Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive108

Lee Edwards and Mass killings under Communist regimes
Do comments about Mr. Edwards asserting that he is "involved in a number of extremist anti-Communist organizations" placed in an RfC reach BLP concerns? Does a later edit associating one organization with "a point of contact for extremists, racists, and anti-Semites" in association with that claim reach BLP concerns? Might anyone look in on this as I would normally redact such charges, but they are central to the arguments being expressed by one editor. Note this is not a complaint about anyone - but a request to see at what point article talk pages in an RfC are an immune zone. Thanks. Collect (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please point us to the RFC, thanks.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RfC link is Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes. Collect (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The RFC actually contains the assertion he is involved with "extreme" anti-Communist organizations. I think this stays on the permissible side of the line as a statement of someone's opinion about the subject, rather than as a statement of fact. By its nature, an RFC or Talk page discussion isn't held to the very exact standards of an article, and redacting other people's words in such discussions is disfavored--should IMO be done only by an admin and only in the context of "we all know Joe Botz is a slavering baby eater". Also, the second phrase you cite, about anti-Semitism appears to be a direct quote from the Anti-Defamation League criticizing an organization with which (far as I can tell) Lee Edwards is not involved, so no WP:BLP issue there.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor says Edwards is involved with that organization. (BTW, the ADL has reversed itself and does not make the "racist" assertion any more about that organization). Collect (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * - There is no immune zone - BLP applies all over the project - talkpage discussion is part of our process and discussion is required - however if comments being expressed are in your opinion, on the edge of a violation of BLP I suggest you ask the person posting the comments to either - provide a reliable citation to support the claim or remove it asap. As Jonathon says, removing another users comments from a noindexed talkpage discussion should only be done in a case of a clear violation and if the comment is reinserted by the user then administrative assistance is the next step.  Off2riorob (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Collect--I see now the other editor was implying Edwards was connected to the organization. In any event the information is reliably sourced. You properly brought in the fact that ADL backed off the assertion--which they did by the way because the org apparently cleaned up its ways, not because ADL was incorrect in the first place. I am not seeing a WP:BLP problem. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The other editor did not realize that - and was strongly implying that Edwards was a racist extrimist anti-semite - which I thought improper. Collect (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Mark Riley (journalist)
This person was recently in the Australian news. The page was semi-protected due to vandalism, but it remains very poorly referenced.  Chzz  ► 08:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This guy may actually not pass notability requirements so a proposal for deletion may be in order. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, he is a journalist that gets mentioned in the course of his work but asserts no wikipedia notability unless his work has won notable awards or there is some other notability - which in this case I don't see. Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * note - prodded - WP:PROD - Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * update - prod was removed although there was no improvement - bumped up to Articles for deletion/Mark Riley (journalist) - interested parties are requested to improve the BLP and or comment . Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Francis Jeffers
Unauthorised and opinionated comments have been added at the end of the article: "Francis Jeffers deserves more than this dismall (sic) attempt" etc etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveindy (talk • contribs) 12:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Already reverted by another user. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh
Why this article has been redirected to a publishing company ?!!! Regards, *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  13:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The result was No consensus in 2008. What about now ? *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  13:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * - Issue needs looking at - history of the redirect is here - the article as it was is here - Talk:Kaveh Farrokh - nothing discussed there -  ... I undid the redirect and left a note at the two users making the edit as to this discussion thread. - If the redirect is disputed the correct way to go imo is WP:AFD. Off2riorob (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I accidently faced this article and I was shocked when I saw that it has been redirected for two years, and nobody has noticed it !!! Therefore I undid it after 2 years !
 * It really needs admins' attention. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  13:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rob that the disputing editors should take it to AFD rather than eliminating the article via redirect. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no need for an AFD for a redirect. That redirect was the results of a huge discussion (see talk page archives). One of the main proponents of a redirect was User:Dbachmann (I noticed that he was not notified, so I did that). I put in quite an effort to get a neutral article (see the edit history and despite the -to me at least- obvious fact that Farrokh does not meet WP:GNG), but in the end, there was a consensus to merge which you now unilaterally undid. unless new sources come up that establish notability for Farrokh, the redirect should stay. I recommend that you revert your edit and have a look at the mentioned discussion. If you're then still not convinced, you can start an RFC, but I absolutely would not undo a compromise that was reached after very long and hard discussions. --Crusio (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have stated above, the result was No consensus. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  14:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As was repeatedly stated in the discussion that I referred to in my comment above: redirecting is a very common outcome after a "no consensus" decision. Also, AfD has become quite less tolerant of SPAs and canvassing in the two years since the Farrokh AfD. I am pretty certain that if this would be brought to AfD again, the decision would go the other way (no matter how many nationalists and others try to push their POV). --Crusio (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As you know I have not participated in any discussion regarding this article. I just accidently saw the article of a writer redirected to a publishing company ! and I was shocked. Please be careful not to accuse anybody of being nationalist. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  14:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not accusing you of anything. I was talking about all the occasional editors suddenly creeping out of the woodwork for the Farrokh AfD. And I really fail to understand why it is shocking that a non-notable writer is redirected to his book/publisher. --Crusio (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: I should also note that the useful info from the Farrokh article was merged into the publisher's article. Simply reverting the redirect and then wikilinking Farrokh in the Osprey article now duplicates a lot of stuff. I would appreciate if in a complex case like this, editors would familiarize themselves with the history first, before wreaking Farrokh havoc. --Crusio (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you checked his notabilty after two years? Have you checked his website or google recently ? You see "I am really looking for the right thing." (What so ever the result will be) *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  14:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 34000 hits for him in google. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  14:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * GOOGLE search. Finally I should say that I totally accept admins' decision regarding this issue. Regards, *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  14:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (unindent) You reverted the consensus edit, so the onus of proof is on you. Please familiarize yourself with WP:GNG, WP:BIO, etc. Google hits do not establish notability. In addition, if you take the time to bowse to the end of the Google hits, you'll see that there are 542. --Crusio (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Answering the question about, he's still a counsellor at Langara College. I see a new review of one of his books but that's by a Lecturer in computer engineering. Oh, and I only get 344 hits, so I see no change in his notability. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Crusio, Thank you for reminding me. All I wanted to say was that things have changed, compared to two years ago. But remember I did not revert it. I just came here to ask and make it clear. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  15:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, you did not revert it? And what has changed since 2 years ago? Neither Dougweller nor I see any notable changes. --Crusio (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * - There are notability objections - so - if you want to delete it or redirect it then AFD is really the clear place to go. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The consensus for 2 years has been that the article should be redirected. If somebody wants to change that, they can start an RFC. To redirect an article, I repeat, an AFD is absolutely not necessary (that "redirect" can be the result of an AFD is another thing). At this point, I think it is upon those who want to change the redirect to show that something has changed that warrants this. In the absence of that, things should remain as they are. --Crusio (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But its no longer the consensus. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that is the case, then the thing to do is to start an RFC and see if there is a possible consensus to be gotten for re-instating the article. At this point there are still several editors that feel that the redirect should stay the way it has been in the past 2 years and beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT, no arguments have been brought forward why this should change. It's not me who wants to change the status quo, so I don't see why I should prove that nothing has changed (logically rather hard to do anyway), it's up to you to show that there is reason to do things differently (and good reasons, not just IDONTLIKEIT). --Crusio (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AFD says bluntly: "If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept." Care to tell us the Wikipedia policy that says if there is no consensus, anyone can choose to delete or merge the article by replacing it with a redirect? Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The artcle did not go to AfD, so there is no reason to reach a conclusion as if it did.


 * There is claim that the previous consensus is no longer the consensus. This has yet to be demonstrated. Therefore I would support an RFC. But, I think the onus for initiating the RFC is on those who are claiming that consesus has changed.


 * According to the consensus policy page: While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed. Please see WP:CCC at WP:CONS.


 * It sounds like there is some sort of proposal here, which is fine. But no one has demonstrated that the consensus has changed. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "The article did not go to AFD". Huh? It did in September 2008, with a result of "No consensus" which means "keep" per WP:AFD. And the consensus on the redirect, if there was one, is now changed by virtue of three editors here opposing the redirect. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked at the talk page archive and there was never any consensus for a redirect. The archive is full of statements like "at this point there is no consensus for a redirect" (ironically, Crusio, above, who negotiated a compromise solution for the lede and conceded notability), "No, the page won't be redirected anywhere", "There is no consensus for deletion or redirection", and "It also doesn't mean that you can simply take unilateral action and redirect the article". AFD it again if you will, but unilaterally deleting it via redirect is completely inappropriate. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Johnwallace, I apologize - I did not realize thia article went to AfD. So, you have some valid points. I will have to look into this situation some more, which is probably what I should have done in the first place. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally, what is the result ? As you see there is an article for him in Persian Wikipedia, which was used by one of the admins of fa.wiki in here. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  04:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why was it redirected again ? I repeat the result of AFD was No consensus, and according to the rules it must be kept. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  04:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus there was no agreement about redirecting the article in the talk page. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  05:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No more moves and reverts please. I'm watching the article. Please open an RfC for this issue. Thanks.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  05:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And unless I've missed something, an AfD can't be used as a reason to prevent a future merge or redirect. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's based on an agreement. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  09:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article should have been re-redirected given ongoing discussion here and the active opposition of three editors. There is now an RFC here to discuss this. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it's the other way around. The article has been a redirect for 2 years now and this should not be undone without discussion given the active opposition of several editors. --Crusio (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirecting it two years ago without an agreement was a wrong action in the first place. Therefore it must be stopped, and those who did it are responsible for it. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  12:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Pause for a moment. Some of this makes sense and some doesn't.

Things that don't make sense:
 * Directing an author's name to a publisher's page.
 * Blanking a page (in effect) without a consensus.
 * Saying it's okay because it happened 2 years ago.

Things that do make sense:
 * Restoring an author's bio to his page.
 * Asking for arbitration.
 * Being flexible like Steve Quinn above.

I have no pony in this race. I don't know Kaveh Farrokh, but if he's a recognised non-self-published author of any repute (academic in this case), he may well meet the notability criteria. In any case, it doesn't make sense to blank his page and redirect it to a publisher (which in fact suggests he meets the notability requirements).

If 'reality' contestants make the cut in Wikipedia, it seems a professor who's actually accomplished something deserves serious scrutiny. Is there some other problem I'm not seeing?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree. When editors have a talk page discussion with the result of redirecting a page, and the page is redirected uncontroversially for 2 years then the redirect is the current consensus.  2 years ago I would have agreed with the argument to establish a firmer consensus before redirecting.  Heck 1 year and 6 months ago I might have as well, but what you all are trying to argue now is way past statute of limitations.  The thing to do now is discuss.  WP:BRD is a good guide, and someone tried to undue the long standing redirect and were reverted.  Great, now lets have an RFC to see what current consensus is.  There is no rush here.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, I think so. 1/ Nobody is saying that because this happened 2 years ago, it's OK. Just that because this has been the status quo for 2 years, the onus is on the naysayers to show that something has changed that warrants changing the redirect. the redirect decision was made based on consensus. Note that I initially opposed that decision, but I got convinced otherwise. 2/ To be exact, the article is not redirected to the publisher, it's redirected to a book written by Farrokh. it's not notable enough for a standalone article, but mentioning it in the article on the publisher seems mildly warranted. Redirecting a non-notable author to an article on his book (or an article section on his book) is nothing out of the ordinary. 3/ There has been exhaustive discussion on Farrokh's notability. Please note that even the closing admin of the previous AfD remarked upon the lack of notability. He did not meet the notability criteria and up till now none of the participants in this debate has offered anything that suggests this has changed. Note that there are few articles on WP in which I have invested more time (see here, although the article ranks 6th in edit count, it easily ranks first in time and effort). After the AfD was closed (these things can easily be checked from the article edit history, the article talk archives, and the AfD) in which strongly argued for deletion, I worked very hard with one of the opposing editors to remove all cruft from the article and at least arrive at something that was NPOV. Given this investment of time and effort, I was initially not too happy about the redirect. In the end, however, I was convinced by those arguing in favor of the redirect. If the current RfC results in a decision to undo the redirect, I will definitely take this to AfD again. As it is, a redirect is cheap and seems the best solution. --Crusio (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * PS (comment on remark inserted after I had started editing my previous comment): Farrokh is not a professor. And like it or not (I don't), but reality contestants get a lot of media exposure, so they're notable according to WP:GNG. Apart from that, read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * He is a college counsellor with no qualifications in history. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment While I understand that the page here is a BLP, what is the actual WP:BLP issue at stake in this discussion, because I don't see one. Does it harm the subject to redirect the page like this? I don't think so. This is a basic content/notability dispute with no BLP ramifications. There is now an RFC about that issue. Let's take further discussion to that forum. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ro Hancock-Child
I'd like some advice as to what to do this article, which is full of (auto)biographical detail for which there are no published sources available, not even on the website of the subject which has this notice:


 * "Wikipedia will tell you all about me: many thanks to the generous people who have made this possible for me. Apparently only one-tenth of one percent of musicians get onto Wikipedia, and most of those are pop - but, astonishingly, there I am, too. Wow!" Note: The preceding notice has subsequently been removed from the contents page of her official website. Voceditenore (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In my view everything that cannot be verified (minimally by her own website) should be removed. But the subject has so far resisted even minor attempts at this, e.g. this met by this and her comments here and here. Note that I have tried myself to find references and failed. What references are there, I added.

The article has been edited by multiple single-purpose accounts and by User:Rohancockchild. – Voceditenore (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh my. I got five pages deep into a Google search without finding a single reference which wasn't Wikipedia, or a mirror, or her website, or Facebook, or LinkedIn, etc. Then started to encounter irrelevant links to unrelated people and topics. Likely non-notable artist extremely proficient at self promotion, see WP:AUTOBIO, WP:PEACOCK etc etc. Candidate for a PROD.Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No point in a prod, there are so many SPAs - I don't have time tonight but I think it is SPI time. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I just reverted a series of eight or ten undos by a brand-new SPA editor who headed straight for the page and began restoring it to its prior "subject-approved" state.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Would it be completely out of the question to configure Level 2 pending changes on the article until the issues are sorted? --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * - User:Orangemike  (Protected Ro Hancock-Child: Persistent sock puppetry ([edit=autoconfirmed])
 * Do we have any reason to believe this article would survive the AfD process? I have found little or no 3d party coverage of the subject or her work, and I can't really see how she would meet WP:Notability (people).  JohnInDC (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree per what i said above. AFD is the way to go. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would pass an AfD (or at least it shouldn't). It also fails to meet any of the crtiteria for WP:MUSICBIO (adapted to classical musicians). AfD probably is the way to go. I've rescued several classical musician bios from AfDs but this one is a mission impossible. Voceditenore (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've created the page here. JohnInDC (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo

 * - Mafia problem

and some IPs are making serious complaints about this article and alleged bias and inaccuracies. There are understandable moves to treat this as simple vandalism. However, my spot checking on the article indicates that we have a serious of series allegations on a controversial person, which are open to various interpretations. The sources I checked lead either to dead links, anti-mafia sources of uncertain neutrality, and Italian language stuff. I've no time at the moment, but this article could do with checking. From experience we've a small group of Wikipedians who tend to create Mafia articles sometimes with poor sourcing, and questionable notability. This article may prove to be just fine, but it needs some careful checking and probably some not to tender pruning.--Scott Mac 16:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Huljich brothers
I think this article has been here before, but my reason for bringing it now is that about half of the article content is actually about a criminal trial, not about the Huljich brothers, but about one of the sons of a H Brother.

I think the article is running afoul of WP:CRIMINAL and WP:COATRACK but am looking to some editors more experienced with these types of issues to suggest some options for how to deal with the article. Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed it some of the content - cut and copy copy content violation -- contentious content cited to a single source - with limited usage throughout the en wiki project - without additional support from  more mainstream reliable reports. Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is about the Huljich Bros and their money. They are only notable because of their wealth. The brothers constitute some of the richest people in the country. They entrusted their money (and other investors could participate) to the fund managed by one of their sons. When things went wrong the brothers reasserted their control. The prosecution has to be mentioned to explain what the prosecution charges are. All this is not from a single source. It is well covered in all media outlets in NZ. The article contains no more than is in the news coverage. It does not contravene New Zealand Criminal law in any way. One possibility is to split the article into two articles one on the brothers and one on the investment company. Meanwhile I have undone edit.Rick570 (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No matter how rich they are you cannot cut and paste copyright material into the article. And you have not addressed the fact that the article is purportedly about the Brothers, not the son/nephew. As a criminal, the son and the crime fail to meet WP:CRIME our standards. Active Banana    (bananaphone  00:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Chris Lee (politician) could use some extra eyes
Subject of a scandal that broke earlier. Almost a true sex scandal, but he resigned, although I have a feeling once more media reports pour out, there'll be some nasty stuff added to this article. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted. Some regulars from the board are already over there it seems. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Tina Mai
An attack page with zero sources, and I can find zero Google hits for a person with the name associated with the movie names. My db-attack tag was removed. This article should be deleted immediately. Corvus cornix talk  00:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably not notable and already AFD'd. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * AfD does not resolve the fact that this is an attack page, nor does it resolve the fact that if this AfD runs the normal 7 days, this page will become the first hit on Google for this name.   Corvus cornix  talk  01:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been pruned of the offensive content. However, you can still try to persuade an admin to speedy delete it as G10 (attack page) or more likely at this point, A7 (no indication of notability}. I suggest making your argument at the articles for deletion page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Raymond Allen Davis Diplomatic Incident

 * There is a lot of hearsay and speculation in this article, not even valid claims, just synthesis as to whether this person is who other articles say he might be. Seems to violate WP:BLP1E, as well.   Corvus cornix  talk  05:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Much of the information in the article has been reported in The New York Times. There is some coatracky material which should go (like the assertion about the PO box also being used for a chain letter) and an evaluation is probably in order of some of the lesser known and Pakistani newspaper sources to see if they comply with reliable sourcing standards for living people.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur that there should probably be some more eyes on this article. Just brushing through with a few edits, I saw that there is, what appears to be, a fair amount of OR going on.  Don't have time to go through it myself just now.  Maybe someone can take a look?  (Plus, it has the advantage of being a fascinating story...real cloak & dagger type stuff :) David Able 18:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Klaus Mosbach
Hello, this page about klaus mosbach, is not good, Prof klaus dont like this webpage kindly delete this name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.192.253 (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please let us know the specifics of your or the professor's objections. This seems to be a well-sourced stub regarding a possibly non-notable professor. I did not see any material possibly violating the rules on biographies of living people. It was proposed for deletion but a user who thinks Professor Mosbach is notable removed the tag. The next step would be to nominate the article for deletion, so the notability issue can be discussed.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Raymond Allen Davis Diplomatic Incident
This article makes reference to Andrew Clapham who is not a family member as suggested - please ensure deletion of references to Andrew Clapham in relation to this article, which we have seen in preview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahonc (talk • contribs) 15:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * NB I just moved the article to per naming conventions. – ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There don't seem to be any references to an 'Andrew Clapham' in the article. 15:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Rose Hill School (Alderley)
There is a BLP-relateed discussion, regarding this article; please see Talk:Rose Hill School (Alderley).

I'd be grateful if some other editors could add their opinions. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 15:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Joseph M. Petrick
Delete - No evidence of notability from reliable sources. Reads like a promotional piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.243.9 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest you nominate it as described here. Unless you cite a specific part of the article that violates the BLP, you are on the wrong page. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Voytovych
Hi. Could you advise me when would be possible to take the noticeboards off, please? ({notability|date=January 2011} {refimproveBLP|date=January 2011} {coi|date=January 2011})--Artvoyt (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * When the issues have been dealt with. At the moment the article is little more than a timeline of (mainly non-notable) events. – ukexpat (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The BLP was very recently Kept at Articles for deletion/Alexander Voytovych - but it could use a wikification and copy edit for clarity. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

David Berlinski
The article says he is a critic of evolution but not a believer in intelligent design, in fact an agnostic. However the opening sentence says that he is "within the intelligent design movement." This does not seem to make sense. When I removed the phrase it was put right back. There might be a possibility that being known as an intelligent designer could affect his career.Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the material a second time. Jaque Hammer (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jaque Hammer would have us believe that David Berlinski, a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, author of Deniable Darwin & Other Essays, co-star of Expelled, is not a leading member of the intelligent design movement (of which the CSC is the hub). It is bleeding obvious that he is, but to satisfy Jaque, I've provided an explicit citation for the fact. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ID is an argument of form 'not(evolution) therefore intelligent designer(i.e. God)' (a false dichotomy), with most of the emphasis on the 'not(evolution)' bit. Berlinski explicitly agrees with the 'not(evolution)' bit, but has never stated a preferred alternative. Therefore he can quite happily join in with the IDM's evolution-bashing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact the "therefore intelligent designer(i.e. God)" bit is so vestigial that Berlinski's 1996 Commentary (magazine) piece The Deniable Darwin, was described by Ronald L. Numbers as "a version of ID theory". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, being a "member of a movement" does not necessarily mean believing everything we assume one ought to believe in order to be a member of said movement. Of course with BLP this might get tricker.  Does the subject have to identify themselves with the movement?  This is an innocent question as I do not actually know.  I'm not sure how often people do self-identify with social movements.  A social movement, after all, is an informal collection of people.Griswaldo (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, Berlinski has never disavowed the movement (which he has prominently participated in on many occasions), just ID's alternate conclusion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From a sociological perspective I'd say he's a member of the movement, even if he's not as strongly connected to it as others may be. I'm just not sure of the BLP requirements here.Griswaldo (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, I've got a citation for that -- explicitly names him as one of the leaders of the movement. And as a CSC Fellow he is definitely "strongly connected" -- so the claim is hardly controversial. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your addition again. I don't see how you can, for instance, be a leader of the communist movement without believing in communism.  Even if some book says you are.  I also don't see why the phrase "within the intelligent design movement" is needed in the first sentence which already says he is a critic of evolution.  His relationship with the Discovery Institute is also explained in the article. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jaque, we follow what sources say and not the incredulity of editors. One's involvement in a social movement comes from one's actions vis-a-vis the aims of said movement, and in relation to other institutions and individuals who are also part of the movement.  It isn't a matter of explicitly saying "I'm a communist", or "I'm a believer in ID".  The ID movement is not synonymous to the sum total of all ID believers either.  Perhaps that's part of your confusion.  I would say that a vast majority of ID believers are not part of the movement.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggested on the article's talk page that it "just give the facts." It already says he is a critic of evolution and is cited as such by the Intelligent Design people. He is also a member of the Discovery Institute, which supports ID but also does other things. All this is explained in the article. I don't see the need for the opening sentence to also say his work is "within the ID movement." Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The FACT is that a WP:RS states that he is a leader of the IDM. The FACT is that this claim is supported by his being a Fellow of the CSC. The FACT is that this claim is uncontested in reliable sources. The FACT is that I have explained the apparent anomaly. Therefore the FACT is that you haven't got a leg to stand on. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The words "within the ID movement" are rather confusing. However, Jaque's version of the lede does not give enough information. May I suggest the following instead, as the last sentence of the lede: "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement. Though he criticizes the theory of evolution, Berlinski, an agnostic, has said he reserves judgment on intelligent design."Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds more factually accurate given the available information.Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree and like that sentence. As I said on the talk page, WP readers are generally smart enough to understand complex concepts. Jaque Hammer (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is all rather confusing -- Jaque Hammer just took the fact that Berlinski is a CSC Fellow out of the infobox on that article. The "within the ID movement" wording was a compromise due to Berlinski's ambivalence over "ID's alternate conclusion" (i.e. the intelligent designer that is God). Given concerns over its being confusing, I've replaced it with the less-equivocal (but fully supported by sources) "leader of the intelligent design movement". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Got a source for "reserves judgment on intelligent design"? Guettarda (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no independent knowledge of this guy, but am trying to help find common ground here. My "reserves judgment" phrasing is based on the first paragraph of the "Views" section of the bio, particularly this: ""Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute, [he] refuses to theorize about the origin of life."Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not so much a 'reservation of judgement' as a 'not letting not having an alternative get in the way of a bit of evolution-bashing'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The "reserves judgment on intelligent design" claim would appear to be WP:SYNTH of the "Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute, [he] refuses to theorize about the origin of life" quote. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, how about substituting the wording from the "Views" section? In place of "reserves judgment", " refuses to theorize about the origin of life". Or suggest your own which says that he has not come out in favor of intelligent design in his own statements and writings.Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not notable in the context of ID. It's like saying that Dembski "reserves judgment" on ID because he refuses to speculate on the nature of the designer. Guettarda (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Although he criticizes the theory of evolution, Berlinski, an agnostic, refuses to theorize about the origin of life." would be acceptable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Qualifier on the above -- it is acceptable as being accurate, but whether it is WP:DUE weight is questionable -- see question below. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)I don't think that's an accurate characterisation of what he has said. "Warm but distant" isn't "reserves judgment". As for that quote - I think it misses the point. The ID movement doesn't speculate about the origin of life. Intentionally. Behe in particular has said that ID could just as well point to an alien genetic engineer as it could to the supernatural. I don't think anyone takes him seriously on that point, but it's an important part of the ID movement not to speculate about the identity of the designer, even though most individuals will admit (usually with some prodding, though it depends on the venue) that their personal belief is that the designer is the Christian God. You need to take the Slate article with a grain of salt, and avoid drawing too great a conclusion from it. Guettarda (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but this is veering rather sharply away from being a BLP concern at this point. It sounds like a workable compromise has been reached.Griswaldo (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, do we have any evidence that Berslinski's occupation is "Academic philosopher"? This seems to be based upon his CSC bio -- which is rather vague, and gives as his last-listed academic post the Universite de Paris -- which split up in the early 1970s. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that "writer" would be a better description if he doesn't have an academic post currently. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If he is no longer actually working as an academic then he shouldn't be listed as one. However, a "philosopher", more generally speaking does not need to have a faculty position somewhere.  That might be doable.  Writer clearly works as well.Griswaldo (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A question: why is Berlinski's "refus[al] to theorize about the origins of life" any more "factual" than his being one "of the leaders in the intelligent design movement"? Both are inferences that third parties have made about him based upon his statements and actions. Neither is a concrete fact -- but then WP:SECONDARY means that articles should contain "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims", not just 'concrete' facts (which we can get from primary sources). I would further note that the latter claim probably has more prominence, and thus probably is WP:DUE more prominence in the article. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that directed towards my usage of "factual"? What I meant was that the following is more "factual" than your proposed text:
 * "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement."
 * "refus[al] to theorize about the origins of life" ... wasn't in Jonathanwallace's proposal and in any event isn't a replacement for the "leader of the intelligent design movement" text. Maybe it was not directed at me.Griswaldo (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is directed at Jaque's "just give the facts" complaint against "leader of the intelligent design movement". If that isn't 'factual' then how is "refuses to theorize about the origins of life" factual? I am not claiming that one is the replacement of the other, but that the argument against "leader" applies equally to "refuses to theorize" -- and thus the former cannot be excluded without also excluding the latter. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. This thread has become rather confusing.  The text you said was accurate, but perhaps not DUE, sounds good to me, and could be included if it is DUE.Griswaldo (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that we have numerous sources, including some quite prominent ones, discussing Berlinski's leadership/prominent role within the IDM (which goes well beyond his being a Fellow in the CSC), but only a couple of fairly minor sources discussing his equivocations over ID. Yet these equivocations are mentioned in the lead, but readers are left to infer his leadership role in the IDM from his being a Fellow of the CSC. That seems to me to be both WP:UNDUE weight and violation of WP:Principle of least astonishment. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

We are probably veering into WP:RSN territory. Calling him a leader of the ID movement without being able to reference a statement "I believe in ID" doesn't work. You could source statements under "Views" to your references, along the lines of "X has said Y provides covering fire for movement Z". But I don't see how it belongs in the lede. Again, I have no dog in this hunt. I believe in evolution, never heard of this guy, and was trying to help you out (and the opposing editor) with a compromise. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The IDM spends 99+% of its times evolution-bashing -- Berlinski is happy as a clam evolution-bashing. Where's the conflict? Further, we have a source stating unequivocally that Berlinski is a leader of the IDM. I do not have to rely on weasel-wording "along the lines of 'X has said Y provides covering fire for movement Z'" -- I have a source saying the exact words. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets get down to the sex - do you have a source for him believing in a supernatural origin? John lilburne (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but then the fact that Hermann Göring claimed not to be antisemitic does not mean that he wasn't a leading member of the Nazi movement. Agreement with a perfect 100% of a movement's agenda is not necessary for being a leader of it -- particularly in this case where the point of contention is a point de-emphasised and equivocated over by the movement as a whole. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Surly if you want to declare that some one is directly responsible for the extermination of millions of people you need a little bit more evidence of their involvement in the slaughter?
 * One might well be sceptical about Darwinian evolution without involving the gods. Currently the way the article is slanted the implication is that he believes that the origin of life was supernatural. John lilburne (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking your analogy, we have plenty of evidence that Berlinski is "directly" and prominently involved in the IDM. "One might" -- but when one does so without any particular expertise in the subject, and in the constant company of members of the movement -- then third party commentators are hardly to blame [or incorrect] for considering one to be acting as part of that movement, nor is Wikipedia violating WP:BLP by presenting their "uncontested assertion" as a fact (per WP:NPOV). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that the old "Those that borrow clothes of others, shouldn't object to mistaken identity" or the WP:DUCK argument? I note that Dawkins believes that he might be evil, or at least trolling the biological scientists, but that still doesn't mean Berlinski is a believer in ID. John lilburne (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) I don't see any evidence that the "identity" is "mistaken" -- merely that like any group, the IDM has a degree of intra-group variation. (ii) "Is that the old..." 'arguing that it's not a duck by arguing about the colour of its plumage'? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (outdent)ID is wider than some weird fundamentalist Christian teaching? Does it incorporate a Hindu creation story, an Aztec, and a Inuit version too, or is it mainly variations on a conservative young earth Christian myth? The Jews don't appear to have a problem with Evolution (probably far too sensible), so I'm not convinced that Berlinski would be arguing for a Christian Creation myth. Seems more likely that he has a problem with some of the evidential claims of evolution and is using the ID movement as a soap box. John lilburne (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. It involves at least one Muslim (Mustafa Akyol), at least one Orthodox Jew (David Klinghoffer), and at least one Unificationist (Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)). As stated above, "The IDM spends 99+% of its times evolution-bashing -- Berlinski is happy as a clam evolution-bashing." -- "Seems more likely that..." Berlinski knows sweet FA about "the evidential claims of evolution" (argument from ignorance, anybody?). "...and is using the ID movement as a soap box" -- and this stops him being a leader of said movement, how? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A mutant individual is not a representative of a species, you should know this. You make much play on these people being Fellows or Senior Fellows of the Center for Science and Culture what does that mean? Do they get together monthly to devise strategy for the IDM or something? Seems from looking a the website it refers to people that the Centre regards as 'good' scientists, some of which they have funded, but not all. It doesn't seem to imply that those so listed are in total agreement with the goals of the Center for Science and Culture or indeed that they have ever applied for some sort of membership. I'll repeat tell us does being a Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture mean. John lilburne (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which "mutant individual"? Berlinski, Akyol, Klinghoffer or Wells? When you start looking at a sufficient number of 'mutations' they start to represent normal variation in the species in question. "...what does that mean?" It means that they are the leaders of the organisation that runs the IDM -- the movement that is the SOLE reason for this center's existence Most of them aren't even scientists at all, let alone your WP:OR "'good' scientists". "I'll repeat tell us does being a Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture mean." It means that they are the leaders of the organisation that runs the IDM -- the movement that is the SOLE reason for this center's existence Shorter John lilburne: la-la-la, I can't here you. Shorter Hrafn: What WP:Complete bollocks! <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Having found two Jews, a Muslim, and a Moonie, does not mean that Jews, Muslims, and Moonies (well probably them) are major supporters of ID. You keep mentioning leader what exactly do you mean by that. It implies that they have some authoritative or directing role in these organisations: I can see none. John lilburne (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean "exactly" that I have reliable source saying that Berlisnsk is a leader of the IDM. And now I want to ask you why E_X_A_C_T_L_Y you are asking these pointless, time-wasting knit-picking questions. And why E_X_A_C_T_L_Y you don't just look up leader? Why am I refusing to answer this question? Because I can see no point whatsoever in getting bogged down on exact meanings, flavours, nuances, etc of "leader". What exactly do you mean by "exactly"? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Or to put it another way, Berlinski works primarily to bash evolution, the CSC (which he is a leading member of) exists primarily to bash evolution, the IDM (which the CSC is leads) exists primarily to bash evolution. Where's the disconnect? Beyond that, we have the opinion of the foremost expert on Creationism that Berlinksi's widely-publicised The Deniable Darwin (which he later used as the title-piece of an anthology) is "a version of ID theory", numerous sources placing him in a prominent/leadership role in the IDM and a RS explicitly stating that he's one "of the leaders in the intelligent design movement". What more do we need? A confession signed in his own blood? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I can wax lyrical of the nonsense of Trotskyism but that doesn't make me a Stalinist. I do not see Berlinksi being mentioned as having any role in the IDM or CSC, except as a Senior Fellow (whatever that means). They do seem to have a collection of his articles, papers, and reviews. In some of the independent reviews on his works the the argument seems to be that he casts ID and Evolution as being on par in the nonsense category, and that he is not sufficiently tough in his execrating of ID. It is a bit odd for a supporter of a position, to be saying that the position they are supporting is nonsense. RS's are not always reliable in every instance one should actually check for one's self. From what I've read it seems that he doesn't hold with ID and he doesn't hold with Evolution. John lilburne (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * John lilburne: your analogy is WP:Complete bollocks -- in that it completely fails to capture any relevant details. For example, whether your your lyrical wanker waxer would be considered a Stalinist or not, would probably be affected quite considerably on the basis of whether or not he was a member of Stalin's politburo and appeared in Stalinist propaganda films. Given a choice between caring what RSs (including a very authoritative one) thinks and what you think, I'm afraid I don't really give a stuff what you think -- you are neither a RS (nor have cited any), nor provide any convincing arguments for your frankly delusional view that the CSC and IDM are in some way completely unrelated. So please feel free to huff and puff at my disregard of your pontification. And pleasre assume that I won't be answering any more of your pointless questions. Good day. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What has this got to do with the relationship between CSC and IDM, their STUPID website says they are the same. What it doesn't say is that Berlinski is some leader of either. To accept that proposal on the basis that he's a Fellow one would have to believe that each and every one of the 1350 Fellows of the Royal Society is a leader of the group ignoring the Governance structure. John lilburne (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * John lilburne: as I already pointed out, I'm sick of answering your pointless questions, so I will ask some of my own. (i) How would any reasonable person expect the difference between a handful of fellows and a think-tank on one side, and over a thousand fellows and a learned society on the other, affect the degree to which an individual fellow acts as a leader? Why would any reasonable person expect the latter to act as a useful comparator for the former? (ii) How would any reasonable person expect leadership to be exerted over a grouping as diffuse and informal as the IDM? Would any reasonable person expect a Royal-Society-style formal governance structure? (iii) When a movement is Neo-creationist, and thus attempting to disguise and downplay its religious origins, would not recruiting a handful of articulate and like-minded Muslims, Jews and/or Agnostics to its senior/leadership positions seem to any reasonable person to be a reasonably logical strategic move? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (outdent) You have equated Berlinski's criticism of Evolution with ID and thus concluded that his criticism is motivated in the same way as the IDM is. It isn't that black and white, and I'd rather trust Dawkins on the matter: who doesn't appear to think that Berlinski has any serious belief in ID as a viable theory of origins. Next you have taken the fact that he has been paid by IDers for work critical of aspects of Evolutionary claims, to concluded that he must be a leader of the movement. Yet you have no evidence that a person being paid by the CSC confers any sort of leadership role within the CSC on that person, nor that a person paid by them necessarily hold their same views. In fact as you say in (iii) it would indeed pay them to use someone that is not entirely of their persuasion. John lilburne (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Further, as Guettarda has pointed out, there's very little distance between Berlinski's 'I don't want to discuss whether there's a designer' and Dembski et al's 'I don't want to discuss who the designer is.' <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This sentence, from the lede, is problematic, "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement." I don't know why the "...a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement" is included there.  The Discovery Institute, as I understand it, is more than just a promoter of the ID theory.  The sentence should probably just say, "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture." Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The CSC is purely "a promoter of the ID theory", and of associated evolution denialism. But in any case, we have sources corroborating Berlinski's leading role in the IDM directly -- so should state it directly rather than implying it via the CSC. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * But in any case, we have sources corroborating Berlinski's leading role in the IDM directly -- so should state it directly rather than implying it via the CSC. - I concur. Raul654 (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY states that we must use secondary sources for evaluation or interpretation of primary sources. We have such secondary sources stating that Berlinksi's writings contain "a version of ID theory", and that he is a leader of the IDM. These sources appear to be reliable (and nobody has cast doubt upon them), and are uncontradicted. Why should we not use them? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, John lilburne -- Ronald L. Numbers "equated Berlinski's criticism of Evolution with ID".
 * 1) "...and thus concluded that his criticism is motivated in the same way as the IDM is." And AGAIN,  John lilburne leaves out all the other evidence supporting Berlinski's involvement with the ID.
 * 2) "Next you have taken the fact that he has been paid by IDers for work critical of aspects of Evolutionary claims, to concluded that he must be a leader of the movement." No, John lilburne, it was Karl Giberson who said that.
 * 3) "Yet you have no evidence that a person being paid by the CSC confers any sort of leadership role within the CSC on that person, nor that a person paid by them necessarily hold their same views." As I am not conducting WP:Original research, I am not meant to be amassing "evidence" of who is, or is not, a leader of the IDM. But even if I were, I doubt if I could find any that would meet your absurd pseudoskepticism. By the John lilburne standards it would appear that the IDM has no leaders, and must decide on its actions by collective telepathy.
 * 4) Where does Dawkins state that Berlinski isn't a leader of the IDM?
 * What are you shouting for?
 * He seems in this new essay to have reversed himself on the merits of the current effort to rehabilitate the ancient argument from design, now holiday-wrapped as "intelligent design theory." This change of mind is all the more praiseworthy because Berlinski is closely associated with the conservative Christian think tank that serves as primary promoter of "intelligent design." He is moreover the author of a flattering blurb for the book of another leading member of that organization. This is William Dembski's The Design Inference, whose argument and conclusions Berlinski here finds to be unsound. Paul R. Gross


 * Berlinski supplied rave blurbs to the books by the prominent advocates of ID, William Dembski and Michael Behe. In this new paper, however, unexpectedly Berlinski casts doubts on the plausibility of the ID concepts so vigorously promoted by Dembski and Behe. Mark Perakh


 * It's nice to see David Berlinksi aim his rhetorical guns at a target more deserving than modern biology and cosmology ("Has Darwin Met his Match," Commentary, December 2002). The arguments he makes against intelligent-design theory (ID) suffer only from a lack of originality; critics of ID have been making the same points for years. In emphasizing the logical deficiencies and practical limitations of ID, Berlinski has given a good picture of why most scientists find it unpromising. Jason Rosenhouse


 * John lilburne (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I was shouting because somebody kept insisting that the evaluative and interpretative opinions of secondary sources were my own idiosyncratic personal opinions.
 * 2) All three quotes appear to be talking about a single essay written in 2002, and describe its contents as being at odds to Berlinski's earlier views. They thus provide a consensus view that, excepting this essay, Berlinski has been firmly on the pro-ID side of the debate.
 * 3) As it appears that Berlinksi never reinforced this reversal, but has in fact appears to have reverted to his pro-ID allegiance since then (e.g. appearing in Expelled and publishing Deniable Darwin & Other Essays), it is therefore more reasonable to view this essay as an anomaly, not as evidence that he is not part of the IDM.
 * 4) None of these quotes provide any evidence that any of those quoted think that Berlinski isn't part of the IDM. In fact one of the quoted parties, Mark Perakh, lists Berlinski as an "example" of "the main proponents of Intelligent Design", only a year later.


 * It appears that Berlinksi never was on the side of ID. This is from Berlinksi (p20+) in a linked to in the comment you deleted.


 * In that link that you just deleted an explanation is provided as his motivation. But in any case this is not new to you, you already found the comment back in 2008. Turns out that you actually do know that he isn't a leader of the IDM movement.
 * In that link that you just deleted an explanation is provided as his motivation. But in any case this is not new to you, you already found the comment back in 2008. Turns out that you actually do know that he isn't a leader of the IDM movement.


 * As for you RS people say and write things in polemics that are not fully factual. It is your job as an editor when writing a BLP to sort out the taunts and jibes. What you have in your reliable sources is that "X taunted that Berlinski was a leader of the IDM" you cannot as you appear to have done convert that simply into the statement "Berlinski a leader of the IDM ..." to do so is fatuous. But having spent 2 years casting this guy as "Supreme Master of the God Squad", I don't expect any of the above to have any affect on you. After all you have your cracked crystal ball RSs, in the heat of polemic, to support your POV. John lilburne (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "It appears that Berlinksi never was on the side of ID." John lilburne would have us believe that Berlinski just happened to stumble onto the set of the most prominent ID propaganda film, and a whole host of other ID events, by accident.
 * 2) Sayeth Berlinkski the self-published and "unduly self-serving" -- "I have never expressed support for theories of intelligent design". Sayeth your own quote: "He is moreover the author of a flattering blurb for ... William Dembski's The Design Inference" -- the book that introduces one of ID's main theoretical underpinings -- specified complexity. He seems to have a funny way of 'never expressing support'.
 * 3) "What you have in your reliable sources is that 'X taunted that Berlinski was a leader of the IDM'" WP:Complete bollocks! What we have in fact is the foremost historian of creationism (Ronald L. Numbers, in his magnum opus The Creationists no less, p379 2006 Ed) and a prominent scholar on the "creation-evolution debate" and the relationship between science and religion (Karl W. Giberson). I see no reason to slander these prominent scholars with baseless accusations of 'taunts', 'jibes' and 'polemics', just because our self-published, self-described crank decides to indulge in a little self-serving revisionism.
 * 4) I direct you to my summarisation of the "found the comment" -- "I think this is a fairly explicit disavowal of ID-the-God-shaped-hole (as opposed to the list of anti-evolution that are ID's 'guts')." -- note the parenthetical pointing out that this is not a disavowal of ID's substance. "Turns out that you actually do know that..." John lilburne is misrepresenting me again.
 * 5) David Berlinski has spent the past several years swanning around ID events, but it is me who is "casting this guy as 'Supreme Master of the God Squad'"? ROFLMAO!
 * Just because some one has written some thing down does not make it so, or are we all be believing that Odysseus killed Cyclops?.
 * Why are you crying about misrepresention? The fact is that in 2008 you had proof that he wasn't an advocate of ID. Instead of taking that information and re-evaluating his leadership of the IDM, you chose to re-interpret the Intelligent Design Movement into something that some one could be a leader of who didn't believe in its central tenets (ID-the-God-shaped-hole). Remind me what is the name for a person who when confronted with evidence to the contrary still clings on to faith? John lilburne (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Berlinsky article sure has a lot of material on intelligent design, when it is not known that he has any opinion about it. I say that the intelligent design comments should be removed. Roger (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:DUE -- the sources "sure ha[ve] a lot of material on intelligent design" when they talk about Berlinski -- in fact they talk about very little else. So what should Wikipedia say about Berlinski? What his favourite flowers are? Lacking the attention due to ID, it is rather unlikely that Berlinski would pass WP:BIO. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Berlinski has published about a dozen notable books and articles, but not about ID. The lead paragraph should not be on things that refuses to support or theorize about. Roger (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Due weight overrides your personal interpretation about what Berlinski is notable for. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Due weight? Is that your best explanation that for an article that portrays Berlinski as having views opposite to what his real views are? I see that someone has posted documentation on the Berlinski Talk page that the article is inaccurate, and you removed it from the Talk page? See . There is no excuse for such a removal. That was a positive contribution to the discussion. Apparently there are some evolutionists who suspect him of having creationist sympathies, but his published opinions and interviews show clearly that he is not a creationist. Roger (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)::
 * Roger, you've been here enough to know that instead of "no excuse" the rules actually state that all posts by a banned user should generally be removed - and can be removed by anyone. See here, where is stated "their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits...must be reverted... but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me, looking at the article, that Berlinski is known for arguing with Atheists and Evolutionist and that he manages to get both groups riled up. So it is not surprising that there is a lot written against him by evolutionists and atheists. I doubt he cares much especially as he makes a living from the controversy circuit. None of that doesn't make him a leader of the ID movement and any one reading the sources can see that he is not; quoting people saying that he is just makes the people quoted look silly. It should be possible to make it clear that argues against aspects of evolutionary theory and ID, and that evolutionists have answered his criticisms, without dragging the supernatural into it. Perhaps he argue more with evolutionists than IDers because they make for a more stimulating debate and therefore ca better show. John lilburne (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I don't really understand how this issue has gone round in circles quite so much. It seems fairly obvious from skimming the article and discussion that Berlinski has worked with ID people and made many of the same arguments against evolution, but because of his personal beliefs doesn't (publicly... we can't get inside his head) support the ID conclusion that if current evolutionary theory is flawed, there must be an intelligent designer. And on one seemingly isolated occasion, Berlinski also made some criticisms of ID. End of? Rd232 talk 02:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue goes round because the editors of IDCab have systematically concocted haphazard theories of mind regarding more than a dozen academics who have commented on the issues raised by the political debate between the science educators and the school boards. Berlinski's criticism of Darwin's model is merely a technical one.  He's a mathematician, and he's appalled that there isn't more mathematics in the theory.  The problem is that the mathematics is arcane, involving stochastic processes and metrics that cannot reasonably be taught without a graduate level introduction to mathematical modeling.  Berlinski is like a math teacher who complains when a student constructs a sloppy proof of a theorem.  The question isn't whether the theorem is true; the question is whether the proof is correct.  Berlinski complains that the textbooks for evolution rely on evidence that isn't probative of the thesis to be proven.  He insists that science be taught with more rigor.  Otherwise you have people claiming to prove all sorts of nonsense with sloppy methodology.  You see that same sloppy methodology in the way IDCab goes about concocting their haphazard flights of fancy about what this or that academic believes.  Publishing haphazard theories of mind about BLP subjects whom one has never met is simply not a viable practice for an authoritative encyclopedia.  Wikipedia does itself a disservice by permitting the allied editors of IDCab to continue to concoct meritless claims about the beliefs of controversial figures like David Berlinski.  —Caprice 06:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If the content issues apply to a number of similar pages, you (or someone who agrees) could try an WP:RFC (Requests for comment/some NPOV title). For the claims of cabalism - random outing and other harassment of editors is not a solution; only something like an Arbcom case will achieve anything (compare the EEML case). At any rate, the content issues must be kept separate from the alleged behavioural mis-steps of both sides, or it will just go on and on. Rd232 talk 10:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We could try that route again. The last time around (about three years ago), ArbCom was too timid to touch the case.  They bounced it back to the community, which was hopelessly divided.  The problems fester, having never been resolved.  The main method of defense by the allied editors of IDCab is to find some obscure misstep by the opposition and then use that as an excuse to block, ban, and balete them.  You will be amused to discover the cause of action which User:KillerChihuahua posted as her specious reason for blocking me.  Her official reason was her ridiculous theory of mind that I had "no interest in writing an encyclopedia."  She bypassed community review and acted on her on, with support from her allied editor, User:FeloniousMonk.  How do the allied editors of IDCab have the power to unilaterally impose an unjust ban, bypassing community review?  —Moulton 18:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The current version has removed a lot of the problems the article had a week or so ago and appears more balanced. Though it would be useful to add his disavowal of ID


 * The only significant issue I have with the lede is an IDM think-tank probably doesn't. John lilburne (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that the IP signing with his Wikiversity address 'Caprice' is banned user Moulton. Dougweller (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the points made by Caprice/Moulton. We should not be attributing ID views to Berlinski just because of who he sometimes associates with. Imagine the reverse. An article about a Christian evolutionist would not talk about how he associates with atheists and makes arguments for evolution that are also made by atheists, thereby insinuating that he is some sort of closet atheist. As Rd232 and Caprice said in different ways, we cannot get inside Berlinski's head. I see no good reason for the Belinski article to even mention ID. There are plenty of other articles that argue that ID is some sort of neo-creationist conspiracy. Roger (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Vaughn Walker
There appears to be a serious misunderstanding regarding the WP:WELLKNOWN policy. I would like to receive comment from other editors who have worked with these issues in the past. The understanding of some editors seems to be that the only way something can be included in a BLP article, is if it is explicitly acknowledged by that person. Thus, in the article about Vaughn Walker any attempt to include any reference to the column ran by the San Francisco Chronicle have been deleted. Coincidentally, I am having difficulty with getting people to engage on the talk page. It seems to be that the individuals invoke a policy that "we don't repeat rumors" and then delete the material without responding to substantive points. If this is indeed the policy, then the WP:WELLKNOWN policy page needs to be corrected, as the example in the policy is incorrect. As I read the policy, reprinting of allegations, provided that they are sourced by reliable third party mainstream sources is not only allowed, but encouraged. I would like to get clarification of the policy here in an attempt to solve this issue. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried to use the example of Charlie Crist as a guide, the situation in which is exactly analogous in my mind. I find it a bit puzzling that the allegations are explicitly permitted in the Charlie Crist article, despite the fact that he has denied them, but they are unceremoniously deleted from the Vaughn Walker article, when he has not denied them. In fact, the sources that I published show that he doesn't attempt to hide his orientation at all. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd also point to the Anderson Cooper article as another example. Also David Dreier, Larry Craig, Ed Schrock, Jim McCrery, Ed Koch, (anyone seeing a pattern here), do I need to find more examples? I am sure I can find others if I look. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see the mention of homosexuality as a problem as long as it is sourced well and impartial in tone. The mention of his homosexuality is a crucial part of the critical response to actions Walker has taken as judge, in fulfilling his duties. Talking about Walker's handling of California Prop 8 without discussing the pro and con reviews—both sides saying the judge is gay—is a failure to talk about one of the foundational political issues. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is that it is NOT well sourced. It is one newspaper article that has framed the claim as "an open secret" - and not one that anyone is willing to stand behind, and then that "open secret" is the source for the other coverage. Wikipedia is not an echo chamber to repeat unsourced rumors. PARTICULARLY because there are numerous attempts to assassinate Walkers character as an impartial judge by the implication that his "open secret" has affected his impartiality. We need FAR better sourcing for the claims than have been provided.Active  Banana    (bananaphone  22:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There we have it folks, as I suspected all along. The reason that some are so opposed to including this very real part of the story, is a fear that it might somehow "undermine the impartiality" of Walker. Hence there is seen a need to "protect" Walker here on Wikipedia in a manner not given to Charlie Crist, David Dreier, Larry Craig, Ed Schrock, Jim McCrery, or Ed Koch. Indeed, the Sources that we have for Walker's orientation are far better than ANY of the sources in the other examples I have given. The fact is, including this information does nothing to undermine Walker's impartiality, indeed the very source that I used said that he had a record of impartiality, and the proposed edit that I offered included a quote from a Law Professor that said his orientation doesn't matter. However, his orientation is a very real part of the story, in that it was part of the reason that some groups cited in their efforts to impeach him, rightly or wrongly. As I said before, Information is power, and we don't whitewash things on Wikipedia. Moreover, Walker is NOT denying or trying to hide his sexuality. The SF Weekly article and other newspaper sources quoted a federal judge who said that Walker doesn't try to hide his orientation at all, and that it doesn't affect his handling of cases. What I suspect we have here, is people trying to apply a different standard to Walker, because of the nature of the Prop 8 case. That is just unacceptable, especially when we have so many other examples on Wikipedia of the policy being applied in the way that it reads. We can't create one standard for Walker out of political expediency and have another standard for all the other examples that I listed. I have yet to have anyone actually give me a reason why unnamed sources from the film Outrage are so much better than a mainstream newspaper with stringent standards for editorial review. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Other articles are worse is not a suitable excuse for violating WP:BLP on yet another article. Active Banana    (bananaphone  03:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Except the other articles are not worse. Each of those decisions were reached in accordance with the WP:WELLKNOWN policy which is just glossed over. The fact remains that your rendition of the BLP policy isn't the actual BLP policy. Above, you alluded to your real concern, that being "the impartiality" of Judge Walker. Might I ask, doesn't your position actually confirm that this is a real issue? You acknowledge that some are using the allegations to "undermine Walker's impartiality", which you characterize as "character assassination", given that the allegations and uproar surrounding that were a very real part of the coverage after the Prop 8 decision, what is served by trying to hide them from the public? Should your concerns about "impartiality" play any part in the process at all? Can you point out how your rendition of the BLP Policy fits with the WP:WELLKNOWN policy? The fact remains, that if your policy is the real policy, then many articles on Wikipedia need to be fixed, immediately, and the policy as written needs to be corrected. If my reading of the policy is correct, then some acknowledgment, in a neutral form, needs to go in the article. (I would also point out that you are invoking policies that are completely inapplicable to your case. For instance, the policy you quote here, is in relation to the DELETION policy, and it has NOTHING to do with comparison of other editorial decisions as a guide for the application of the BLP policy.) Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The awful addition to Christ by user Binksternet was after user Birkenset had gone on and an and on for months after adding the gay claim  - every time I see it it makes me squirm and its all I can do do stop myself removing it every time. I will remove it completely as soon as I can get away with it. Wiki is not a gay activist of gay outing website for rumors that accuse people they don't like of being gay, with reports and films written by gay activists. BLP well known is not a excuse to promote rumors of someones sexuality in benefit of an activist position. Off2riorob (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The "awful addition" is your version, not mine. I wanted more detail to separate Crist's 2006 local newspaper outing from the 2009 film which says he is gay. Your wish to "get away with it" has already been expressed here where you crept into the article and took out the section against consensus, without making any talk page announcement of you controversial action. This kind of page ownership, non-neutrality and lack of collegiality you demonstrated at Crist and elsewhere is why your attempt to join ArbCom was so poorly received. Expressing your wish to change the Crist article as soon as you "can get away with it" is an expression of tendentious editing, of an edit warring mindset. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was you that wanted to add that gay activist rubbish, that addition has nothing to do with me at all - I object to it then and now - you went at it for months - relentlessly - to add a worthless speculation that a subject of our article was gay - because john and harry said he was, the gay activists like to do that - they say about anyone that stops them propagating their POV - oh they are gay, yada yada yada - and all the gays talk about it and its well known in the gay village POV. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What bitter vituperation, connected in no way to reality! Kirby Dick is as straight as they come, a manly man who makes strong political films. Dick accused Crist of hypocrisy in his politics, and demonstrated a connection between politicians hiding their homosexuality, and voting more consistently against laws seen as liberating to gays. Dick reminds me of me but more accomplished; I'm a lifelong hetero male, grandfather to four, happily enjoying my second hetero marriage, now entering its tenth year. I heard about Dick's film on NPR while driving, then I sought out and watched Dick's film, then I looked up the information on my own, online. I, too, do not like hypocrisy in politicians, but of course that description applies to pols of every stripe. You seem to think only fey men who gossip are interested in the topic; if so, you are demonstrably wrong. The topic is hypocrisy—remember that. Unafraid straight men are just as interested in addressing the issue, hence the relentlessness you observed in me. I think I went about it in the most neutral fashion, pushing back against those who would chop the balls off of WP:WELLKNOWN as if it did not exist as a vital guideline, making a space in the article for neutral adherence to our fine NPOV rules. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ghostmonkey as to the use of this article from the San Francisco Chronicle in the Vaughn R. Walker article. While we should treat this issue carefully and avoid implying that Walker is biased (whether or not individual editors think he is biased), it is not an "unsourced rumor" that Walker is gay. The San Francisco Chronicle, the most prominent newspaper in the city where Walker works, and one of the top 25 newspapers by circulation in the United States, is the source. If we don't accept the San Francisco Chronicle as a reliable source, then I don't know what we can accept as a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree as well. The allegation seems also to have had repercussions in the notable debate, and as such it is more than random gossip. WP:WELLKNOWN covers explicitly well-sourced allegations. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:WELLKNOWN covers the matter neatly. News reports about Walker should be introduced in an impartial manner, describing how some California Prop 8 advocates declared Walker's treatment of it to be biased because of his homosexuality, and also how other news reports declared Walker to be unbiased despite his homosexuality. The homosexuality is assumed by both sides in the conflict, and Walker has neither confirmed or denied his orientation. In bringing this material to the article, make certain that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is followed to the letter. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:WELLKNOWN is key here. I agree with the above editors that the matter should be referenced in a very careful and deferential way, focusing on the news story rather than any attempt to paint him as biased. The fact is, this is a major part of the story that Wikipedia has removed, to the detriment of informational exchange. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ghostmonkey et al. that the material is well known, reliably sourced and deserves inclusion. Arguments against are only that we are somehow harming the very public figure who has refused to comment...but "The WP:NICENESS standard does not exist."Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * oh its well known that he is gay is a clear BLP violation. here is the sfgate and newyorkdaily titillating BLP violation. Its not well cited and it isn't either well known. Have a look at the desired addition and the low standard of the reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)* -

WP:BLP - WP:WELLKNOWN is being cited as a support for this desired addition - so the question is - is that is the speculation and this persons claim - NPOV well known requests that the  - incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented - is this not notable bloggers opinion that the sexual preferences of the living subject of our article is "an open secret"  complies with that?

WP:NPOV - WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - was also quoted as a reason to support inclusions of this comment, imo is the person who has the opinion isn't himself wikipedia notable and the opinion is contentious then we shouldn't be adding it at all, especially when it is linked to and supported by such low quality reports. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

comments
Using primary source blogs as your evidence that there is real world impact? o fergawdsake. Active Banana    (bananaphone  01:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a "Blog" it's a reprint of a story that appeared in the San Francisco Weekly, again a mainstream, reliable, third-party source. The evidence of the real world impact were the calls for the impeachment and the THOUSANDS of news stories that were generated by mainstream papers around the nation. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As a bit of background, for anybody who is following this debate from elsewhere, in much of the US today an assertion that someone is gay is more like an allegation of being a Republican than an allegation of say, drug addiction. I think this factors in because under WP:BLP we rightly get more excited about protecting people against really disturbing assertions than against everyday ones (there have been cases on this board since I've been here regarding incest and even baby rape). While it is still highly relevant to discuss whether sources are reliable, it is no big deal (as many of the sources say) whether the Judge is gay or not. It is however notable and worth adding to the article because its been widely commented on in connection to the case.Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me extend that to the following analogy. A judge who ruled on a campaign finance issue and whose party affiliation is unknown, is "revealed" to be Republican. The information in itself is no big deal, but Democrats start clamoring that he was biased in making the ruling. It seems to me that this very public dispute is notable and belongs in the article, and is not outweighed by any need to protect the judge against the assertion of party affiliation.Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You bring up a good point. As written now, the article takes pains to emphasize that Walker is a Republican, appointed by a Republican, and labels him as an "independent minded conservative." Yet when one wants to add another part to the story, this is opposed quite vigorously. I see a problem with this. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is true that there is almost nobody likely to be working at Wikipedia who would regard such a statement as defamatory. It is by now  also true that the majority of the general public in English-speaking countries think so as well.  Nonetheless a an unfortunately sizable minority   does think so, and this probably  in some culture areas includes the majority of people. The English Wikipedia is the major  world source of information, and our articles are commonly used as the basis for articles in other Wikipedias, especially for subjects connected  with the English-speaking world. It is therefore essential not only that we be accurate on matters such as this, but that we do not assign this information to a person unless the person publicly self-identifies as reported by reliable sources, or unless  it is commonly reported in extremely reliable sources--enough so to make it clear that this designation is a matter of general public knowledge and of general public interest. The principle is DO NO HARM, and this would apply to many other designations also which are in our general view perfectly honourable.    DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this is NOT the WP:WELLKNOWN policy. Either the policy is mistaken, and needs to be changed, and thus many articles on Wikipedia need to be changed, or this information needs to go in the article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This content is not supported by WP:WELLKNOWN. You have to weigh all policies and guidelines together and as BLP suggests to ERR on the side of caution with such contentious content - this addition has no place in a wikipedia BLP, not as presented and supported by the provided support. Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's just not correct, as demonstrated by the application of the policy throughout Wikipedia, and by a clear and plain reading of the WP:WELLKNOWN policy itself. If the policy is mistaken, change it, and change the other articles I mentioned. Otherwise, this needs to go in the article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No - we don't do that - here at the BLPN we deal with the single issue report -we don't care about your claims that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - take those issues to the policy talkpage or the actual articles you feel the issues are causing problems. Or report them separately here in a fresh thread.Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Like another poster above, you are invoking a policy that is inapplicable. Just as it was inappropriate when he did it, it is inappropriate here. The fact is, this issue impacts the BLP policy across the board at wikipedia. The fact remains that the policy as written allows the inclusion of the material. It's also a fact that consensus is against your position here. The WP:WELLKNOWN policy is explicit. It has been applied in a very specific manner across the board. That application is evidence of how the policy works. If the policy is not changed, then the information must be applied consistently. We don't have one standard of the policy for some people and other standards for others, commiserate with the political expediency involved in each article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize you are really wanting to include this as you have been trying for a year, but don't accept that wp:wellknown supports the inclusion of this content at all especially through the poor quality of the reports and even if wp:wellknown did apply as I said you can not take a single piece of policy and insist that content must be inserted because of it - you have to take policy and guidelines as a whole and as a user says, wp:donoharm resists this content as does BLP, articles about living people "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." I also don't see the consensus you claim is there is here to include your desired addition. Off2riorob (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * this particular case is unusual, because whether or not he is gay is possibly relevant to his notability, the relationship of it to his career is a matter of public controversy, and the controversy has been reported in multiple reliable sources. Given the reporting, DO NO HARM seems irrelevant.   In this case I'd support the inclusion.  (My statement above was intended to be general; in general I would oppose the inclusion for people with notability at his level unless there is some strong reason otherwise—in this instance, there is.) No one case at Wikipedia impacts the across the general policy--we always need to use judgment about the relationship of various guidelines, and the need for individual exemptions.  We do try to be consistent, but we do not follow precedent in except very roughly.  I wouldn't be concerned about including it here becoming a general rule.    DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am clearly totally opposite to you DGG, I find that position completely unsupportable - you suggest the weakly cited rumor that he is gay is part of his notability cited to these reports low quality reports, imo its nothing to do with his notability at all, he is totally notable without any opinionated rumors about his sexual preferences. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You keep calling it "weakly cited", when we have a very well down article by one of the largest and most reliable mainstream newspapers in the country, after the story had been put through editorial review. AFTER the story was cited, further sources came forward, who stated that Walker doesn't even try to hide his sexuality. It isn't just a rumor. Further, Walker has never denied it. This is as well sourced as many other pieces of information here on the page. It's not like Walker is desperately trying to keep this under wraps. It seems that some here think that unless Walker proclaims it with a bullhorn, that it shouldn't be included. However, that simply isn't the standard. Moreover, in this particular case, the controversy surrounding his orientation set off a firestorm, and become one of the most notable thing about the entire affair. That alone supports mention in the story. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree--good analysis. All too often we seem to be trying to protect living people against reliably sourced information which has been reported everywhere. "The WP:NICENESS standard does not exist."Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats right, your redlink niceness link doesn't have any content so please either write it or stop adding it because its basically meaningless - no one is trying to be nice here - that is not what BLP requires. Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * - so lets see the consensus to add this content support by these citations as presented above - personally for weakly claimed rumors of someone sexuality I would like to see a clear consensus support for inclusion, but others might disagree -
 * By my count it is 6-2 in favor of inclusion. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Presently, I think another 48hours to allow additional input wouldn't be undue. Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * After seeing the addition again to Walker's article, I'm uncomfortable with it. I'm not sure where my discomfort comes from: the fact that consensus is deciding this when it should not, that sexual history and behavior in BLPs is so ill-defined that it takes this kind of discussion to try to sort it out in one article when there are dozens or more that should be clarified, or just the simplicity of gossip and rumormongering posing as fact. I'm willing to start an RfC on the numerous issues of sexual history and behavior on the BLP talk page, as I have stated on Walker's talk page, but for this...ill-defined and questionable process, if we're counting votes...which is not optimal...count mine as oppose. --Moni3 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

the desired addition
Vaughn Walker -


 * - In February 2010, Walker was the subject of a column in the San Francisco Chronicle, which claimed that it was an "open secret" that Walker is "gay".
 * http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-07/bay-area/17848482_1_same-sex-marriage-sexual-orientation-judge-walker
 * http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/08/06/2010-08-06_judge_vaughn_walkers_sexual_orientation_sparks_ire_over_fairness_on_prop_8_sames.html


 * - Conservative groups seized on the allegations as evidence of bias and called for Walker's impeachment.
 * http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/08/vaughn_walker_impeach.php

consensus

 * - support
 * - User:Ghostmonkey57 - as the user attempting to add it clearly supports it.
 * - User:Jonathanwallace - supports it' - claiming - It is notable and worth adding to the article because its been widely commented on in connection to the case.
 * - User:DGG - "this particular case is unusual, because whether or not he is gay is possibly relevant to his notability, the relationship of it to his career is a matter of public controversy, and the controversy has been reported in multiple reliable sources. Given the reporting, DO NO HARM seems irrelevant. In this case I'd support the inclusion"
 * - User:Cyclopia - supports its inclusion as presented - saying, "its more than gossip."
 * - User:Binksternet - supports a neutral-toned inclusion of Walker's reported homosexuality, keeping to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
 * - User:Metropolitan90 - also appears to support the addition of the presented content.
 * - User:Dezidor - Support the addition of information, the wording can be different and more explaining in details than "the desired addition" and should include names of that conservative groups and their reasoning.


 * - oppose
 * - User:Active Banana - opposes the addition and was the last person to remove it.
 * - User:Off2riorob - opposes the addition - imo as I have said, it is weakly cited sexual speculation.
 * - User:Bbb23 - opposes the addition for same reason as Rob. His sexual orientation is irrelevant to his notability, any more than a black judge's race would be relevant just because he ruled on a discrimination case. For that matter, a straight judge's sexual orientation is irrelevant if he rules on a sexual orientation case. The media reports are gossipy and don't warrant inclusion.
 * - User:Moni3 - opposes any mention of homosexuality

Further comments
Just to be clear, I do believe that the fact that the Chronicle reported that Walker is gay can be mentioned, although I am not necessarily endorsing any particular wording of how this issue should be raised such as the "desired addition" that appears above. In particular, it should be noted that the Chronicle reported this in a regular article, not a column, and that only certain conservative groups called for Walker's impeachment, not conservative groups in general. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * These are good points. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Bbb23: any more than a black judge's race would be relevant just because he ruled on a discrimination case. It looks that race matters in many Wikipedia articles. See all-white jury. Some people believe that all-white juries favoring whites and some people believe that gay judges do not favoring Proposition 8 because of their homosexuality. It is not our mission to judge whether they are right or wrong but inform about relevant facts and points of view. --Dezidor (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So who are these groups? I am not getting much in reliable source searching, apart from this guy Tim Wildmon, the American Family Association's president - who has put in a statement -- "Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself." - here - in fact this whole story seems to go back to this single group and its campaign. As for the claim of a possible impeachment there appears to be no chance at all of that. Also in reply to Ghostofnemo, when I say, "weakly cited" - I meant that if you google this, the only reliable reports are the ones here, it seems to me that many reliable sources in the US have chosen not to report this open secret, and that the national and international reporting of this gay claim or impeachment claim is zero. I would also suggest if an addition is made the claim that it is an open secret - the claims needs clear attribution to whoever claims that. Off2riorob (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The AFA, FRC, FOF, and several other conservative organizations called for the impeachment of Walker. Edward Whelan wrote several columns on Walker and his handling of the Prop 8 affair, further hundreds of mainstream newspapers including the San Jose Mercury News, Washington Times, Washington Post, New York Times, and others reported on the story. I don't know how you are conducting your google searches, but you seem to be missing a whole lot about this story. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, perhaps you are more local - could you please provide those links to support that, and the other links that claim the subject is a well known openly homosexual man. Is the FRC THE Family Research Council, they appear to have been labeled a hate group against homosexuality by that Southern Poverty group? thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * note - As its almost the anniversary of Ghostmonkey57's first addition of this claim of the living persons sexual preference - I should give him or her a barnstar, how focused is that to stay as single purpose account for a whole year to get your desired addition into a BLP.  - here is the users first addition of the edit from one year ago,  - On February 17, 2010, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that he is gay.


 * - honestly - this detail is stale - its a year old - there are no updates in a year - no additional titillations - no impeachment - nothing at all. Off2riorob (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * - That's it. You've tried everything in the book to keep this off the page, but the consensus is clearly against your position. You've now resorting to calling me a SP account, when I've actually been editing since 2005, over a variety of articles. It is true that lurk more than I edit now, simply because of the tiresome process that one must go through, to include even a single line of information, if another poster thinks that it will somehow harm their political cause. As for your contentions about "staleness" they are utterly without merit. The SF Chronicle first reported the story in February of 2010 (although sources in the gay community were reporting things about Walker long before that.) Since then, several hundred stories were posted by a variety of mainstream newspapers in the United States about Walker and Prop 8, especially around the First week of August 2010, when Walker made his decision in the Prop 8 case. Most of the articles referenced the controversy over Walker's orientation, even if in passing. The last batch of big news about walker occurred in September, when he announced his retirement, and even there, his orientation was mentioned: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/09/vaughn_walker_prop_8_judge_ann.php. As for your contentions about impeachment, NO ONE said that impeachment was likely. Impeachment is extremely difficult to accomplish, hence the reason that only a handful of officials have ever been removed via this method. However, the fact that groups were pushing for impeachment is notable. You seem to think that you can invent a new policy on wikipedia, that requires continuing coverage from mainstream newspapers on the orientation of a federal judge who is retiring, and then only if that judge had proclaimed his orientation with a bullhorn, in order for a small part of this story to be put into the article. That simply isn't the policy here. It boils down to this... as written, the [WP:WELLKNOWN]] policy supports this inclusion. The policy has been applied in that manner across many pages here on wikipedia. The consensus here is that the policy supports inclusion. That's it. It's over. It is time to move on. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So what? Old notable "details" are still notable details. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is often an in the moment thing and gets included at the time and later has to be removed as it has no long term value - such as this content - actually it seems like soapboxing to me with no long term value at all - remember the claims are from involved people attempting to slur this living person - opinionated groups the are anti gay attempting to spread rumors about his sexuality in a soapboxing attempt to get him impeached - there was no impeachment and nothing actually happened, it was all a year ago and there is no continuation of the story and imo - its stale and if it ever was worthy of inclusion in a wiki BLP that moment is long gone - this rumor of a mans sexual preference just has no long term notability. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are just wrong here. The Chronicle reported the story in Feb. 2010. The news was again repeated in Aug. 2010. Then again in Sep. 2010. Federal judges simply don't get a lot of press time, unless they are involved in a very notable event, like the Prop 8 trial. Walker will forever be defined by the Prop 8 affair, more than anything else he has ever done in his career. That's just a historic fact. His sexuality was a part of that same affair. That's just history. The policy isn't to require continuing front page stories in order for something to be included. This isn't just a rumor. The judge hasn't denied, and sources, yes MAINSTREAM sources from reliable newspapers, confirm that the judge doesn't even try to hide his orientation. We have consensus here. Since you've now retreated to labeling others as SP accounts, and such, I don't think we can get much further than to just go with the consensus. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't presented those other reports, are there actually any? And you havent clarified who the groups are and provided citation for that either. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that my reasoning for inclusion is not the same as Ghostmonkey57's reasoning, but the result is the same. I cannot imagine why we are squabbling about whether or not to present Walker's alleged homosexuality to the reader after the debate has been covered by AOL News, CBS News (using an Associated Press release), USA Today, Harper's magazine, the Sacramento Bee, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, The Bay Citizen, and lastly (leastly) Stanford's student newspaper, The Daily Cardinal. (See Talk:Vaughn R. Walker for URLs.) We are wa-a-ay beyond do no harm, squarely in WP:WELLKNOWN territory. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet's version
"On January 11, 2010, Walker began hearing arguments for Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The case was a federal-constitutional challenge to California Proposition 8, a voter initiative constitutional amendment that eliminated the right of same sex couples to marry, a right which had previously been granted after the California Supreme Court found that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional.[13] In February, two columnists at the San Francisco Chronicle wrote that Walker, who they said has 'never taken pains to disguise—or advertise—his [sexual] orientation', would not be influenced by his own homosexuality in his decision regarding same-sex marriages.[14] Proponents of Proposition 8, including the American Family Association and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), said that Walker was biased on the issue. NOM chair Maggie Gallagher said that Walker was 'substituting his views for those of the American people'.[15] Larry Levine, a professor at the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, said of the matter, 'I think it's profoundly offensive to suggest that a judge who is not of the sexual orientation of the majority or the race of the majority or the religion of the majority is unfit to hear the case.'[16] On August 4, 2010, Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional 'under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses,' and enjoined (prohibited) its enforcement.[17][18]

13:

14:

15:

16:

17:

18:"

I think this version brings the Walker dispute into the mainstream, with neutral quotes from significant players, beginning with the Matier & Ross piece in the SF Chronicle. This version is not an attack on Walker—it is a statement of the dispute including criticism and defense of Walker. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't reiterate my objections to the material. However, I would point out that despite the chronological recounting of the issue, there is a lingering inference that Walker ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional because of his alleged sexual orientation. The beginning of the case and the ending of the case become bookends with the sexual stuff in between. I would favor discussing the case from beginning to end and then separately addressing the orientation issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Despite what it may appear here or on Walker's talk page, I keep trying to think of the best way to write this passage and present it. In this, I keep coming up wrong. Introducing this issue, by the standards of clear and best writing practices must present the facts this way: "In February, two columnists at the San Francisco Chronicle wrote that Walker's sexual orientation is an "open secret", intoning that he is gay. Walker has declined to address the rumors in the press." And then on to the NOM comments...


 * Your version skips over that in order to get to the heart of the WP:WELLKNOWN issue. It can't. It's confusing. But by adding it, it just spreads the same unfounded claims. That's what keeps me so uncomfortable. --Moni3 (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your change is the better version. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Without sounding like an arrogant git, ha, yes, I think the addition of introducing the "open secret" part of the issue reads better, but I can't reconcile that with BLP. I know WELLKNOWN enters into the comments made by the NOM, but they cannot be addressed unless Wikipedia repeats the "open secret" gossip. I'm again back to the issue of Richard Gere. He's famous for acting and rumors about shenanigans with a small mammal, printed everywhere, making that also WELLKNOWN. --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference between Gere and Walker, is that the San Francisco Chronicle didn't report the Gere allegations. I still have yet to have someone explain to me why the Chronicle should be a less reliable source than the Outrage! film. I further have yet to have a single person address why the numerous allegations in various right of center politicians wikipages are perfectly OK. Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing that that information shouldn't be included. Indeed, WP:WELLKNOWN is the rule, and the information fits within the rule. My point is that if WP:WELLKNOWN is the rule, then it MUST be enforced uniformly across Wikipedia, or the policy needs to be changed. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with BBB--case first, orientation stuff after. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there another source, which is not citing the first instance of the two reporters at the SF Chronicle? IOW, are there many sources, or one source cited many times? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know of no reliable source--a newspaper, not a blog or some obviously politically affiliated publication--that treats Walker's sexual orientation, identity, or behavior as fact. They only speculate, repeat rumors, or use the "open secret" phrasing. --Moni3 (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong, the LA Times reported on the story separately, and on their opinion pages, treated the allegation as a categorical fact: http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/08/proposition-8-judge-walker-and-our-short-memories.html. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Every one that people presented last fall cited back to the SF Chronicle. Those brought up in the recent re-hash appear to be the same ones.Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Chronicle wasn't the only newspaper. So did the LA Times. "The San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times have reported that Walker is gay. The judge has neither confirmed nor denied those reports." Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bbb23 and Jonathanwallace that Walker's involvement with the Prop 8 case, from start to finish, needs to be discussed first, with issues relating to his sexual orientation being discussed separately. I would also note that the San Francisco Chronicle article in question was not a column, but a reported news article. (As an aside, I would further note that there are various possible factual situations which could be true regarding Walker between on the one hand "he's unbiased" and "he's biased because he's gay". For all we know, Walker might have been biased because he has gay relatives, friends, or neighbors, or because he thought he would have a better chance of getting a job in private practice or academia by deciding in favor of same-sex marriage, without being gay himself.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

William Atherton
I posted a completely new and longer prose portion of the bio on William Atherton on Sunday 2/8. The one that has long been up is inaccurate, incomplete, has an undertone of opinion that is not respectful and is basically filled with wrong dates and other factual errors. I am baffled that when I went online to check it today, the old version was restored by "Astronaut" in the UK. I am not sure why he feels that the restored bio is so verifiable because I represent Atherton in this instance and we can tell you that the facts presented in it are inaccurate. The new bio is accurate, richer in detail and presents the actor in a more complete way. In part, Mr. Atherton provided me with the correct dates, production details and any stories described in it and I put it into prose form. He respects Wikipedia and the service it provides readers and would like any information on him to be thorough and accurate as well as respectful in tone. I don't feel that that is what the restored bio does.

I admit I have had difficulty preparing links and copied most of them from the restored bio. Several new ones I was able to create on my own. I encountered formatting issues simply because I have not done this before. Some new material has not been known previously or is 30-40 years old and there is nothing online to provide a link to verify it. Additionally, I had much difficulty getting links I did copy, to stick. When I went back and checked, I found my text but many links were removed. I restored them several times. Additionally, I have thoroughly read your biographies of living persons policy as well as concerns regarding authorship when you know the person being written about. I can assure you this bio meets those policies, is neutral, and is without the kind of opinion that is present in the restored bio.

I would like to address whatever concerns editors may have, but I need to know what they are. I assume the version I posted is in the 'history' and can be compared if necessary to the one that was restored. If not, I will need some help in preparing the diff.

Please have someone contact me at to advise me so we may ultimately correct whatever needs to be done and re-post the newer bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassidyboy (talk • contribs) 01:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read: WP:COI, WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V to start with. Reliable sources must be cited. Personal knowledge or instructions from the subject are not a reliable source. – ukexpat (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Ghostbusters anecdote, as despite it being part of the movie that even I remember, it's undue weight for the bio and, more importantly, it's currently unsourced.
 * Cassidyboy, as for the rest, you should add your ideas on the talk page for the article. As ukexpat points out, we can't use personal recollections, we need sources. However, one common misunderstanding is that the sources don't necessarily have to be available online - just so long as they exist and are independent and reliable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and verifiable. – ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but the point being, it doesn't have to be available online for it to be verifiable. WP:SOURCEACCESS is clear about it. There is commonly confusion about this; I recently saw a BLP article author actually delete some of the citations to published independent references that they had previously added to their own article, purely because the article was AfD'd after discussion here and the comments made here and at AfD gave them the impression that because the source wasn't online, mentioning it in the article was likely to lead to deletion. (When in fact the opposite was the case.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilyas Kaduji
Articles for deletion/Ilyas Kaduji

I'm possibly jumping the gun here, but what appears to be a WP:SPA has jumped into the AfD discussion and started making claims about rumoured real world legal cases and police investigations involving the subject. This is in response to another user asserting that they are innocent. Frankly the person doesn't look notable enough to have an article anyway and will probably be deleted at the end of the AfD, but I'm worried that WP:BLP issues might arise in the AfD, which of course is kept after the delete. I'm not sure how WP:BLP applies in project space, the guidelines are a bit vague (unless I've been looking in the wrong place), so I thought it best to err on the side of caution.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP most likely would be considered applicable in project space; I've heard a few editors say so and it makes logical and ethical sense. However, given that its disfavored to redact other people's comments on noticeboards, I would personally try to get an admin to do it. I took a look at the AFD discussion and agree with you the editor in question has crossed a line. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber
I previously nominate this article for speedy deletion (db-g10) due to sources being misused and the fact that the page has an increasingly negative tone and appears to be biased.

The speedy deletion nomination was since removed.

Sources are referred to in the section [Business Interested] that are mis quoted and in some cases assertions are made that are not backed up by the sources.

The article is also biased as looking in to this individuals history there are clearly a number of positive topics that are not mentioned in the article.

It appears to have been hijacked with the sole purpose to discredit the individual.

There are also a number of speculations relating to information that may be harmful to the individual.

I would recommend that the article is speedied as no one seems to be interested in making the article compliant with the bio guidelines.

It has been flagged as both needing citations and advertisement for an extended period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweboi (talk • contribs) 11:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Notable Saudi billionaire on Forbes list. The article has been nominated for deletion based on the same argument that it should go because not well enough sourced etc. The solution is to fix it, not delete it. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Christian Baracat
Propose deletion as irrelevant and not sufficiently newsworthy. The individual in question would like to request its deletion for privacy reasons and the fact that it affects his current professional reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robccfc (talk • contribs) 13:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As the author of the article, I have removed the deletion template because I can not see anything critical on the article that could "affect his current professional reputation". The article has a number of sources and references, is about a German rugby union international that has played in rugby union world cup qualifiers and is, to my believe, notable. Calistemon (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * NB if the subject of the article has issues with it, the appropriate way to raise them is set out at WP:BIOSELF. Having said that, I do not see anything in the article that rises to that level. – ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look like there are any RS which establish notability, probably should be deleted. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 18:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability (sports) states that players which "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics" are notable. To me, the European Nations Cup (rugby union) fulfills this requirement as it is a major international amateur competition and the highest level Germany competes in at a regular base.
 * User:Robccfc has contacted me and, rather politely, stated that Christian Baracat wishes his page deleted. As Robccfc is an established user I have no reason to doubt his statement and I'm unsure as what to do. Should I nominate the article for deletion myself? Calistemon (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would say AfD it; notability is borderline. Would make it a lot easier if Christian Baracat were prepared to identify himself via WP:OTRS and repeat the request there (although it wouldn't necessarily guarantee it). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggested as much to Robccfc. As another option, I offered for him to contact me via email and request a deletion. As the creator and only contributor, I can nominate it for speedy deletion under G7. As notability goes, the article easily meets the guidline of WikiProject Rugby union (see:Criteria guideline for article inclusion) which requires only one test match appearance to be notable, and Baracat had five. Calistemon (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Justin Meacham
Article Justin Meacham includes detailed information about the subject's alleged mental illness and suicide attempt, all of it unsourced. -- JN 466  16:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've deleted it; extra eyes welcome. -- JN 466  16:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unsourced BLP, some nasty BLP issues, not much of anything in the way of reliable secondary sources that I can find at first glance, perhaps this should be heading to deletion? --j &#9883; e deckertalk to me 17:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a little more if you look under his stage name, "Justin Sane". Having played in three notable bands, he is entitled to a BLP per WP:MUSICBIO. So we could have a go at writing something sourced. But it should be short and to the point. -- JN 466  18:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All the references I saw were to Justin Sane, the punk rocker, who appears to be a different person, but if you saw more, I'll take your word for it. (If I'm confused on the question of them being the same person, then we should merge the articles.) --j &#9883; e deckertalk to me 18:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They are two different persons. All I find on this one is this:     It's not much; perhaps AfD is the way to go. -- JN  466  19:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * See Articles_for_deletion/Justin_Meacham -- JN 466  20:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin Amis
someone's inserted children's literature in the bio:

a British novelist, the author of some of Britain's lowest brow children's literature, including —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.46.169.63 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the edit. In the future you can always step in to edit the article yourself! --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Kranti Kanade
The article appears to be written by the filmmaker himself and is clearly a PR exercise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.154.79 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It needs some work but he is probably notable, if the sources check out. You can edit it yourself if you wish or propose it for deletion and see who objects.Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Damiano
is a professional Playwright, Actor & Poet, based in New York City. Born Damiano F. Camporeale in Point Pleasant, NJ on June 30th, 1970, he studied acting briefly at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in the late 80's. As a playwright, his plays have been the recipient of the Christopher Brian Wolk Award, an Off-Off Broadway Review Critics Choice Award for Excellence, Grand Prize from the Attic Theatre Ensemble in Los Angeles and, most recently, the Silver Stage Award, presented by the Old Opera House Theatre Company in West Virginia. He has also been a 2-time Finalist for the Playwrights First Award, sponsored by the National Arts Club in NYC and a Finalist for the Y.E.S. Festival of New Plays Award, sponsored by the University of Northern Kentucky.

Some of his plays of note; Dreams of Friendly Aliens (2007), produced by the Abingdon Theatre Company in NYC. Winner Christopher Brian Wolk Award (2004, Playwrights First Award Finalist, Backstage Critics Pick)

The Narrow World, produced by Fresh Baked Theatre Company in Los Angeles, 2010. Y.E.S. Festival of New Plays Award Finalist, 2008.

The Enlightenment of Mrs. Cartwell, 2009 Estrogenius Producers Choice in NYC at Manhattan Theatre Source, published in the 2009 Estrogenius Anthology. Winner of the Silver Stage Award, presented by the Old Opera House Theatre Company in 2009.

The Offspring of Lorraine, produced by Mutt Repp in NYC, Off-Off Broadway Review Critics Choice Award, 1998/99.

Other Plays include; The Golden Year (2010) ''The Dishonorable Discharge of Private Pitts (2009) ''Day of the Dog (2008/Playwrights First Award Finalist, 2009) Graphic Nature (2006) The Old Wife's Tale (2000) Fate Would Have It (1999) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.134.253 (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you may want Requested articles. Be sure to provide some third party reliable sources to show that the subject meets the notability requirements for a stand alone article. Active Banana    (bananaphone  21:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * - This is the wrong location to suggest article creation - WP:Article creation - is a good place for that - I also left you a template of helpful links on your talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

shunsuke nakamura
it seems as though someone has written this biography up with very poor english skills. it is not of encyclopedia standards but rather fan made jibberish. with absolutely NO CITATIONS or SOURCES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.12.144 (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This would appear to be incorrect - I'm looking at a relatively well-written article with a good depth of sourcing and external links. Could you provide a specific example of what you believe to be the problem? --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A useful resource some editors may not know about is the articles for translation page where you can request attention from bilingual editors.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * English usage in the article looks fine, he spent much of his career in Europe including Scotland so it should have had plenty of attention from English-speaking editors. There are some subjective unattributed statements such as "Nakamura became an instant influence at the club, scoring a fantastic goal in his debut" and "The new coach immediately brought the talented player back to the national team" which either need attribution or toning down, and a few gaps in the sourcing but nothing major. January (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Jacgue Fresco
and - User:Thetaxmancometh

A disputed addition by this user has a few objections on the talkpage, they assert the way the user is presenting the addition is undue and presents the subject incorrectly, please take a moment to look there, you can see the objections from here down - I attempted to ask the user to move to discussion after they reverted the content back and left a request to move to discussion on their talkpage. I was unsuccessful - the user replaced the content with the edit summary -  it isn't improperly sourced and it will be put back each time it is removed - here is the content and the citation he is adding - Off2riorob (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * - Fresco was interviewed in New Zealand in 2010 on the television program, Close Up. In that interview, Fresco & Roxanne Meadows both state that Fresco "joined the Klan in order to change them". Meadows states, "He joined the Ku Klux Klan and changed them within a month and a half. Then joined the White Citizens Council and changed them." In the same interview, Fresco states, "First, that leader states, what do you think of the Ku Klux Klan. I said, it's a great idea, but it doesn't go far enough".


 * - http://dotsub.com/view/fbb6f0bc-2c70-4708-a063-27b9c81d219f

comments
Also - looking at his edit history and contributions there appears a similarity between him and this blocked indefinitely vandal only account...

* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Icanseethefnords


 * - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thetaxmancometh

I struck this comment as I made a SPI and the outcome was unrelated. Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The source is a video submission site a la Youtube. I didn't watch the 25 minute video but a purported transcript there contains the statements. However, by "doesn't go far enough" he apparently does not mean "should be more violent" as the transcript continues with a rambling story about how he brought compassion to the Klan. Assuming this is Fresco--and it looks like him--he question, already discussed at WP:RSN I think, is whether under WP:PRIMARY or possibly WP:SPS, an interview is a reliable source for the assertion "he says he joined the Klan with the intention of changing it", or does that constitute self serving statements which would require a third party source. I think its a close one. If someone says "I joined the Klan" in a verifiable interview, we should be able to use that in the form "says he joined the Klan". But if he did join, his intentions for doing so are unverifiable and an interview might be self serving. If he genuinely joined the Klan to change it (a strange assertion) then just saying "joined the Klan" without more, might harm him. On the whole, its probably easiest to exclude the information, as a non-notable, non-verifiable assertion, if it can't be related to third party sources--as we certainly would if anyone else had said it. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * - http://dotsub.com/ is not a WP:RS for anything. I totally agree, what we are looking for as editors here is a report of this , even better is multiple reports in clear WP:RS locations to assert some real notability and then we can report on those reports. I also agree, the content is WP:SPS and a bit self serving and without secondary reports or any verification. Off2riorob (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

HIV trial in Libya
I think this page is dangerous from a BLP perspective: It gives way too much weight to the WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories espoused by Libya, thus making the nurses - who are, of course, BLPs - look far worse than the evidence merits. (crossposted to WP:FTN, as both types of expertise are likely needed here) Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * On the whole, this verbose, rambling page (which could use some pruning) tells the whole story fairly (Libyan allegations, Western commentary, defenses of innocence, allegations the defendants were tortured). If someone is tried on "fringey" charges there is no way to tell the otherwise notable story without thoroughly describing the fringe elements, and I don't think the article does more than that. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do think that it inadvertently presents the fringiness as truth in some points, and does a bad job of separating the fringe claims from the more reliably-sourced facts. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An edit cutting away a lot of the duplication and cruft will probably address both our concerns. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
Death was reported in one source but the news has not appeared on any other news site (as far as I can see), and the report has been discredited by AFP. Also, another story on the same first source makes it highly suspect

The death date was added in the lede, the infobox, and a section "Death" stated about this report. Those have all been removed, and the article fully semi-protected for a few days (thanks Brian). (c/e,  Chzz  ► 11:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC))

Diff shows info removed:

Note, it was protected for similar reasons just a few days ago.

No action required right now due to prot, and I think we've removed it all. But, please keep an eye on it. Cheers.  Chzz  ► 10:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I endorse this as a timely report.  My 76 Strat  12:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Scott_Walker_(politician)
A user of the name Thorlother is repeatedly adding extremely opinionated information to the article. The 2011 section has been added and removed multiple times. Can someone take some sort of administrative action?

Addition of 2011 section

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Walker_(politician)&action=historysubmit&diff=413411324&oldid=413404820

Anonymous (though likely the same guy) addition of another section

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Walker_(politician)&action=historysubmit&diff=413429477&oldid=413421888

Posting 2011 section again after removal

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Walker_(politician)&action=historysubmit&diff=413441833&oldid=413436286

More opinions

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Walker_(politician)&action=historysubmit&diff=413485150&oldid=413480136

Also note, with successive edits, the user has taken Walker's alleged GPA down from a 2.59 to a 2.39 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.10.216 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not the place obtain Administrator attention as most of the editors here are not Administrators. You could post here if you feel an Administrator is needed. However, I think, given the situation, Admin attention is premature and this noticeboard is the proper place for now.  Firstly, conflicting styles, personalities and perspectives are an everyday part of WP. That is why we have talk pages, so that editors can discuss and come to agreement or compromise.  Therefore I suggest you create a thread on the talk page and post a note on the other editors User Talk page and invite him to join the discussion.  You can then explain to him that WP likes its text to be referenced to reliable sources and that that is especially true on BLP's (see WP:BLP}.  If the discussion stalls then you can ask editors from this noticeboard to come and join the discussion and achieve a consensus. If the other editor won't recognize and adopt the consensus than you would have grounds to post here  and ask an Admin to issue a warning. Does that make sense?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 15:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand your opinion, Keithbob, but disagree with it and have indefinitely blocked the account in question for political POV-pushing and libellous editorialising. CIreland (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As you wish. You likely made a deeper investigation of the issue than I and are better informed. In the meantime I have reviewed the entire article and made copy edits and organizational changes to improve the neutrality and tone of the article. I have also posted on the talk page saying I am open to discussing and improving the article with other editors. Thanks for your help. Cheers!--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Heurelho Gomes
Under Club career section there is some offensive text. I have tried to edit this, but when opening the section to edit, the offensive text does not appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britatkinson (talk • contribs) 19:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I have fixed this, but I have no idea what was going on. The offensive text was reverted by Cluebot almost immediately, but was still visible in subsequent revisions. (It was visible in the source HTML of the rendered page, but not in the wikitext of the page itself.)
 * Anyway I have reverted back to the version before the vandal's original revision - which should be identical to what was there after Cluebot made its change, but isn't - and it seems to have fixed the problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And now neither my change nor the original problem are apparent. OK, I'm confused lol. But problem seems to be solved, thanks for letting us know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Genpo Merzel
Please see what's happening at Dennis Genpo Merzel. Apparently, there has been an edit war brewing for some time now, that I happened to have fallen right into. The article history (besides a bunch of puffery and some unverified statements about marriages and stuff) contains a pretty egregious BLP violation. But see for yourself, please. I have already emailed Oversight, but the more eyes, the better. Perhaps I'm completely wrong. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There's not much left in the article. Is there still a BLP violation, in your view? BTW, what is the source for the birth date?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I was worried that it might turn into a prolonged back and forth; it didn't. I saw you had reinstated some information that another editor (out of spite, I think) had removed, and while not all of that was properly sourced, they hardly constituted BLP violations. So I have no issue with the article as it is (I hope the BLP sources tag is still there). I looked around for sources and added two--I did not find anything with a birth date. But as you can see from the history, I have not edited the article before and am not familiar with the material. Thanks for your help and your interest, Drmies (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Axl Rose
The second sentence of Axl's Bio states: "He is the only remaining original member of that band." This is false, all of the members of Guns N' Roses are alive today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.202.130 (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. That would mean he is the only original one who is still IN the band. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Serzh Sargsyan
someone has inserted the libellous title "էշ ղարաբաղցի" between President Serzh Sargsyan's first and last name, so that his name appears as "Serzh էշ ղարաբաղցի Sargsyan" on the article. "էշ ղարաբաղցի" means "the Karabakh donkey" or "the donkey of Karabakh". This same title is also used for Sargsyan's predecessor, former President Robert Kocharyan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.12.186 (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted the changes as unexplained. I have no idea what the words mean.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

mike summerbee
deragotary remarks posted under the heading sex life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwill17 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the report, I have removed the material, which any Wikipedia user can do. CIreland (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj
This BLP is quite 'high-maintenence'.

I'm suggesting we start a FAQ page, which may help.

Talk:Nicki_Minaj

Please, if possible, help with it. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 15:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Krystal Ball
Hi -

I am working with Krystal Ball and it appears that another masked IP user is editing the page with untrue information and biased tone. In the Political Campaigns section, there is untrue information on where her political donations came from and the nature of her husband's business. In the Controversial Photos section, the inaccuracies stem from bias in the tone of the writing and by omissions of certain aspects of the episode.

There is also quite a bit of new information on what Krystal Ball is doing now, however, because this page has been targeted before and because I am connected to the person in question, I didn't want to just re-write the page.

I removed one paragraph in the business history section that implied she made money illegally and used that to pay for her campaign. you can see the diff here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Krystal_Ball&diff=413728865&oldid=413186874

Any help on how to move forward would be helpful, thanks

Hoftie (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)hoftie


 * It looks like Bbb23 and Midlakewinter are doing a good job cleaning up the article, and the IP address that inserted the (very) poorly sourced and biased material received a mild warning a few days ago. You are right to be cautious about making major enhancements to the page since you have a conflict of interest, however you may wish to make suggestions for further changes on the talk page for the article, especially any independent reliable sources that would be useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael Garner
You have got the wrong Paul Hamilton in this artical about the actor Michael Garner - he is married to the Northern Irish actress Paula Hamilton and not the ex-model Paula Hamilton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.134.75 (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I fixed it, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Donald Trump
BLP dispute re Trump's purported religion.
 * - Inability to engage with User:Bbrezic in good faith debate

The following links show the
 * refusal by editor Bbrezic to engage in discussion on his talk page
 * refusal by editor Bbrezic to engage on Trump talk page

The sections titled "Reformed Church in America?" and "Need Citation that Donald Trump is Catholic" contain extensive discussions regarding the