or "theory" to describe morphic resonance are sufficient to back my accusation of disingenuousnes of the sentence "But no one is stating they want to include "Sheldrake is not a scientist" in the article."
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Statement_by_TheRedPenOfDoom
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Decision
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Removing_reference_source_17:_Consensus_sought
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Morphic_resonance_as_.22alternative_theoretical_formulation.22
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Solidify_at_least_one_decision
David in DC (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, what exactly is the BLP issue of content in the article? (And I will fully stand by my analysis that "morphic resonance" should not be described as a "hypothesis" or "theory", terms which have multiple meanings most of which do not apply to the crackpot idea and we have words that better describe what MR is without the chance of misleading our readers to think it is something it is not and so we should use them.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The BLP issue is that there are sufficient reliable sources to call Sheldrake a biologist. Deleting the word (or the word scientist) from the lede, as has been done repeatedly, is derogation of the Living Person who is the subject of this Biography. His recent work is quite well contextualized in the subheds about his books, public appearances and interactions with other scientists. No sane reader could read the article and think he was anywhere but out on the fringe. Calling him a biologist, as the sources do, misleads no one. Neither does calling his theories "theories" nor his hypothesis a "hypothesis". A months-long campaign against these words violates BLP and brings disrepute on our project.

WP:FRINGE is not license to turn a BLP into an ATTACK piece. David in DC (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

and again, I am not seeing how not calling somebody a "scientist" and not calling something a "hypothesis" is either an ATTACK or a BLP issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear there is little understanding of that. It's why we need to get a new team in here who does. Philosophyfellow (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately TRiPod it is your willingness to "fully stand by analysis" that is symptomatic (causal?) of the problem. Editors are performing WP:OR and analysis instead of simply relying on WP:RS's. There are umpteen WP:RS's which refer to Sheldrake as a scientist, biochemist, biologist. There are as many more with refer to MR as a theory and/or hypothesis. However you continue to insist that your analysis is what matters. This is not how WP operates, despite your (and others) insistence that it does. The Sokal & Dawkins interaction pieces suffer from exactly the same problem. In fact, the problem also arises in the insistence to not allow a stand alone article on MR to exist despite it being so prominent in so many different fora. Blippy (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Blippy is making a valid point, and as for TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom's comment about the innocuous nature of removing descriptors, they change the entire context of the discussion and role of those involved. "The man had an idea about eggs" connotes some clueless guy who's hungry, "the scientist had a theory/hypothesis about eggs" connotes an academic who had a structured, researched argument about bird embryos.

Whether that structure stands up to scrutiny and that argument is correct is irrelevant, the issue is that descriptors matter and their use or abuse reflects the legitimacy of the BLP they're present in. The Cap'n (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

and per WP:VALID, Sheldrake is hungry. show that there is any significant or even "minor" support in the mainstream academic community for Sheldrakes WP:REDFLAG ideas. using terminology that promotes otherwise is the violation of NPOV and BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of WP:WIKILAWYERING, but WP:'s have been bandied around pretty loosely as a justification for just about everything, so let's take a look at the text of the two links you attached. WP:REDFLAG is referring to editors making fringe claims about legitimate topics, not to the articles on fringe claims themselves. Thus someone who tries to edit the JFK page to say Kennedy was killed by the Illuminati would be a red flag, but the page on the Illuminati itself would not. In the same way no one is not making fringe claims about Sheldrake, but rather reporting accurately on a man who has made fringe claims. There's an important distinction in the burden of proof.

As for WP:VALID, it says:

"We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." (emphasis added)

The focus is on neutrality, balanced legitimacy and context, not on restricting any factual information that might legitimize the subject. 2/3 of Sheldrake's article is contextual info about his contested place in the scientific community, so there is no case to be made for his legitimacy being misconstrued unduly. For this article to be a legitimate BLP, we cannot fall into the trap of using WP:VALID & WP:REDFLAG to justify violating NPOV. There is no danger of Sheldrake being depicted as mainstream, no language indicative of misrepresentation and no reason to avoid descriptors that are sourced and common sense. The Cap'n (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but is any text currently at Rupert Sheldrake a violation of WP:BLP? If so, what text, and why. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to prove a negative. The problem isn't in the current words of, for example, the lede. The problem is the routine deletion of words from the lede. Important words for making this article BLP-compliant are absent, because FRINGE-fighters wheel war to revert or delete them. Here's an example, just from the lede, although they happen throughout the article.

In the lede, the BLP violations are what happens when someone tries to call Sheldrake a biologist or his work a theory. I've just done both, because fixing a BLP violation does not require consensus. I hope to be proven wrong, but I expect to be reverted. David in DC (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

One thing that you certainly HAVENT done is show the affirmative that Sheldrake has any size support in the mainstream academic community - Please provide some before you keep claiming there is ANY POV problems in the article's presenting of him as someone without support in the mainstream academic community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

My similar efforts have been reverted persistently, so I will be (pleasantly) surprised if yours aren't! WP:BLP is predicated on NPOV, NOR, and V. All the claims mentioned above fall under these three policy areas. The Sokal bit is an obvious piece of OR, as is this bizarre notion that Sheldrake not be referred to as a scientist/biologist/biochemist, and that his theory not be described as a theory. We know it's OR because of all the Verifiable sources that use this language. Sokal arguably violates NPOV too, since it only serves to link Sheldrake to a hoax that he had no part in i.e. a smear. NPOV is also relevant to the exclusion of the Dawkins incident (which satisfies WP:V) since Dawkins is critical of Sheldrake and this incident provides an important (according to RS's) example of how he has had to defend himself against "abuse" and "prejudice" that have been "have been unfair and uninformed". How is it presenting a fair and balanced view of things to exclude such things? And as for this odd notion that there is some sort of OTHER standard of proof that has to be satisfied for Sheldrake, where does that come from? This is BLP. The Sheldrake page is not a FRINGE page - Sheldrake is real, so is his life, so are his efforts/work, and his reception. We don't pretend the controversy doesn't exist or that because not everyone agrees with him that he therefore doesn't exist or do anything of NOTE. There are multiple RS's for the suggested edits. End of story. Blippy (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

thank you for providing the evidence to show that there is not any mainstream support of his ideas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

and please provide a rationale for why including Chopra's criticism of Dawkins that only includes Chopra and Sheldrakes take on something Dawkins decided not to do (not include Sheldrake in his TV show) in the article about Sheldrake is a BLP compliant action. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's the BLP problem. . It took about an hour. Using the words misleads no one and does not violate WP:FRINGE. Deleting them is derogatory toward the Living Person who is the subject of this Biography. Fixing WP:BLP violations does not require consensus. But it's impossible to fix them here, because of determined edit-warring by editors with a skeptical POV. WP:NPOV would be to call him a biologist (or scientist), call his ideas hypotheses (or theories) and use the body of the article to tell the story of his life, including the voluminous (and accurate - I'm not a Sheldrake acolyte) material from reliable sources critiquing the ideas he promotes that are deeply flawed. Adding material opposing the theories is totally justifiable. Derogating the living person by deleting reliably sourced biographical info about him is not. David in DC (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

we do not participate in Sheldrakes promotion of pseudoscience by using scientific terminology where non-scientific terminology is not only adequate but more accurate. There is no BLP violation in using more accurate terminology.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(1) Your terminology and phraseology are wholly inappropriate, judgemental and biased. (2) Describing Sheldrake's views does not "participate" in the "promotion" of his ideas, any more than the Wiki article about the Nazis does the same. (3) Using scientific terminology does not lend undue credibility to his ideas, any more than, for example, the use of the word "theory" to described "Phlogiston theory" or "Nordström's theory of gravitation". Likewise the suggestion is contradicted by a source that you offered, ie. Rose's paper which uses the term "hypothesis" extensively, but leaves the reader in no doubt of his position against Sheldrake's views. (4) NPOV describes views neutrally, not judgementally, ie. without bias (WP:NPOV, first sentence.) --Iantresman (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

and it was bound to happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Pedantic correction: Godwin's law specifically requires that one side *call* the other side a Nazi, or at least, imply that the other side is no better than the fuhrer. Iantresman is not calling anybody that, or even coming close to implying that; they could just have easily said that the Sarah Palin article is fair, or the Barack Obama article is fair... or what the heck, even that the Kim a-new-star-appeared-in-the-heavens-the-day-he-was-born Jong-il BLP article is fair, compared to the one-sided Sheldrake article. Quite frankly, the articles on the national socialist party, and on the fuhrer, are written by pansies, people afraid to say what those folks *really* did.

  Folks defending the Sheldrake mainspace as NPOV, please, compare the Rupert Sheldrake article to the Charles Hapgood article, two scientists gone to the dark side, and notice the difference in tone, and one-sided-ness. That is the point Iantresman was trying to make: we treat the nazis more fairly than Sheldrake, and they are all dead, so BLP restrictions do not even apply. The problem is not that Sheldrake is pure as driven snow, the problem is the mindset that sources agreeing with Sheldrake, about anything whether it be his academic credentials or his telepathy-theories, simply because they agree with Sheldrake about anything at all, therefore must be fringe. This is a deep misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, which demands we reflect the reliable sources, all of them, not just ones we prefer, not just ones that are true, but all of them. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

And indeed it did. Perhaps if you could address what appears to be a common sense rebuttal to your argument instead of offering snarky commentary the page could actually get somewhere instead of being stopped for personal reasons. That fact that some editors are unable to progress their arguments past a reasonable point informs us that we need to get a team in here who can. Philosophyfellow (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake arbitrary break 2

As an uninvolved party, maybe I can help propose a compromise acceptable to both sides. This is, in one sense, and unusual dispute because it is not as much between advocates of different views of the article subject, but instead between advocates of different policies. After reading the dispute and related materials, the issues appear to be simply:

1. Should Sheldrake be described in the led as some flavor of scientist?
2. Should morphic resonance be described as a theory or hypothesis?

Sheldrake is currently described as: "an English author and lecturer on science-related issues" I see nothing in MOS:LEAD, WP:MOSBIO, WP:FRINGE, or WP:BLP that suggests this is an unacceptable or derogatory description. It is eminently neutral and clearly identifies his current, primary activities. Sheldrake may call himself a scientist, but we are under no obligation to favor the subject's views about themselves in any description them. Removing the word "biologist" or its variations from the first sentence is especially not a problem when the immediately following sentence identifies him as a "biologist," "biochemist," and "plant physiologist." If the various advocates are dead set on integrating biologist into the first sentence, then perhaps, "an English former biologist who currently writes and lectures on science-related issues," would bridge the gap.

The dispute over the use of "theory" versus "idea" is one that appears to depend on different definitions of "theory." In one sense, both are correct. American Heritage Dictionary variously defines "theory" as:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. (skipped)
3. (skipped)
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation
5. (skipped)
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

From his detractors' perspective, Sheldrake's morphic resonance clearly fits one of the latter two definitions. From his own point of view, it clearly fits the first. Regardless, using the world "theory" is a fitting description. It implies no endorsement unless one is determined to ignore the clear qualifiers that contextualize the way morphic resonance is described in the article. "Idea," by contrast, strikes me as not sufficient to describe the primary intellectual activity that the subject is engaged in. Either way, the point is not so much about the inadequacy of "idea" as the adequacy of "theory." "Theory" means both what supporters and detractors want it to mean. The difference in views is more about the connotation of this word than the denotation. Connotations are of primary linguistic importance when other context is lacking, which is not the case here. I hope this helps the involved editors reach consensus. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

While I think the first part of your analysis is correct, the second part is not. As a pseudo-scientist, Sheldrake is laying a fake scientific veneer over non-scientific acts. We should not be collaborating in such a process by using terms which have among their meanings some that are specific to the scientific arena and applying the words in a manner which supports a casual lay reader into assuming that Sheldrakes ideas are more scientific than they are, particularly when we can appropriately use terms (like idea or concept) that will not inappropriately promoting the misunderstanding of science and the place of Sheldrakes pseudoscience ideas in the world of actual science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake and others tend to use "hypothesis", which is a compromise in the sense it is not quite a theory, and more than just an idea. --Iantresman (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. I can see how this may seem like a helpful offer, but I am not sure it addresses the problems raised by others. The issue some editors are having is that WP is choosing to remove his credentials as a scientist so as to frame his entire biography as having little integrity to make the claims Sheldrake makes. That's the issue. It's not between supporters of WP policy, it's the question "Is Sheldrake credible as a scientist to question the foundations of science and perform research into telepathy or promote his hypothesis of Morphic Resonance?" As you can imagine - that's a debate editors should not be having, especially when sources conflict. The editors on the other side are providing sources that support removing scientist or biologist, but these sources are opinionated sources. If the truth be known, there are sources out there that could support both sides of the argument, making this more complex than it appears to a new reader. There are no reliable sources that suggest Sheldrake is no longer doing science. All reliable sources list Sheldrake as a biologist who is currently doing research into claims of telepathy in animals and humans. There is a conflation between the *type* of research Sheldrake is doing, which is on the fringes of science, with the quality of research he is performing.

In terms of referring to 'hypothesis' or 'theory' - it is entirely neutral to refer to his Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance as an hypothesis, because again primary sources support this as well as secondary sources. It's also the title of his Book, The Hypothesis of Formative Causation. And technically it is an hypothesis and Sheldrake never refers to it as a theory. Sheldrake has a BA in Philosophy from Harvard as well as his own PhD in Biochemistry. There are no sources, or any precedent that I am aware of that support stripping Sheldrake of his academic credibility as a primary source especially when secondary academic sources support it.

So essentially we have editors on the one side who consider Sheldrake to be performing a kind of fraud by pulling the wool over people's eyes, and on the other side editors who believe that such a treatment of Sheldrake is biased, turning this whole issue into an ideological battleground that has no place on Misplaced Pages. Remember, this is a BLP, so it's very important we get it right, not to just protect the reader, but to protect the living person. The fair treatment would be to list Sheldrake as his credentials suggest and state very clearly the opposing side of the issue with proper sources. We can't choose one over the other, that's what's happening in this battlefield. We have to present both. It's the only way to stay neutral. And it's also the simplest solution.

Thanks for your good work though. I hope you stick around. FYI I keep telling myself I am done with this. I may step away from this I can see why so many are getting rattled. It's a frazzling situation. Hopefully this is my final word on the issue :) Philosophyfellow (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears the leading advocates are both opposed to the suggested compromise. I'm not sure this is a sign that it is a bad suggestion or, possibly, a sign it is an actual compromise. What I am sure of is that positions are hardening, and further discussion between these two parties is unlikely to establish a consensus in the absence of other voices. I suggest the way out may be for an RfC be opened on these two points and both agree to abide by those RfC results. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I admire your boundless sense of optimism, Eggishorn. How it survives the treatment of your eminently reasonable compromise proposal, I cannot fathom. But admire it, I do. Thank you for trying. David in DC (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Eggishorn, your points are well-taken, but in this case compromise on particular content-positions is 100% premature; any content-discussion will result in hardening of positions, and permanent grudges, methinks. The policy-misunderstanding must be fixed, first. Apologies for the wall-of-text; David can translate, if necessary, he speaks pidgin-74-eze.

  This they simply cannot do; so sayeth pillar two. After *that* WP:CHERRYPICKING problem is well and truly settled, then -- and only then -- will settling the content-disputes even begin to be possible. (The skeptics firmly believe that taking a pro-Sheldrake quote... or even a neutral-towards-Sheldrake quote... and an anti-Sheldrake quote... from the SAME SOURCE... is cherrypicking on the part of the apparently-vastly-numerous-army of Sheldrake fanbois! To include impeccably-neutral David our BLP specialist... not to mention recent arrivals like myself, PhilosophyFellow, TheCapn, etc... when in fact the *actual* Sheldrake fanbois were harried off wikipedia long ago.) I predict content-disputes will evaporate, nigh-instantaneously, compared to the past four months of WP:battleground, once the core problem of we-are-not-cherrypicking-because-fringe-redflag-pseudo is finally resolved.

  If the core question is left unsolved, namely, whether there *is* in fact a skeptic point-of-view, or not, and if so, whether SkePOV is, or is not, straight-up *identical* to NPOV... lacking those answers, Sheldrake's BLP will be at the noticeboards indefinitely, until enough editors from one faction of this four-sided conflict die of old age, or ArbCom intervenes... but note that if SkePOV==NPOV, the *meaning* of the 2010 decision changes greatly. Hope This Helps. Arthritis. Making. It. Hard. To. Type. Please. End. The. Madness.... —74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

tl;dr, but actually we are required to weigh and give value to the sources, and give more weight to the peer reviewed academic sources as per POLICIES: WP:REDFLAG, WP:VALID, and Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Fortuantely we have lots of reliable secondary sources that have done that for us, which I have listed here(permalink). Of course we should state the position of the few academic primary sources we have, and we should look at any secondary sources you provide. I have been requesting them for some time now. --Iantresman (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tried. So many sticks, so little life left in the poor equine. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Judging according to publish or perish, is Sheldrake dead or alive as a scientist? Is he dead or alive as a pseudoscientist? Mind you that biology as a science is not concerned telepathy and does not research it, instead parapsychology (a pseudoscience) does that. You speak of science and of organized skepticism. Well, science is organized skepticism. So pretending that scientists should not be skeptical is like pretending that the Pope should not be a man. If Sheldrake is the victim of organized skepticism this proves that he isn't a scientist (if he ever was one). Scientists actually benefit from organized skepticism and are required to organize themselves as skeptics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer

Susan Lindauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some POV-pushing and plain fact-twisting going on in the latest changes here in my opinion, but it's turning into an edit war so I'd appreciate other editors' input. Mezigue (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone see a problem with adding this quote "co-workers recalled her as a woman who was prone to mood swings and erratic behavior." from the Seattle-PI? So far it's the only one I've seen, and I'm hazy on whether she is a limited public figure at the time that quote was derived.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

NVM, the NYT confirms this.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mezigue's assessment. I'd like to add that no where in the article should we speculate on the subjects mental health. Let the newspapers do that for us, and if in doubt, leave it out.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Allen Leech

Allen Leech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I added information about this person, but someone removed the content a while ago as "insignificant" and "vague gossip". Should the info be added again? --George Ho (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The column cited (indirectly) in The Mirror is a gossip column rather than hard news, and stated only: "Allen, who previously dated Love/ Hate actress Ruth Bradley, was also keeping tight-lipped about his love life." So it is highly questionable to claim it as a reliable source concerning a relationship with Ms. Bradley. Information that he dated an unidentified Scottish makeup artist for a year is vague and insignificant and quite tabloid-ey. The article gets along quite well without this poorly sourced and unencylopedic information. Dwpaul 19:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Generally, if you have questions about information you might contribute to (or remove from) an article, encourage you to use the article's Talk page to discuss with other editors of that article. The editor who removed this content probably should have offered a more detailed explanation in Talk but did not. You could discuss its reintroduction, perhaps with different sources, with them there. But I agree with their decision to remove given only the existing sources. Dwpaul 19:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Xiomara Castro

Xiomara Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A disagreement over whether any mention of the names of non-notable people violates WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPPRIVACY. -- Irn (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

We are specifically talking the children of Xiomara with former Honduras President Manuel Zelaya. The daughter of another famous Honduras political leader was shot at last week so there is a real danger that children of other political leaders could also be targetted. I am not conviced by Irn's arguments about how publishing the names of these 4 children, some of whom may be minors, and with no context (in the infobox) will improve the article but believe BLPPRIVACY and the needs to respect the privacy of these non-notable children demands we dont include the names. So I reverted Irn's inclusion of the names but we have been unable to reach consensus in an extended talk page discussion since. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion if the article should mention her children's names, but including them is not a violation of either BLP or BLPPRIVACY. Assuming this info is sourced (and it appears it is based upon hits from Spanish news sources) this info doesn't violate the basic tenet of BLP. BLPPRIVACY specifically deals with how information may be misused against the BLP subject, for example information used to commit identity theft. That somehow including these children's names on the English Misplaced Pages article could somehow endanger them is facetious. I note that this information is included in the Spanish Misplaced Pages. It seems if someone targeting her children would seek their information there instead. And since this information is readily available, any intent on wrongdoing would find this information anyways.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP covers all living ppl and not merely the subjects of articles, that would be giving protection to article subjects and to hell with everyone else including those mentioned in non-biographical articles. Seems an odd interpretation of BLP and PRIVACY says crime or perhaps shooting at someone isnt to be taken as a serious crime risk? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your assertion that including the names of the children of a public figure puts the children at "any risk is absurd.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What is absurd is your assertion that BLP only covers protection against minor crimes such as identity theft. If one leader's child has already had an attempt on their life this week why is my assertion absurd exactly? Why should we harrass the unnotable children of politicians by including their names when this could put their lives at risk and when they may be minors? Honduras is a dangerous place including for the children of politicians and your dismissal of this, while entirely in keeping with your character, isnt really acceptable or professional. I dont believe taking info from sources in a poor, small, developing non-English speaking country and introducing them to a whole new readership on the English wikipedia can be helpful to the encyclopedia. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who cited BLPPRIVACY on the article's talk page. The text on BLPPRIVACY is crystal clear on the rationale for that section. Just because the link has the word "privacy" in it doesn't give you license to invent policy. And I'll kindly ask you not to attribute assertions to me that I never made, specifically "BLP only covers protection against minor crimes such as identity theft". That is what one calls a "straw-man argument". Of course these children are entitled to BLP protections. However being children of a public figure, it should be a surprise to no one that their names are a matter of public knowledge, published in reliable sources, which makes your argument that adding their names to the article "could put their lives at risk" rather naive. Those horses have left the barn. There is a quite a bit of difference between some chance and extremely unlikely chance. And not so much of a spread between extremely unlikely and zero chance. And on a closing note, you should avoid ad-hominem arguments as well. In other words, keep your opinions about my character to yourself, got it? Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

the kids are not notable on their own. there is no actual value in their names. there is no reason to include them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The point of bringing the issue here is determine whether it violates BLP, not to find out if other people agree that there is reason enough to include the names. -- Irn (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Irn. If you want to discuss whether they should be included (and perhaps they shouldn't for the reason pointed out by RedPen), then do that at the article.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

At least one of the children plays an important role in the campaign, and there should be any issue to mention her in the article. --Soman (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no dog in this particular fight, but I feel compelled to comment on this statement: " I dont believe taking info from sources in a poor, small, developing non-English speaking country and introducing them to a whole new readership on the English wikipedia can be helpful to the encyclopedia."

This has got to be one of the most mind-numbingly bizarre arguments I've seen. First of all, it is paternalistic in the extreme. It smacks of: "Oh, those poor peoples just don't know journalism, we need to protect them from their own ignorance." Even if such a reading was not implied intentionally, it still says: "I don't believe in sharing verified information from reliable sources in Misplaced Pages." Isn't that exactly what articles are supposed to have, or have I been wrong about the entire point of Misplaced Pages all this time?--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As this has been sitting idle for a few days now, is it safe to say that no one else sees mentioning these names as a violation of WP:BLP? -- Irn (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Augie Wolf content

I often include negative content in BLPs that I think is something the reader would want to know. There has been resistance to the inclusion of Los Angeles Times-sourced content about Augie Wolf's alleged performance enhancing drugs. PEDs are common content on wikipedia, even when denied. See Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and others. Could you BLP experts have a look at this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You're referring to this change. The material you cited seems to satisfy WP:RS and WP:V, but you also have to make sure it's presented in a way that's proportional and neutral. Half of the section dealing with Wolf's career is about doping controversies, even though there's no conclusive proof that he violated the rules there. If it were my biography, I certainly wouldn't feel this is fair. On the testosterone test, it seems that one lab showed he had elevated testosterone, but the relevant sports authorities determined that the results were inconclusive, partly because no one (at that time, at least) knew how to measure "normal" testosterone. There was no action taken against him. Inclusion of this material, especially in an article that already gives a lot of weight to doping issues, might violate WP:NPOV's requirement that "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." TheBlueCanoe 14:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The undue concern has some merit to it, mainly because the paragraph before TonyTheTIger's addition was already quite long in describing one suspension. I proposed a re-written 'graph on the talk page that covers both suspensions more concisely. Maybe this will be useful. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This guy had a great career and I seem to be unable to document much of it with WP:RS. As a result the PED issues seem overweighted. I don't know how to rectify that, but am supportive of the more concise description outlined by Eggishorn at Talk:Augie_Wolf#Content_removal_discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Michael Carter-Williams

Michael Carter-Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He was a 19-year-old Freshman in college. He was held back at least once or started school late. That is the only way to explain why he graduated high school in 2011 instead of 2010. He only played 2 seasons of College Basketball from 2011-2013 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.66.161 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Are you pointing out some issue with the article here on Misplaced Pages? I don't understand the relevance of your comment to that article, which doesn't mention the subject's year of graduation from high school and doesn't claim he played more than two seasons of college basketball. An explanation for the subject's age at graduation from high school or as a college freshman isn't relevant to an article about a one-time college and now professional athlete. Dwpaul 01:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Xia Yeliang

The biography of the living person Xia Yeliang is constantly being updated to include unsubsantiated and libelous information about Xia Yeliang's teaching. There are no publicly available reports on this teaching and some person(s) continue to put it on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.130.242.94 (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The ip is correct in that unsourced commentary critical to the subject is being added. Please add thus your your watchlistsTwo kinds of pork (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Royce White

Royce White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am having trouble determining if I am putting in too much negative content or if more should be included.

Not included

1. 5 baby mamas
2. an imminent baby kept him from taking a basketball scholarship

Included

1. Dismissed from high school
2. Two theft incidents in college
3. Suspended in college
4. Anxiety disorder kept him from the NBA

I am trying to determine if I am putting in too much negative content or omitting too much. Advice welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A one sentence mention in the Personal section would be OK. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

For which of the above excluded items?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

tyler deric

The article Tyler Deric is probably a cut-and-paste from his mlssoccer.com biography. Kindly review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actricalian (talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've reverted that addition.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Ayakannu Marithamuthu

This article will appear at DYK soon. Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2. Charges were brought against named suspects but apparently were dismissed. The tone may suggest their guilt ("The suspects have yet to be convicted as of October 2013"). Can someone give this a look? Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

What a mess. I've removed the most blatant WP:BLP violations, but without access to all the sources, I can't guarantee that the article is free of problems - and there is no way in hell we should be using this for a DYK before it has been properly checked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this further, the DYK hook is in itself a WP:BLP violation - it is asserting as fact something which has never been determined by a court. Marithamuthu's body was never found, and the claim that he was cooked in a curry is entirely unsubstantiated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've now raised this at WP:ANI, asking as a matter of urgency that the DYK be removed from the upcoming list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Brought this up at the DYK talkpage - feel free to weigh in there. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 00:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks to Andy and others for their prompt and effective actions. This particular matter appears to be concluded but cleanup on the editor's other articles continues. Kablammo (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Unreferenced defamatory assertions on Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor)

With this edit my edits to redact controversial, defamatory, unreferenced biographical information per BLP have been reverted. I would like to know by what justification these can be restored? Elizium23 (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

For anyone who doesn't know, prior to her marriage to Gene Scott, Melissa Pastore worked in the adult-movie industry under the name "Barbie Bridges". My talk page edit, ironically enough, was to support the removal of said information from the article if it was poorly sourced. Elizium23 has long claimed ownership of that talk page (have a look at it). This editor has attempted to remove any mention of even the word "pornography" on said page, thus ensuring that no discussion of contentious material can even begin to take place. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge the assertion above is based on a single Marie Claire article that was rejected as a reliable source by Wikipedians' consensus several years ago. — Brianhe (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That's why it isn't in the article, and I support it not being in the article. Elizium23 has attempted to stifle any discussion of reliable sources on the talk page. I'll note that I have also restored a rather extensive discussion about reliable sources, shamefully removed from the same talk page as a "BLP violation". Joefromrandb (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If the article was reviewed by the community and discarded that would seem to settle the question. Could you provide the link to the discussion? Otherwise, a single source may be used as a reliable source.JodyB _talk 01:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor)#Edits by Active Banana, discussion on removing Marie Claire source has been closed without further comment since August 2012. I believe Marie Claire may also have been part of the poor sourcing involved in the decision to delete the article in 2007, but the article history has been deleted so I can not confirm. — Brianhe (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

As I've said in the past, sources such as the Marie Claire piece and Anorak (a link which is used as a source for the Suze Randall article) along with a perusal through the pubic records of the respective states, the ex-porn star assertion are 100% verifiable. The problem there is that it strays into original research and synthesis problems, which make it somewhat unsuitable for article inclusion at this time. There's no valid reason for outright redaction of talk pages comments, however; what's out there for sourcing is sufficient enough so that it's at least a valid topic to discuss. Tarc (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Tarc, for summing up exactly what I was trying to say, in a manner far more eloquent than I was able. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Anorak is nothing more than a repeat of selections from the Marie Claire piece. There is no corroboration anyone has put forward for what was asserted in that one piece. — Brianhe (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

John Dalli

• John Dalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone please have a look at this article, which has been the subject of an edit war in recent weeks. There are numerous issues with the article, which reads more like a "fan piece" than a balanced encyclopaedic article, and I have made a start on identifying these. However, I am most concerned about potentially libellous statements made about third parties (individuals, organisations or companies). Many of these statements are uncited (they may possibly be true, but should certainly be supported by reliable sources if that is the case). The sections from "The Revision of the Tobacco Directive" onwards are particularly alarming. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Caroline Kennedy

Her article has a section called "Political Views". The sources in it are all from 2008 when she was running for senate office, and most or all of the views attributed to her in the section came through spokespeople. (Even a few which look, in the article, like direct quotes.)

I deleted the section, but my edit was undone. Steve.Murgaski (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you doubt her spokesperson had license to state her views?Two kinds of pork (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the statements of her spokespeople in 2008 can reasonably be taken as her "political views" for all time. More problematically, the article attributes some things to Kennedy as direct quotes, when the sources say that they came from her campaign team. Caroline Kennedy#Political Views (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Steve.Murgaski (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The section has been taken out. Thanks for your time. Steve.Murgaski (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

shaygan kheradpir

Shaygan Kheradpir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aged 103? I don't think so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.81.229 (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism I expect. There is no date of birth given in the source cited, so I have removed it entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Hart

EDIT: In short: an editor believes an article cited in Jonathan Hart is speculative and should either be labelled speculative or removed entirely. I believe the article presents factual information. I need someone to help read over the article and entry. --Rawlangs (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Last year, it was reported in Times Higher Education that the subject, Jonathan Hart, had held two full time academic positions on opposite sides of the Atlantic and that he no longer works for one of the universities. This information is reflected in the wikipedia entry. The THE article contains the word "apparent", and an IP editor feels strongly that this word colours the entirety of the article's contents. The IP has consistently removed the content or labelled it "apparent" or "speculative" to diminish its weight. I have consistently reverted him. After an exchange at User talk:174.1.110.26, I requested page protection, and it was granted. The IP then complained to the protecting admin, which you can find at User talk: Mark Arsten. I would like to get ahead of this if I can, since this dispute has resulted in accusations of personal bias against me. I would welcome any suggestions people have regarding BLP edits to Jonathan Hart. --Rawlangs (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional eyes on Alva, Oklahoma‎

Additional eyes on Alva, Oklahoma‎ would be helpful. An IP is repeatedly replacing the city's website with an inappropriate link that creates BLP concerns. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Not an IP, but a new account. I've blocked it. MastCell  00:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

C.L.V. Jayathilake - Spelling suggestion

Please be kind enough to change the name of the article as C.L.V. Jayatilleke or the most commonly known name "Lakshman Jayatilleke". His name is mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Royal_College_Colombo_alumni#Public_commissions_.26_corporations as well. He is an Old boy from my Alma Mater and the head of my University whom I personally know. Therefore, I assure this information is correct.

Thanks and regards, Navaka (navakawiki)

Thank you for posting, and thank you for your contributions to the article. Unfortunately, these changes, particularly the spelling of the gentleman's name, are not supported by any sources. The sources that are currently linked to the article both agree on the Jayathilake spelling. Your personal knowledge may contradict this, but we have no way of verifying this information. For the time being, therefore, I've restored the version of the article immediately prior to your changes. You are welcome to make these changes again if you can cite them. You may also want to read the policies about biographies of living persons (A/K/A: BLP). Feel free to use the talk page of the article to ask questions about your edits to this article. Thanks again. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Question on BLPPRIMARY

• Operation Chengiz Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the article Operation Chengiz Khan the memoirs of P C Lal are used to cite a quote on a living person, are this guys memoirs a primary source? And can we use this to quote what another person may have said? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that there would be any doubt a memoir is a primary source, and therefore preferably used with moderation. However in this case I don't think it applies specifically as a BLP issue, but instead WP:PRIMARY in general would take over, which makes it more of a content dispute. BLPPRIMARY exists to make sure editors don't engage in original research and synthesis, and to make sure Misplaced Pages content remains as neutral as possible because we recognize that people have a hard time being neutral when they write about themselves. §FreeRangeFrog 16:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

BLPPRIMARY says "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Is a quote being attributed to someone other the the author of the memoirs not fall under this? Specifically the "assertions about a living person" part? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I just don't see where the BLP issue is. The material is being used to support assertions about the effectiveness of runway cratering sorties by the Pakistani Air Force. Unless I'm missing something? §FreeRangeFrog 17:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think BLPPRIMARY applies here - but BLP and PRIMARY do, if that makes sense. GiantSnowman 18:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: & @GiantSnowman:, FRF, I was under the impression that primary sources ought not be used to support the words of a person who had no part in writing the primary source? And what about the blog? Does that fall under SPS & BLP? GS, you have lost me Darkness Shines (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

K. D. Singh (politician)

K. D. Singh (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is in follow up of a request at the Help Desk. In short, the K. D. Singh (politician) article is not a biography. The alleged Cash-for-votes scam subsection and the Controversies subsection should be removed/trimmed because the Cash-for-votes scam subsection is an allegation where his level of alleged involvement is not clear and not well sourced such as through multiple major newspapers and the Controversies subsection predominates over his life events in article. Once there is enough text on his life events, some of the Controversies can be added back in within the text of his other life events. There is Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/K. D. Singh dated September 25th, 20 days after the above article was created. This article has been moved numerous times. I think it needs someone to hack through the events to see how we got to where we are today and revise the article to meet BLP and NPOV. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any big problem with the references, they are all from mainstream media. --Soman (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Woody Harrelson's arm injury in Cheers (season 5)

I found this article from Los Angeles Times about Toyota Pro-Celebrity Grand Prix 1988. When I read it, I found Harrelson's 1987 (not 1988) arm injury that was shown onscreen in Cheers. It claimed that he had two arm injuries: one in fist fight, other in car racing accident. But according to the Philadelphia Inquirer article, the race was scheduled to occur on April 4, 1987. (Every annual Grand Prix has been scheduled for every April.) And his character Woody Boyd explained his "thumb" injury in one episode that aired on February 12, 1987. I assumed that the real-life fist fight incorporated Boyd's "thumb" injury. I know it couldn't have been the July 1986 fistfight. But I'm still searching. In the meantime, how do I include the "arm cast" thing and Boyd's "thumb" injury in Cheers (season 5) (instead of Woody Harrelson) without violating policies (well, guidelines I can either ignore or obey)? --George Ho (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Shavarsh Karapetyan

I believe that there is an error in the Biography portion. It references that Mr. Karapetyan carried the torch for the second leg of the race of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russie. Since the 2014 Winter Olympics have not yet occurred, I do not believe he could have carried the tourch.

Thank you.

Melissa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.81.154 (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is not talking about the 2014 Winter Olympics, just the 2014 Winter Olympics torch relay, which began in October. Nothing to do here. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 23:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

1. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/28/science-move-away-materialism-sheldrake
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/i-know-im-right-so-why-be_b_81095.html
3. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/feb/02/philosophy-sheldrake-science

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution