Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Govindaharihari (talk | contribs) at 06:10, 28 February 2015 (→Nick Griffin: this issue only). 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

Article about a rape in a church community

Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire) was brought for discussion to the COI noticeboard over some COI issues (see here). The church itself is hardly notable; what may be notable is that a member of the church raped and impregnated a young girl who was also a member, and the pastor of the church participated in an ugly coverup and humiliation of the girl. Many years later the story came out and the now-woman went on 20/20 under her real name and told the story, and there was a trial that found the rapist guilty and the pastor resigned all his positions. Everybody's names are known (Tina Anderson is the survivor, the rapist is Ernest Willis; the pastor at the time was Chuck Phelps).

In the COIN discussion, AndyTheGrump raised the issue that the article about the church is a coatrack for discussing the crime. Andy took the position that none of it is notable and it should be deleted. Jehochman agreed with respect to the church, but found the crime potentially notable. Question for this board:

• Should the article be re-focused and re-titled to somehow refer to the rape, or one of the people involved? If so, what should the article be called, exactly? This is all asked with BLP in mind, of course. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The church's officers conspired cover up of a rape of a minor was the subject of national media for several months including a 20/20 section. The mother contacted her pastor Chuck Phelps about the sexual abuse of her daughter. The pastor and his wife grilled the victim for quite some time about her dress, whether she enjoyed it and repeatedly asked and told her she was partly responsible according to the victim's court and public testimonies. The 15 year victim was then coerced to read an apology pastor Chuck Phelps (who is still pastoring a church but forced to resign from Bob Jones University advisors by public demand) and his wife drafted and convinced the girls mother to accept in front of the congregation. All this after telling them she was forcibly raped by 39 year old Willis a member. This closely resembles behavior of a cult and it was appalling that the leaders in the church parti.cipated in this further verbal and emotional abuse of child. On top of that the offender was allowed to remain in the church for over a decade with many in the top leadership knowing a minor had been violated by that man. The perp also tried to get the girl to let him punch her in the stomach to cause an abortion. The church's insane handling of a rape of a minor is what makes this rape much different than another sexual abuse by the clergy. It was the cover up by the church that drew the national media attention and they got it right when they chose to expose the churches abhorrent behavior. The church name should remain in what ever title change takes place as the public should be informed and the church should not be able to hide the immoral behavior. A possible change would be Trinity Baptist Church Sex Abuse Scandal (Concord New Hampshire) but leaving the church's name out is an attempt to hide the story of the church cover up of a rape of a minor. 172.56.38.55 (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• I essentially agree with Jehochman that the church itself is borderline notable (at best, based on the article). The rape and especially the cover up and exposure seems to be notable (and well sourced) and I would think the article should be re-focused and re-titled. Also agree that there are coat rack issues with the article as it is. Not yet sure what an appropriate title would be, but this is really about the Trinity Baptist Church Sex Scandal. - Becksguy (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  We should look at the sources and see what they are calling the scandal. Then we just follow their lead. Jehochman 15:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• • In general, looking at the sources is helpful, but this never was given a name. Sources from the article:
    • '20/20' to feature Trinity accusation: Former parishioner says she was raped
    • Former Baptist Church Member Ernest Willis Sentenced to Prison for Rape of Teen Parishioner
    • Man accused in rape admitted paternity: Adoption records released by woman
    • Man guilty of raping teen church member

• • what I am hearing so far, is that we should rename the article "Trinity Baptist Church Sex Scandal" I'll wait a bit longer for input. Nobody is suggesting we name it after the survivor, rapist, or minister, which is where i was afraid we might have to go, and that would definitely be a BLP issue. Folks here are saying implicitly "don't go there".... Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Jytdog: I think that's the best option here. §FreeRangeFrog 19:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I am considering this resolved. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Walter Lewin

Some links to YouTube physics videos have been removed from Walter Lewin on the grounds that MIT has taken a disciplinary action against him. Apparently a 32-year-old French woman sent him a naked selfie and later complained to MIT. The full details are not known. The videos are very popular. The question is whether Misplaced Pages should somehow try to punish him by censoring links to the physics videos. I do not see how it is any business of WP whether he did whatever it is that he is accused of. Even if he did commit a crime, and no one is accusing him of that, I do not see that as a reason to make his physics lectures hard to access. Roger (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Are the videos of value to the reader? Do they make any contentious claims about anyone at all? Are they in any scandalous or likely to cause ill-repute for Misplaced Pages? Is there any doubt as to copyright and the right of YouTube to host the videos? Are the videos in any way edited in such a manner that material which the reader should have has been omitted? As I understand it, OpenCourseWare is laudable for giving free education to the masses (well -- YouTube users), and the courses are directly related to the subject of the BLP and supported by him. They were "published" by MIT on OCW which suggests that MIT wanted them distributed, even if the old lectures were removed from the OCW website. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

According to an article on Inside Higher Education (see the talk page), Lewin was using these online courses to recruit victims for his sexual harassment. So yes, they are directly related not only to the subject of the article but also to the scandal. And Schlafly's "someone sent him a selfie then complained" is a gross misrepresentation of what the source describes, and does not pass the laugh test of something that would cause MIT to take the action they did. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your accusation is a BLP violation. But even if it were true, how is that your business? If Lady Gaga or Miley Cyrus used some inappropriate language in their tweets, would you then want WP to censor links to their YouTube videos? Roger (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

How is an accusation that comes directly from a reliable source, discussed on a talk page in relation to which material is appropriate to include in an article, a BLP violation? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 04:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Schlafly: your wording is more the blp concern as it implies she's making false allegations. Strongly consider rewording if that is not the meaning you intend to convey. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I said nothing about whether the 32yo French woman made true or false allegations. Her complaint to MIT was not public, and I would have no idea whether it was truthful even if it were public. There is no reliable source saying that "Lewin was using these online courses to recruit victims for his sexual harassment." Maybe the French woman is claiming that, but even if she is, we should not take it as a fact. She has never been within 1000 miles of Lewin, as far as we know. The article says "She takes medications for anxiety and depression". Whatever the truth of what she says, it is not up to her whether WP has links to physics videos. Roger (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't think anyone ever said it was up to her. But I looked over Lewin's article and it has a lot more editing needed. Frankly the list of videos seem not notable enough for inclusion individually. A link to his youtube channel would suffice. The article reads more like a resume than an encyclopedia article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Schlafly: You should probably stop posting about the sexual-harassment finding before you embarrass yourself any further. The content issue seems to be whether we should continue to link to Lewin's course videos. MIT found that Lewin had sexually harassed at least one student in his online courses (), and MIT has removed the course links from OpenCourseWare (). MIT reportedly removed the links out of concern that other women would view the courses, contact Lewin, and potentially be vulnerable to harassment by him. There is also a legal concern through Title IX, in that MIT could theoretically be held liable for future episodes of harassment by Lewin, and they presumably want to mitigate that risk (discussed here). So it's complicated - Lewin's (former) university now views these courses as potential vectors of harassment, and is trying to scrub links to them. So should we link them? MastCell  06:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

MIT msy well have perceived that it might have some Title IX liability, and may have taken its action under pressure from the Obama administration. Other prominent universities have been punished by the Obama administration for not handling complaints as the feds demand. For example, Harvard was forced to change its policies, even tho 28 of its law professors say that the new policies lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process. However we are in no position to pass judgment on MIT as I don't think it has even said how Title IX may have influenced it or whether Lewin received that fairness or due process. MIT could have asked Google to take down the YouTube videos if there were some legal problem. There is not, so WP should treat them like any other published work, and not try to pre-judge what others should or should not look at. Roger (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

1) The visual quality of the edX versions is superior to the OCW versions, or better said: less bad. The educational quality of the edX versions is improved with the additional edits as compared to the OCW versions. The OCW versions are linked anyway, so why not link the superior edX versions as well. 2) The content of the lectures do not relate to the sexual harassment case in any way, they were made more than 10 years earlier. 3) The content of the lectures do not "contain", "promote" or "guide" any criminal behavior in any way. 4) There is no copyright problem. 5) There is no judicial verdict not allowing Lewin to communicate with the outside world. There is no criminal offense. There are no charges against him. Please just add the links already. Daniel Dekkers (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor who keeps removing the links now complains that Lewin is "unapologetic" for whatever sins he is suspected of, and argues that "social responsibility" favors making it hard to learn physics from the videos. He is clearly acting against WP policy, as policy is not to censor good info just because some editor has some personal disapproval of naked selfies or unapologetic physics professors. Roger (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please help. Another editor has removed the physics video links in an attempt to punish him for some online remarks he allegedly made. This is censorship for an ideological purpose, and a BLP violation to blame Lewin for some dubious allegations. Roger (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You've forfeited most of your credibility by presenting the underlying dispute dishonestly and inaccurately, and further beclowned yourself by somehow trying to blame all of this on Obama. At this point, you need to either articulate a coherent BLP concern or get off your soapbox. MastCell  01:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that wikipedia should stay neutral with respect to the lectures. MIT censored the professor because they have a liability as their name was on the video and further problems would cause reputational or legal harm to MIT, not to other institutions or sites disseminating them. Misplaced Pages has no such liability. Science is science. We need to keep the videos (outstanding BTW) online even if we disagree with the person.Limit-theorem (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a reasonable argument (though I disagree at least to some extent), but this is a content issue which belongs on the article talk page, not a BLP issue. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am ignoring the ad hominem attacks. The BLP issue is that only reason for not linking to the videos is that a couple of editors want to punish Lewin for alleged bad behavior. To see an example of this anti-Lewin bias, see Alex's last edit. He inserted "MIT determined that Lewin had engaged". WP policy is to stay neutral, and not to blindly accept the story of one side of a dispute, especially when it potentially libels living person. MIT's decision process was non-public, and it is a BLP violation to say that Lewin did anything improper. The WP article could say "MIT claimed that Lewin had engaged" or "MIT took action against Lewin after an investigation". That would be more neutral without endorsing one side. I brought the issue here because there are continuing personal attacks on Lewin and edit warring based on allegations that have never proved or even publicly substantiated. This seems to be a WP:BLP violation to me, but if not, please explain it to me. Roger (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, MIT is not a court of law and their decisions are solely applicable to MIT. They are not in any way public. Removing links to lectures they ceased to endorse is a violation of our neutrality here.Limit-theorem (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Roger, it is not a BLP violation to report that MIT found Lewin had harassed one or more of his online students. This is both a) factual and b) well-sourced. This is not exactly an "allegation"—it is an allegation which was investigated by MIT and found to have merit, enough so that they went on record, fired Lewin, and attempted to limit potential vectors of future harassment. Nor is there a BLP issue with linking (or not linking) videos of Lewin's physics lectures; that is a content decision to be discussed on the article talkpage. MastCell  18:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

MIT and federal prosecutors also came to the conclusion that Aaron Swartz was a criminal, but the WP article on him treats MIT's opinion as just an allegation because it was never proved in open court. Lewin should get the same courtesy, and WP:BLP policy requires it. Roger (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Swartz's article details his arrest by MIT police and the charges filed against him by federal prosecutors. Lewin's article details an internal MIT investigation which concluded that he'd sexually harassed a student or students. Both of these things happened, and we report both of them. I get that you're trying to present this as some sort of double standard, but I can't figure out your logic here. MastCell  01:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If the article on Adolf Hitler did not have a link to Mein Kampf, then I would assume that the editors thought that he was a bad guy with very bad ideas in his book. But the links are there, and you can follow them to read the book in several languages. The world's most famous freshman physics lectures used to be on the page of 80-year-old physicist Walter Lewin, but now they are gone because ... explain it to me again? Is it because he flirted with a 32-year-old woman on the other side of the world? Is it because he failed to recognize that she had a mental disorder? Is it because he should be getting his porn from sites unrelated to physics? Is it because he is unapologetic for looking at a naked selfie? Is it because MIT decided to scapegoat him in order to avoid federal Title IX charges? Is it because MIT is blackmailing him with some sort of secret embarrassing evidence? Are these videos really worse than Mein Kampf? Roger (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Roger, at this point I honestly can't tell whether you're ignorant about the concept of sexual harassment, or ignorant of the details of this case, or intentionally posting flamebait (along with the inevitable Godwin's Law violation, of course). I will say that you are now committing borderline BLP violations, on this page no less, by dishonestly trivializing a case of sexual harassment and implicitly blaming its victim (who, incidentally, is easily identifiable by name). If you persist, your account will be blocked. MastCell  01:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am ignoring your usual ad hominem attack. Rather than answer my question, you threaten to censor me. Roger (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not about whether the person was involved in sexual harassment or not or the nature of the charge. It is simply about charges made by a private institution not a court of law. These charges (regardless of severity) have a lower standing than real ones as there is a burden of proof concept and are not criminal, but entirely civil in nature. I insist, civil. Misplaced Pages should have a mechanism for that. Limit-theorem (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

And even if Lewin was convicted... in a real trial with a real judge or a real jury following a real adversarial system. And he was sent to jail or placed under house arrest. And he was silenced (all his means of communication (phone, internet) would be taken away). Would that for Misplaced Pages be a reason not to place links to his lectures? Daniel Dekkers (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Much like the character of Antonio Salieri in the 1984 movie Amadeus some people just can't cope with the idea that a "vulgar creature" like Walter Lewin is capable of creating work that touches the sublime. A common reaction to this is to either try to silence the author or censor the work and preferably both. The emotion even heightens because Lewin has been lifted to almost god like proportions by critics in the last decade. I can't say he didn't ask for that though, because he did :-). So our ability to judge is at stake here. We misjudged. Oh boy. It might take 50 years or more before person and work can be separated to some reasonable degree, but I will try to speed things up a little: I'm not saying that proper teacher/student interaction is not an urgent and important subject to discuss. I think the fact that every educational institute has its own set of rules and there is no official legislation makes it a lot less transparent then it could be. Broaden it and look at all situations where there is to some degree an imbalance in power. Religious institutions, government officials and civilians. The case we have here is horrific in its uncontrollability. The problem has been haunting us for 3000 years and we are not getting an inch closer to a solution. Also interesting to discuss, and preferably watch in the best way possible, are the unique lectures by Lewin, every single one cultural icons that have proven themselves for half a century now. A strange combination of science and theatre that has never been created before and will never be created again. As a bonus, friend and foe agree that the lectures do an amazing job teaching people physics. Summarizing, I would prefer to separate these two discussions, even though they both fall in the category "Walter Lewin" which we (well, you) are writing a Misplaced Pages page for. Kind regards Daniel Dekkers (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) (Sorry for my English, it is not my first language)

There are many examples of musicians, actors, politicians, and others who have behaved badly. In some cases they have admitted it, or an open court of law has proved it. However WP has not tried to punish them by deleting links to their works. Just Walter Lewin. Has it really become WP policy to delete links based on improper online flirting or whatever he has been alleged to have done? If so, I suggest that be put into the written policies and we all start deleting links to the others with bad behavior. I'll do the ones for the people who particular offend me, and others can do likewise. If not, then let's follow the written WP policies and restore the Lewin links. Roger (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Now the IPCC is accused is sexually inappropriate emails. As with Lewin, the allegations are serious enough that he is no longer on the job. To be consisent with Lewin, we should remove all the links to the IPCC reports. Roger (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Pachauri and Lewin are very comparable. Many awards, even (indirectly) a Nobel Peace Prize for Pachauri. I looked at his WP page and thought that WP missed reporting about the SH case completely. But it is all the way at the end, at the end of "Controversies". Luckily with Lewin that won't happen. You can't miss it, because it is mentioned three times in the article (in case you forgot reading about it the first, or second time). Daniel Dekkers (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Alex Gilbert

Hello Misplaced Pages Administrators,

I have been trying to work on an article for awhile. It was removed as it was apparently not notable. I am not fully aware of Biographies on Misplaced Pages and how they work. If someone can please visit - User:DmitryPopovRU/Alex_Gilbert. Please do not take it down but please give me advice and how I can grow this article. I am sure these references are notable, it is not also for a so called ONE EVENT problem that was brought up before. All I am asking is simply.. Is this article notable and why not? and what can be improved.

Thank You! Dmitry --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• DmitryPopovRU, I noticed that you tagged the article for speedy deletion. Did you still want it reviewed? If so, then the page could always be recreated if it gets deleted before you reply. I also have to note that your page is in your userspace so you're not really under any obligation to delete it right away. You could always leave it in your userspace and leave it there until more coverage becomes available, if you wanted. As long as you are active and don't abandon the page and your account, it can stay there for a fairly long point in time. I know that more than a few of us have incubated articles for long stretches of time, some of us for years. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) and thanks for your reply! I deleted it because It was apparently not notable and all I need is an experienced editor to have a look at the article and help me work on it. I have put it here User:DmitryPopovRU/sandbox. They mentioned that he should't be noted as a camera operator. Though the references are notable for other things how can I make this article relevant and that will work with the way its written? Please help if you can or tag someone who can help improve this! — Preceding undated comment added 10:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please have a look and help with the article here User:DmitryPopovRU/sandbox ? Thank You! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Kellermann

• Arthur Kellermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is it normal to have a biography that's primarily concerned with attacking certain studies by an academic? Arthur Kellermann is largely a critique of a small segment of the guy's work. Is that the way we write articles about scholars? Felsic (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No. This is an extremely poor article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have done a rough cleanup using a prior version of the page. Other editors should review the article and copy edit for style and to work towards NPOV. There was a +10,000 byte edit by an IP at the end of 2013 that looked very much like a firearms industry lobbyist converting the bio into an attack page. Please be on the lookout for repeated attacks. Jehochman 17:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've done some work on it as well. Good catch. MastCell  18:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Felsic (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I did some clean up too. The old version was a little on the puffy side and needed some organization too. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Michael Langone

Michael Langone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Langone is a proponent of the pseudoscientific theory of mind control. The former American Family Foundation, headed by Langone, is described as offering the most public support for the mind-control theory through its Cultic Studies Journal. The theory is seen by researchers as a propaganda device used by the anti-cult movement to rationalize the persecution of minority religious groups.

References

1. ^ Anthony, Dick (1999). "Pseudoscience and Minority Religions: An Evaluation of the Brainwashing Theories of Jean-Marie Abgrall". Social Justice Research. 12 (4): 421–456. doi:10.1023/A:1022081411463. ISSN 0885-7466.
2. Anson D. Shupe; William A. Stacey; Susan E. Darnell (2000). Bad Pastors: Clergy Misconduct in Modern America. NYU Press. p. 173. ISBN 978-0-8147-8147-0.

ChrisGualtieri has removed the material above twice already (, and }), with an edit summary of ".... what a farce)". The material is sourced to a book published by NYU Press and an article published by the Social Justice Research journal. Are these sources reliable for the content in question? Is this material suitable for a BLP of this person? I think so. Uninvolved editors' comments would be appreciated. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources certainly seem okay. Is there any slippage between source and text? You might post (either here or on the article talk page) the passage(s) from the source(s) that support those sentences. But from what I see it's not at all clear what the (alleged) problem is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Langone does not advocate of the "pseudoscientific theory" of mind control, the definition he uses is "a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s)." Langone cites a range of issues, none of which are "mind control" as being advanced in that sentence. Deception, group pressure, insular focus on isolation and group conformity... Pretty standard once you take the "buzzword" out of it - same as Langone mentioned before about cults. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

But if the indicated sources characterize it as a "pseudoscientific theory" called "mind control", then that idea has legs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Abstract, follows. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

An analysis of Jean-Marie Abgrall's cultic brainwashing theory shows that the theory is essentially identical to the pseudoscientific theory that was developed first by the American CIA as a propaganda device to combat communism, and second as an ideological device for use by the American anti-cult movement to rationalize efforts at persecution and control of minority religious groups. The CIA theory has been evaluated scientifically in research in several contexts (i.e., communist coercive indoctrination of Western prisoners, the CIA's attempted development of brainwashing techniques, and with American new religions or “cults”). In each context, it has been shown to be ineffective in coercively changing worldviews. Because of this pattern of disconfirmation, testimony based on brainwashing theory has been opposed as unscientific by relevant professional academic organizations and repeatedly excluded from American legal trials. Consequently, neither legal decisions nor public policy with respect to minority religions should be based on Abgrall's appropriation of this pseudoscientific theory.

And Langone is indeed a proponent of mind control theories. See , piece adapted from an 1988 article by Langone. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The abstract doesn't mention Langone. Unless the body of the article does, then use of that article for the text you wrote would involve WP:SYNTH. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There are other sources that make the connection with Abragall's assertions in the context of Langone's theories. For example and - Cwobeel (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

To add to the sources for "mind control", Langone himself says so (emphasis mine):

The term "cult" is often associated with a process that has been given a variety of labels, including "thought reform" (Lifton, 1961), "coercive persuasion" (Schein, 1956, 1961), "brainwashing," (Hunter, 1953), "mind control" (Langone, 1988), the "systematic manipulation of psychological and social influence" (Singer, 1983), "coordinated programs of coercive influence and behavior control" (Ofshe & Singer, 1986), and "exploitative persuasion" (Singer & Addis, 1991). (Langone, Michael (1990). "Psychotherapy Cults". Cultic Studies Journal. 7 (2): 3.)

I understand Nomoskedasticity's concern for SYNTH here, and part of the issue is that we have a fringe theory - so there is little discussion (or criticism) outside their insular group. It is only when that group attempts to promote its theory in the mainstream that we get feedback (such as the directly related case of the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control). --Tgeairn (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

See also ]. There are plenty of sources about the subject which includes Langone's work in their context. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Aside from whatever the current thinking is on "mind control", etc., I think that the use of the wording "minority religions" by the first source instead of "new religious movements"--the actual groups in question--is somewhat misleading. That might support, indirectly, the allegations that the APA report was produced under "influence by authoritative scholars inspired and financed by some controversial new religious movements" per the "Challenging Religion" source (assuming that euphemistic term was used). Groups like the Moonies and Soka Gakkai had plentiful funds.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The "Challenging Religion" source strongly supports this, without using the exact word "pseudoscience". It does quote the American Psychological Association:

the theory... 'is not accepted in the scientific community' and... 'has been repudiated by the scientific community'

and says

the brief also implied that theories of mind control... were uniformly regarded as 'not accepted in the scientific community', be they referred to as 'brainwashing', 'mind control', or - as Singer preferred... 'coercive persuasion'.

The source quotes external reviewer Jeffrey D. Fisher with

"unscientific", "biased", "sometimes... characterized by the use of deceptive, indirect techniques of persuasion and control - the very thing it is investigating", "At times the reasoning seems flawed to the point of being almost ridiculous", "...more like hysterical ramblings than a scientific report".

Fisher later goes on

"some of the most polemical, ridiculous reasoning I've ever seen anywhere, much less in the context of an APA technical report."

This all seems to support the statement that the report and its theories were/are pseudoscience and fringe. I believe we can go with the American Psychological Association as a reviewer of the theory and the book sources here and at Talk:Michael Langone as secondary source as well. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• That looks better, and I see the authors are both academics and it's on Routledge. My only question was with the somewhat rhetorically questionable "minority religions" designation, from the perspective of dealing with advocates editing the Soka Gakkai article.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 02:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• What is being advanced is snippets of words surrounded and linked to other words - without meaning or context. It is not even synth - for it is erroneous notions bundled together to drawing a conclusion not supported by the text. Of excellent example is The term "cult" is often associated with a process that has been given a variety of labels ... mind control... which Tgeairn acts as if Langone supports literal mind control. The actual writing and listing uses the term which has entered popular usage, but the definition Langone gives is for deceptive and manipulative emotional control of susceptible persons. As such - I take no stock in either Cwobeel's or Tgeairn's conclusions because they are in error. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Much of the debate is covered on the BLP talk page, including material where Langone is accused of supporting an entire task force report where nothing other than the fact he was on the task force is presented, and his individual works do not supports the claims made. And in one case, Langone specifically lists all the views held by people -- without asserting the correctness of any of them. If we say a person supports a particular view, we should use a source making that statement based on fact. Collect (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeairn: I may have misunderstood the problem, if it is with the specific term "pseudoscientific theory". The Challenging Religions source applies "unscientific" in this context, correct? Doesn't that suffice until a source that uses "pseudoscientific" is found. The same objection I made about the "minority religions" probably holds, because there is a categorical shift in meaning between "unscientific" and "pseudoscientific".--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that in 2002 (15 years after the rejected report) the APA president stated:

A body of social science evidence shows that when systematically practiced by state-sanctioned police, military or destructive cults, mind control can induce false confessions, create converts who willingly torture or kill "invented enemies," engage indoctrinated members to work tirelessly, give up their money--and even their lives--for "the cause." etc.

Which means he was promoting pseudoscience? Or is it more likely that from 1987 to 2002 some changes in opinion occurred? Collect (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy

Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A link to an off-wiki (likely non-RS) news site was redacted from an article talk page due to BLP concerns over comments regarding pseudonymous Misplaced Pages editors. I assumed the "L" and "P" in "BLP" precluded application of BLP policy to wikipedia user accounts. Was my assumption incorrect? And if so, would BLP policy apply to anonymous accounts on other sites as well? —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As the redacting editor, my understanding is that BLP applies to all identifiable living individuals. Also at least one of the editors mentioned in that article has had their personal information posted widely on the internet so they're not particularly anonymous. — Strongjam (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the link appears not to be a "secondary reliable source" for anything, thus there is no particular reason to use it. So it is not BLP which is the governing policy here. It is the use of an outside source to make personal comments about specific editors which appears to be the stronger basis for rejecting it. We have no control, nor ought we, over an outside site, but its use on Misplaced Pages should conform to Misplaced Pages rules - WP:NPA is therefore the policy directly implicated here - and as there is no need for the link, and the link if written in Misplaced Pages space would run afoul of NPA, it is reasonable to disallow it on that specific basis. It does not "out" anyone, so that aspect of BLP also des not apply. Collect (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK specifically permits the inclusion of the link itself on Talk pages; so the redaction, though made in good faith, is not validly based on WP:BLP compliance. Reliability of sources is contextual, and this would certainly be reliable for the author's opinion, if nothing more. Whether that is noteworthy or due, is a matter for discussion on the Article Talk page.

On examining the content of the article itself, I am not convinced that it rises to the level of a personal attack per WP:NPA at WP:NPA#WHATIS. In the interests of allowing an open discussion and a consensus to form, I would be inclined to support the link being re-added (unredacted?) to the Article Talk page.

See also: WT:BLP#Application_of_BLP_to_Article_Talk_pages - Ryk72 23:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK: "Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion." Since the sources is not reliable and the author's opinion is not notable I see no reason it need to remain on the talk page. BLPTALK does not mean that any and all links on talk pages are OK, that's just to easy to game. — Strongjam (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Strongjam, Many thanks for your response. I appreciate it, as I do any chance for open dialogue.

W.r.t the section that you quote, I agree that it permits (but does not mandate) removal of questionable claims. In this particular instance, I would, however, note the following: a) the link itself contains no claims (the source to which the link directs does, of course), therefore the redaction is not removing claims, questionable or otherwise; b) no reference to the previous discussion was included. If a previous discussion was held, one would hope that it was a recent & full discussion, reaching a consensus; not simply another redaction of links. See also: WP:CCC.

WP:TPG at WP:TPO is the guideline which suggests that links should not be redacted for Talk pages. While removing prohibited material is permitted, WP:BLP at WP:BLPTALK explicitly allows links, and they should not be considered to be prohibited in this sense.

I do wholeheartedly agree with you that not all links on talk pages are OK. Collect provides an example where the WP:NPA policy would prevent the inclusion of links to some pages. I would suggest that WP:VANDAL also provides another example. But WP:BLP does not. I believe that this is a good thing for the encyclopedia; WP:BLP is a strong policy and should not be used to suppress good faith discussion and the formation of consensus. See: WP:CRYBLP.

Finally, I restate the position that reliability & noteworthiness are matters for discussion on the Article Talk page; and that a consensus on these matters would be more easily formed without unilateral redaction.

NB: The discussion at WT:BLP#Application_of_BLP_to_Article_Talk_pages is still open; I would welcome your input & thoughts there. - Ryk72 00:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

D. Murdock or Dorothy Murdock

There is a debate at Acharya S on whether her first name should be included in the article. On the subjects Facebook page, she has asked that her first name be made to "D." instead of "Dorothy." A problem with this is the use of scholarly sources that mention both her real name "Dorothy Murdock" and her pen name "Acharya S."

One example is the religion scholar Maurice Casey, page 21 in his text "Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?" published by T&T Clark, where he has a consice biography of her stating her real name and her pen name. This is a reliable source, to make sure I have posted on the RS Noticeboard

Which do we emphasize, the multiple reliable sources that state her first name, or her desire that her first name not appear on Misplaced Pages? Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

A few years ago, Stephen M. Cohen tried to censor his article, and we banned him and blocked all of his sock puppets. A couple of weeks ago, Keith Levene tried to get a friend of his to add a wall of text to The Clash about his role in starting the band. Those were just the first two examples that came to mind, but I bring that up as examples of these principles

• The subject does not own the article.
• The subject does not get to use the article for promotion.
• The subject is discouraged from trying to determine article content.
• We always side with independent sources
• We may allow the subject to make additional statements about only themselves where they are not contradicted by other sources.

We can note that Dorothy Murdoch does not like to be referred to as such. But we cannot censor that article (or any other) to suit Murdock's tastes. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a section about this issue just a bit up from here... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That section above was closed to allow time for replies to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard , and after review, the source(s) were said to be reliable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Does using her first name, Dorothy, violate BLP? This is the argument being used to keep the name "Dorothy" out of the article, see . Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• (1) I believe it violates the spirit of WP:BLPNAME which states: When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. She has stated on her Facebook page and Forum that use of her "real name" (whatever it is) has caused harassment. (2) There's a really good essay by AzureCitizen about Self-identification at Acharya S's talk page. (3) She doesn't use the name "Dorothy" for any of her scholarly work, the name will confuse readers if it's not in context. (4) The two paragraphs are libelous (and unscholarly because it does not refer to her revised book) Acharya S says so on her Forum. The ref has no place in a BLP. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"the two paragraphs are libellous" -- which paragraphs? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

These two mentioned in the OP are libelous (and contemptuous) for the reasons I stated above. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not our job to decide if a source is libelous. It's our job to decide it's reliable. The other noticeboard settled that question. You're just muddying the water. Especially as we're not discussing including any of the "libelous" material. --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

BLPNAME also says that "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." Murdock not wanting to be recognized for her views (hmm...) is not equivalent to the witness protection program, or to being a victim of a crime ("individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event"), the sort of instances that BLPNAME is meant to exclude names.

If you actually read BLPNAME in context, it's not relevent. It is the letter (not the spirit), and only a selected portion, that one can imagine it violates if they ignore what BLPNAME actually says.

If Murdock's wrote against the CMT, how would this change your perception of the matter? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I responded on the talk page of the article. There appears to be an attempt to use a few mentions of a name in a few minor reliable source to in mean that we must include that name in the lede of the article when it is not the most widely used name and also not the preference of the subject of the article. I want to point out that the name mentioned in the Misplaced Pages article will get considerable more looks than the name buried in these reliable sources. So essentially we will be promoting the use of a name and heavily influence its use. The BLP policy exists to make sure that the content that we create covers the topic in a way that does give undue weight to a piece of information and influence the world's opinion of something beyond it's relevance. The prominent use of the name in articles from these minor sources doesn't follow the spirit of BLP.Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree that scholarly sources published by good academic publishers are properly described as "minor". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • It's minor in the same way that a small regional newspaper owned by large publishing company is minor. They may be well respected by the readers and have great editorial review policies, but the content is not widely read. A mention of something there is not the same as something in a publications that is widely read. For us to take something from a somewhat obscure reference in a not well known book, and elevate it to the lede of a Misplaced Pages article is changing the course of history. It is understandable that the subject of the article objects to Misplaced Pages promoting something that otherwise would not be widely known. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
      • And here I thought the main purpose of Misplaced Pages was to increase what people know... I grant that whether readers know her real name is not the most important thing about this article. But I don't agree that it's a problem if people come to know it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Not widely read" could be said to apply to Brill publishers. Despite being well trusted in academia and on this site, everyone I know off this site thinks Brill is a type of scrubber. I'm certainly not raising this point to suggest that we start treating Brill citations as undue.

Still, there is a case to be made that the article should be titled D.M. Murdock under WP:COMMONNAME, and that it should only mention her full first name no more than once under WP:UNDUE -- but attempts to completely remove any mention of the name Dorothy from the entire article still fall under WP:NOTCENSORED.

Also, it's not Misplaced Pages that's revealing this information, otherwise it'd be justly removed under WP:CITE. It's very easy to find out that the D in D. M. Murdock stands for Dorothy, and Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with that. Murdock's focus on Misplaced Pages is comparable to a 9/11 truther blaming Misplaced Pages for getting the media to brainwash people -- completely backwards and wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I don't believe that adding the name is a breach of BLP - it's referred to in reliable sources. I'd oppose renaming the article, as that'd breach our guidelines on naming, but I don't think that's being sought. Merely including the author's first name seems entirely appropriate. Many notable people are referred to almost exclusively by their initials or even pseudonyms, but omitting what their real names are would require an absence of reliably sourced material (not the case) and evidence that including it damages the subject (not the case). --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Avigdor Kahalani

Avigdor Kahalani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please correct the following:

During the first day of the 6 day war Avigdor Kahalani was severely injured in his tank which was a Patton tank M-48 and not a Centurion. Our unit of the 79th battalion, 7th brigade, where I was a tank commander was all composed of Patton M-48 with exception of one platoon which had modified M-48 and was under the command of captain Shalom Angel. Avigdor Kahalani was my commander at that time and a captain of the unit.

Sincerly,

Stefan Uri Pienkny Served in the tank core from 1965 to 1968 and later during the Yom Kippur War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.119.42 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. We will need a source that indicates the tank used my Kalahani.- Cwobeel (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ashtul (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Billy 'Bud' Cowsill (William Joseph Cowsill) (Bill)

It is untrue that Bill Cowsill (William Joseph Cowsill) suffered from heroin addiction. As a matter of fact he hated heroin. He was sometimes known to use pain medication pharmaceutical drugs. His pain was physical from a car accident. He had quit alcohol at approximately 40 years old. I lived with him as his girlfriend for years. I hope you will correct this mistake. Sincerely, Joanna E. Ussner. Thank you for your time.

if you are talking about this article Bill Cowsill, you are at the incorrect place since he apparently has been dead for half dozen years. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this person may be referring to The Cowsills#Bill which mentioned that he had a heroin addiction. The source was a deadlink; however, it was in an AP dispatch and seems to be reliably sourced. I left it in with an updated reference. Like many addictions its likely that Bill hated it but still suffered from addiction. However, since it isn't a BLP and the information is reliably sourced and contributed to his death, it probably should remain in the article. Vertrag (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A single source with an en passant mention is a tad weak for the stress given in the single line about him. Better to have a source dealing with it in some detail for such a mention - the en passant one is, IMO, insufficient. Collect (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Congressman Diane Black

I commented on the following pasted comment below some time ago but notice the wiki comments have not been corrected. I apologize that I don't know how this process works exactly, but what is posted is incorrect regarding our relocation to Tennessee, Diane attending Belmont and the cartoon incident at the Tennessee State Legislature as regards "approporiate" punishment....all of which can be independently verified if anyone wishes to report accurately.

Thank you very much. Dave Black 2/23/2015

Diane and I moved from Baltimore, Maryland to Nashville, Tennessee in July of 1986 as I joined the faculty of Vanderbilt University. Diane attended Belmont after we moved here and graduated in 1991 with her BS in Nursing. The statement that we moved to Tennessee so she could attend Belmont is not correct and we did not relocate in 1985 as stated.

As a second issue, Diane's staffer who forwarded the Presdient Obama email is not a racist. She forwarded an email that was circulating among staffers at the legislature. Although a mistake the assistant is by no definition a racist and she was disciplined as required by Human Resources policies at the legislature. Although I respect the right of individuals to express opinions I suspect none of the individuals expressing such harsh opinions have ever met Diane or her assistant. Opinions are not necessarily facts and I appreciate the narrative shown that has attempted to at least place this incident into a factual context.

Dave Black — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.210.11.123 (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.216.103 (talk)

I've made the necessary changes. The section on the email scandal had a skewed POV and all of the sources are political blogs. It would be good to have some news stories as citations rather than the opinion pieces from political critics.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Ken Aldred

I am related to the page subject and he has requested my help with this, but I'm new to Misplaced Pages and would really appreciate volunteer support.

He would like to contribute in a neutral and unbiased manner, but first could someone help clean out the frankly unkind and spurious claims?

Reasons I feel this article needs to be edited:

- Point of view is not neutral.

- Tone of a large section of article content is negative and accusatory.

- Some content is particularly libelous.

- Poorly sourced with dead links or unreliable sources.

- History of page edits indicate this has been an ongoing issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blahrgy (talk • contribs) 09:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed one unsourced sentence that sounded like original research. It's not clear to me yet whether the rest is problematic -- the sources look okay. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Vic Dibitetto

Vic Dibitetto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd appreciate some extra eyes on Vic Dibitetto, where I'm in dispute with an SPA over the use of youtube and facebook sources in this comedians' BLP. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please start a thread on the talk page. Nothing will be accomplished unless you communicate with them. Edit warring is not productive. When you start a discussion you can ping me and I'll join, if that is helpful. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

John Alite

While people are stating that he was a mobster, the mob would never allow a non-Italian to enter its higher ranks. John Alite could not have been John Gotti, Jr's associate.

Even the jury that tried John Gotti, Jr stated that Alite was a non-credible witness. His testimony was ripped to shreds by Gotti, Jr's attornies. I just thought I would throw this out there so that further review into who and what John Alite really is, could be done. It is more apt that John Alite was just a petty associate who was looking to get out of jail time, or rise into fame, than actually a partner with John Gotti, Jr.

I would suggest reading In My Father's Shadow and possibly looking into the court records from the trial where Alite tried to persuade the jury he was a partner, to find the truth about who he was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.243.171.66 (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks we'll take that under advisement. You can also join WP and help us to improve the article using reliable sourced content such as books and news reports. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Tanana, Alaska

Tanana, Alaska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

About ten months ago, Scott Johnson and Gabriel Rich of the Alaska State Troopers were killed when responding to an incident in this community. As I had noticed a trend in general in our coverage of law enforcement of giving undue weight to deaths of officers in the line of duty, I started a thread on the talk page, as I felt the article is far too weighted towards coverage of that incident. I abandoned that discussion, as it seemed as though I was being goaded into an endless series of pointless back-and-forth, when I may perhaps have better things to do with my life. Revisiting the article and discussion today, something occurred to me: are we violating BLP by making the references we're making to the father and son who were charged with crimes in connection with this killing, but at this point have yet to be convicted of anything? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Ankit Love

Would some others please watch Ankit Love. A user has spent a considerable time editing the article to include outlandish claims such as him being a King of Jammu and Kashmir. The article before they got to it was a decent article on an Indian singer. The user previously uploaded severely personal material on the subject that were subject to Oversight so I am concerned about what else may be buried in all the puffery. Here is a diff between the two versions . JBH (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC) I should have notified other user pinging @योजनबुद्ध:. JBH (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• And would some good Editors please watch and revert the actions of JBH and his associate User:Fyddlestix they are clearly jointly committing vandalism on the Ankit Love page and behaving in an intimidating manner. And even ignoring the most fundamental guide lines of AFD by repeatedly blanking the page to a far more primitive states claiming that it has "massive sourcing issues" which is a lie based on prejudice as no evidence or prior discussion in talk. THIS IS VANDALISM. Especially when the clear guidelines for ADF state on the notice on bold "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked"
• the discussion for deletion can be followed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ankit_Love
• Further note will be shortly written with the screenshot evidence to bring the matter to the attention of User:LilaTretikov (WMF) and User:Jimbo_Wales.
• Quote "The deep damnation of his taking-off; And pity, like a naked new-born babe, / striding the blast, or heavens's cherubim, horsed / Upon the sightless couriers of the air, / Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye, / That tears shall drown the wind" Macbeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by योजनबुद्ध (talk • contribs) 15:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Kudos to JBH and User:Fyddlestix for trimming back the shameless self-promotion. --NeilN 15:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have no idea what's going on with this page but it seems clear that it needs some major work/clean up. Until it was protected just now, it had been flipping back and forth betweenthis version, which is almost exclusively the work ofयोजनबुद्ध, and this version, which is how it looked before योजनबुद्ध began altering the page around 17 February. User Kindguru is also claiming (as I understand it) that all of योजनबुद्ध's revisions are a BLP issue, and somehow related to hacking of Ankit Love's accounts on other sites, although they haven't given much detail or sources on this. There's also an active AFD discussion ongoing for the page, with a couple of SPA's and some very lengthy posts by योजनबुद्धinvolved. So quite a little mess we have here. It seems clear to me that most of योजनबुद्ध's revisions are unacceptable and need to go if the article is kept, but I'm still skeptical whether Ankit Love is himself notable - even in the reverted version a lot of the sources are misleading or suspect.Fyddlestix (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Kielty

Someone has made some very opiniated and ibelious comments, especially in the "Controversies" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.107.254 (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed; per WP:BLP - Ryk72 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

multiple biographies

is being used in Project for the New American Century for the following:

Shortly thereafter, a member of the British British Parliament from the Labor Party, Michael Meacher, published an article called, "This war on terrorism is bogus", addressing the role of PNAC.

We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The people named appear to be living persons, and the claim appears to be contentious when presented as a claim of fact. Ought this be reworded to properly state it purely as an opinion of Meacher, rather than as his presentation of a fact? Mt. Meacher is well-known for his belief in the 9/11 Conspiracy theories. NPR: The former UK environment minister Michael Meacher, a leading "disturbing question" figure on the edges of the 9/11 Truth movement, was never a member of the British Cabinet, but in a radio interview on the U.S. syndicated Alex Jones Show was referred to as the "former number three in the Blair government. WSJ The former U.K. junior environment minister Michael Meacher, a leading "disturbing question" figure on the edges of the 9/11 Truth movement, Telegraph Experienced professionals know that this was a state sponsored inside job by the US regime; 2 NATO ministers from Germany (Minister for Technoloy Andreas von Bulow) and UK minister Michael Meacher and former Italian President Francesco Cossiga) all confirmed publicly that the 9/11 event was an inside job perpetrated by the US regime. etc. all seem to suggest that his claims of fact might not be so considered by some others. Collect (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It's in a blockquote, indicating that the words are Mr. Meacher's and not Misplaced Pages's. To make it crystal clear you should put a colon after Meacher's name and add quote marks around the material (as done for the Kagan quote immediately preceding).

This is the first time I had seen the article and as a general remark the article is pretty lousy. For example there are waaaaaaaaaaaaay too many extended quotes and excerpts strung together. But I guess that's not an issue for BLPN. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering whether a 9/11 truther is an expert on such matters. The article is iffy though. Collect (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to find any political figures who don't adhere to some sort of implausible belief, whether it's 9/11 truthing or Prince Charles' advocacy of homeopathy or young earth creationism or whatever. Sometimes I despair for the future of our world. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

He specifically refers to the Rebuilding America's Defences and presenting his opinion on the significance of the document in a historical context. There is no basis for connecting the quoted statement to other statements made by the BMP.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The article by Meacher which is being cited for the single out-of-context paragraph is subtitled: The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination and starts with

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.

Is it reasonable to add the various conspiracy theory categories to an article which uses this as a "reliable source"? Collect (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note that there's an RFC up on the talk page of this article now. So far just three people slinging the same arguments back and forth at each other, it could definitely use some input from uninvolved parties.Fyddlestix (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Also please note that Collect has tried to add and re-add, asserting Meacher is absolutely connected to these categories and his quote is about them - we use him, we use the categories a swath of categories to the PNAC article, self-reverting the last attempt, stating self revert -- will ask at BLP/N. He hasn't started a new thread, though, so I'm mentioning it here. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 21:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

tea leoni

why does her biography not mention one of her first shows....Inside Herman's Head??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.209.242 (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

She wasn't in that series. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because there is no reliable source that Leoni appeared on Herman's Head. —C.Fred (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're mixing it up with Flying Blind, which Leoni was in at the time. Mogism (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

william pagonis

i feel that the article does not meet the standards of the biographies of living persons requirements for tone and possibly balance. some parts read like a resume introduction and do not sound as informative as much as they sound (what's the word?) ruminative or quixotic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.120.71.2 (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Suzanne Blier

Not a violation, but the actual name is: Suzanne Preston Blier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clerkp (talk • contribs) 06:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This seems fine, there are sources to back it up. In addition to WP:BLP, heck out WP:COI too. I'll be happy to assist you with any changes to your article. Would you happen to have a photo that can be released from copyright to add to your article? I can discuss it with you on our talk pages or via email. Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Dreadstar ☥ 06:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Danny Kirwan

At Danny Kirwan, an editor recently added information about the subject's birth name and early family history. I removed it twice as unsourced, and he very quickly responded with this citing birth and marriage records and random "school records". Is this stuff considered reliable? I wouldn't trust this edit as far as I could (metaphorically) throw it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Does it fail WP:BLPPRIMARY? Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet: Yes it does. I've reverted the last changes by the user, if there is more I missed please remove it. If they persist, please let us know. §FreeRangeFrog 01:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That's great, thanks very much. This wasn't something I knew much about so I've learned a bit here. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Steve Morgan (businessman)

• Steve Morgan (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has just received a major edit, previous edits of this size have usually been by people with a COI. Could someone look at the large additions that its received today, and the article as a whole please. Biography articles are not my strong suit. Thanks - X201 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted it -- it was a very poor series of edits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. - X201 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Martha Stark

• Martha Stark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is inaccurate and biased. Just compare it with this article in the NY Times. I would not be comfortable fixing it because she used to work for me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/nyregion/report-on-martha-stark-ex-finance-chief-details-misconduct-accusations.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.104.170 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed the opinion material and added some refs. Thanks. §FreeRangeFrog 00:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

1996 shelling of Qana and Naftali Bennett

On 1996 shelling of Qana#Shelling of UN compound there is a lengthy paragraph about Naftali Bennett having a large share of the cause to the tragedy that caused the death of 106 Lebanese civilians.

The reporter who started the allegation recanted his statement (available only in Hebrew).

The paragraph is WP:DUE but I believe it is still libelous especially considering the recanting. A short discussion took place on the talk page. I think it should be remove according to WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLPCRIME but since I am not super familiar with the WP:BLP policy, I hoped an experienced editor can give it a look.

Thanks, Ashtul (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Marwan Koukash

Marwan Koukash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
From what I understand, the subject of the article identifies himself as being born in Palestine. For example, see this interview. http://www.totalrl.com/jjb-meets-marwan-koukash/ There appears to be a long history of the first sentence of the article being changed backwards and forwards between "born Israel" and "born Palestine". One IP editor, 58.7.65.162, has changed it to Israel 5 times over the last 4 days. I have changed it back to Palestine three times, and another user Dr.Steve88 has changed it back once.
The IP user's position, as noted on their talk page (and copied to the article's talk page), is that "Palestine is not a sovereign nation and the land is Israel". This appears to take the issue into an argument not about where Marwan Koukash was born, but an argument about the existence of Palestine as a state. That is something I do not want to waste my time arguing about.
I am raising this issue here because I think it is a question of the Verifiability aspect of the BLP policy. However, I have also discovered this morning the existence of restrictions on the topic, described at Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA. So if there is a more appropriate place to raise this issue, please let me know. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP is incorrect. the 1RR restriction does not apply to reverting edits by IP editors. (But don't exceed 3RR.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nick Griffin

Nick Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nick_Griffin&diff=646793119&oldid=646333056

the question I want to ask is does Griffin belong in these groups? Is he a noteworthy criminal from London and is he only one of two noteworthy criminals from Suffolk? - the other one being a footballer who got a sentence of four and a half years in prison for rape - Griffin has only received a nine month sentence that was a suspended sentence given for - In 1998, Griffin was convicted of violating section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, relating to the offence of 'publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material' in issue 12 of The Rune, published in 1996.? https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Criminals_from_Suffolk Is he really for this crime one of only 22 noteworthy criminals from London, this list which includes mass murderers and famous gangsters https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Criminals_from_London ? I have now linked the user that added these groups to the article and I have decided it's important and so I have removed the groups from Griffin as disputed while discussion occurs, The basic question is, can or should anyone that has been convicted of a minor offence be added to these criminal groups? Griffin is in this group, which I don't oppose at all - I see a lot of missing names there, please assist to expand that group, there are many missing https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:British_politicians_convicted_of_crimes Govindaharihari (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin was guilty of the crime of 'publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material', as you say. Why is he then not a criminal? I don't understand why you're disputing this -- you even say you 'don't oppose at all'. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the grouping - I have removed it - he is not a noteworthy criminal - he can be included is a group of politicians that have committed a crime - but classification as a criminal for such a minor conviction is excessive ? Govindaharihari (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Griffin is in this group, which I don't oppose at all" -- confusing, then. I don't understand why his is "not a noteworthy criminal" -- in fact he is quite well known in the UK for having this particular criminal conviction. Perhaps you don't think whipping up racial hatred is a big deal? I don't see why this is a "minor conviction". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Suit yourself, add it back if you support it in agreement with wp:blp, but a nine month prison sentence suspended for two years for a minor conviction that is that persons only conviction and is 17 years historic allows him to be grouped as a notable criminal. I advise you that there is arbitration related to living people articles - Govindaharihari (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I likely will add it back. You haven't offered any reasons why it should be considered a "minor conviction". I'm inclined to think that Griffin's offence is not so lightly dismissed. But the more important issue is that it's widely known here, because it has been widely covered in sources that we would have no trouble describing as reliable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Nomoskedasticity go on then - I will report you to wp:arbitration Govindaharihari (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The «Criminals from Suffolk» category contains Nick Griffin but not people like Steve Wright (serial killer), this is crazy, it is used to make Griffin look bad, not to categorize articles properly. Spumuq (talq) 11:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

So Steve Wright can be added. (As for Griffin, he doesn't need much help in this respect, seems to me.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: "criminals" is defined as a "sensitive category" per WP:COPS and WP:BLPCAT. In the case at hand, the use of the category is,IMO, used more to discredit a person as being of poor character than anything else, and is thus improper. Collect (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, he's a criminal, as per his criminal conviction per the OP above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not surprised at your stance. I suggest we get additional input here then-- a I fear your desire to label people as criminals as a nice scarlet letter may not be in absolute accord with the intent of WP:BLPCAT at all. The question is (I recognize Griffin is a thoroughly despicable character who should be pilloried in every possible BLP, of course) whether where a conviction results in a suspended sentence, whether we ought then label the person in every possible criminal category known to man, to make abundantly sure folks know precisely how horrid he is. Or whether the purpose of the categories is to list people who have been convicted of serous offenses and then incarcerated for substantial periods of time. The purpose of categories is can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics. Are you asserting Griffin is or should be primarily defined by his status as a "criminal" per that stricture? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Note: The crime was specifically related to the category of Holocaust deniers, already in the BLP, and I would note that the others in that category are not placed in the "criminal" categories as well. Category:Criminals_by_crime, vs. People_convicted_of_Holocaust_denial_offenses which has no overlap (except that was not what he was convicted of, in fact). Is there a reason for making an example of Griffin? Collect (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, he is what he is; a person convicted of a crime can't really hide from what he or she did. If you check, say, Dan Rostenkowski, he is a member of "Category:20th-century criminals". Tarc (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you note the term "felony" by the way for Rosty by any chance? Was Rosty given a 9 month suspended sentence? Do you really think the two cases are so similar as you appear to claim? Collect (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What I note is that both were found guilty of committing a criminal act; what the sentences were is immaterial. Tarc (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Make sure you note that when you edit on all the anti-war demonstrators who got suspended sentences, the equal rights demonstrators, and Martin Luther King Jr. (Misplaced Pages dictates he lost his comma), all the union demonstrators etc. -- they are all criminals, each and every one who was convicted of anything, and we should make sure they keep the scarlet letter visible. Or is this person special in some way? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, Dr. King's "crimes" were either misdemeanors (trespassing, etc...) or were eventually dismissed. Less hyperbole would be welcome here. Tarc (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• I find it hard to understand why the User:Nomoskedasticity would twice replace these labels/categories edit warring disputed detail about a living person whilst under discussion and without any clear consensus here? There is no clear support for their inclusion in the discussion above? I removed them again. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Dave L Travis.

Dave Lee Travis It seems like a repeat discussion as above , The same user User:JJARichardson has created the group Criminals from Derbyshire - with only two people that he has included and added Dave lee Travis to https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dave_Lee_Travis&diff=prev&oldid=646872374 - Travis has only a conviction of three months in prison suspended for two years - is he worthy and are others convicted of similar minors crimes with minor convictions be allowed to be added to these criminal groups? Govindaharihari (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

While it isn't a good idea to grab the breasts of a woman that you have only just met, categorising Dave Lee Travis as a criminal as the result of one conviction with a non-custodial sentence has WP:NPOV issues. He is primarily known as a disc jockey, and a conviction for drink driving, assault etc should not be given undue prominence.--♦IanMacM♦ 08:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:JJARichardson creation of this unpopulated category put a person with a minor suspended sentence in a group of two with a person that was found guilty of the death of his children and was sentenced to 17 years in prison Mick Philpott - there is no comparison at all - and no reason to put them both in a criminals from (add any town here) in the same group. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

More eyes, please

Bon Yeon and, to a lesser extent, Soenghyang are having gross BLP violations added. LadyofShalott 17:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy (2)

Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another link was redacted from the Gamergate talk page with the stated reason that other articles on the site violate BLP, and while this article does not appear to, the redacting editor " didn't really want to have to trawl through the extensive comments" to confirm.

Previously I asked whether a BLP-violating article could be cited for its compliant, non-BLP material. That discussion has yet to reach a conclusion, partly it seems because my question is general and the answer depends on specifics. Here we have specifics - and they address an even broader question: can a BLP-complaint article be linked to, when the site hosting it contains BLP-violating material.

The answer is important whether or not the redacted article is usable since that question can't be asked without linking the article. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've got some concerns with the comments below the article (namely those twitter screencaps), but the article itself seems okay to me. I guess the question becomes: do we bar all links from a given site if that site has a reputation for BLP violations? Not sure I have an answer to that, but that seems to be the thinking behind this link's removal. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir said it better than I did. That's exactly my question. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

pavel curtis

The creation of the JHU CTY summer program in Computer Science was previously misattributed to Curtis. It is not clear how to correct this misstatement other than to remove it. On the other hand Curtis had enormous influence on the program subsequent to its creation, and created new classes of his own as well as improved classes that had been previously created. I don't wish to start a war, or to deprive anyone of proper credit, but it is not clear how best to handle the situation. At present the statement pertaining to CTY is accurate, but perhaps does not adequately reflect Curtis's influence.

The CTY CS summer program was created by Joseph L. Bates, then of Cornell University, and Robert Harper, then a graduate student at Cornell. It was subsequently developed by Robert Harper working together with Gilbert Neiger and the late Rick Palmer before Curtis became involved in the program. His influence from then on was outsized and deserving of proper recognition, but it is not proper to attribute the creation of the program to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioDenobili (talk • contribs) 19:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Qasem Soleimani

The entry cites two conflicting birth dates.

birth_date= (1955-03-11) 11 March 1955 (age 69) and then later Soleimani was born 12 March 1957 in the village Rabor

Heather Bresch

Lobbied for the School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act signed into law by Obama in November, and praised uniformly by news reports.

This edit was just made: with the edit summary hmm -- seems like there's no consensus to add this material

The material is strongly sourced, neutral in tone, notable, was on the talk page for discussion since 22 Feb, with not a single opposing statement. Is the material notable enough for the BLP?

One editor insists the material should not be in because she did it to get a "huge government purchase program" since schools will have to get the epinephrine autoinjectors in order to actually be able to save lives. Fortune states: recently helped the School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act, which will both boost Mylan’s profits and save children’s lives, get signed into law. which does not appear to me to have her be only interested in money.

Is this material which should properly be in her BLP? Note that she was standing behind the president at the signing. Bloomberg noted "At least three companies including Mylan of Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, make devices to deliver the drug epinephrine. Mylan estimates gaining access to schools could help expand its customer base to as many as 28 million from 2.6 million now. ... To raise awareness, the company last year started giving away EpiPens to schools that request the devices."

NYT: Disturbingly, a significant portion of severe allergic reactions at school occur among students with no prior allergy diagnosis. During the 2012-13 school year, of the 38 people in Chicago public schools who were injected with undesignated EpiPens provided through the EpiPen4Schools program, 21 did not previously know they had an allergy. (The youngest student was 3, the oldest was 19, and two recipients were school staff members.) As a nurse at the office of my family’s allergy doctor has said to me repeatedly, “Anyone can develop an allergy to anything at any time.”

Those of us in allergic families know that being directly affected by allergies isn’t a requirement for compassion; the world, thank goodness, is populated by many sympathetic individuals. Still, it’s not hard to find people who are hostile and disbelieving toward allergies. I suspect that the most vociferous antagonists of the allergic community won’t understand just what it’s like to live with allergies unless they themselves or someone close to them develops them, but I hope, for their sakes, that these people are blessed with the luxury of maintaining their skepticism. If they’re not, I also hope that safeguards such as the School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act are firmly in place to protect them and the people they love.

I for some odd reason consider this notable and notable enough for inclusion in the BLP. Other opinions? (Other than"they will make money which is why they gave away a lot of injectors" or the like. Collect (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no BLP issue here. This board is not for NPOV disputes. Hipocrite (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

And how in hell is there an NPOV dispute when it was your edit he reverted? Seems you would stand up for your own edit,no? Collect (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think saying "this board is the wrong place for this" is in any way saying "you are wrong." Hipocrite (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This board is exactly and precisely the right place for this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." Hmm -- I wonder what editors have been trying to add recently. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It includes all discussions about BLPs - in the case at hand, it is possible that removing material may, in fact, be considered a problem. On the other hand, if you wish to assert that the material is not notable or fully sourced, I would love to see such a post. So far no one has made any claim of that nature here at all. Collect (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggest taking it to ANI

Not really a content dispute, because any edit Collect made would have probably been reverted, regardless of what the edit actually is. The two eds have accused me of inappropriate COI conduct and canvassing (a behavioral, not content issue). I have accused them of possibly colluding together. Most content discussions on this page devolve into NOTBUREAU issues and an impossible barrier of undeniable consensus to add sourced content. Also, at-a-glance (and I only skimmed briefly) the problems on this page seem to be representative of a generally combative editing pattern. All behavioral, not content issues, unfortunately. CorporateM (Talk) 22:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Tim Stephens (karateka)

Hi there. So this article is a BLP with 3 sentences. One of those sentences details the subject's child pornography conviction. I'm completely unfamiliar with the topic and generally don't work with BLPs, but I just reviewed an AN3 report about a newbie editor who was edit-warring to remove the sentence about the conviction because: "Distress is being caused with this page, respectfully ask for deletion and thanks from those affected". I semi-protected the page in its previous state to cease the edit-warring, although the editor's plea does not seem unreasonable to me and is cause for some concern in my opinion. I'm not sure what exactly they mean by distress, but given the state of this article, I'm concerned that having one of the three sentences describing the subject explain his child porn conviction might be a WP:BALASPS/WP:UNDUE problem. Wanted to get some additional feedback on this. Swarm 23:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously not a BLP1E, the subject is notable for other than having committed a crime. Might try an AFD out of courtesy, but this isn't so much a BLP issue as one of weight. That's a common problem with these mini stub bios we have all over the place. An alternative would be for the subject to provide material to expand it, which would reduce the weight of the conviction material. §FreeRangeFrog 23:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for people with expert knowledge expanding the article. But what it comes down to is that Stephens is largely notable for his record as a karateka - and also for the fact that he's a criminal. I can certainly understand how having his record in one being conflated with the other on Misplaced Pages could be distressing to his friends and family; but I don't think Misplaced Pages is best served if we leave off the fact of his conviction. We have a notable fact about a notable person from a reliable source. Sympathy for his supporters notwithstanding, the answer here isn't for them to delete that statement, or the article. Rather it's to expand the article with information from other reliable sources in order to better represent a notable and appropriately weighted account of his career and biography. Simonm223 (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on a course of action, but it leans towards 'I'm not fond of "AfD's out of courtesy" and am more fond of "history is history"'. The person appears to have gained notability due to multiple championship wins, and notoriety due to his criminal actions.

That said, perhaps if someone familiar with the topic could expand the section (or lack thereof) of his competitions, and move the child porn conviction part to "Personal Life" or "Conviction" or something, that would change the weight of the article (notability at a higher weight than notoriety/criminal act). Though, I can't say I'd complain if a consensus to delete the page was arrived at.

My involvement in this article has pretty much been limited to me hitting "revert" and finding someone beat me to it - then adding the addtl little bit about the editor's actions being content removal (with their edit summary). ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 23:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've gone to the noticeboard that originally brought this to my attention and to User:2015newbie's page to let them know about this discussion in both places. Saw that User:Swarm had beat me to the punch at the latter. Hope we can come to a better understanding of what's going on here without any editwarring. Simonm223 (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am the author of the original article I have tried my best to be as neutral when writing about the subject as the only noteworthy mainstream sources are notably about his conviction. I would write more about his karate tournament success if I could but martial tournaments are very niche interests so are not going to alot of coverage especially decades prior. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with niche within the bounds of WP:N so if you have reliable sources that cover his martial tournaments I'd strongly encourage you to expand the article by including them. Simonm223 (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Philip Benedict

Philip Benedict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an academic's biography with a single reliable independent source mentioning Benedict, severe tone issues promoting Benedict, and an IP editor, apparently a student of Benedict, reverting every attempt to fix or even to point out the article's issues, claiming that Benedict's CV, published by his employer, is an independent source. More attention would be welcome. Huon (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not a single source. It uses many sources. Very few of them are written by Benedict. It appears that Huon has a history of conflict based on the Jeff Smisek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page with the person who originally authored the page. Now he has taken his anger here to vandalized a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341b:f2e0:9577:4aab:113a:aec7 (talk) 00:03, February 27, 2015 (UTC)‎

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution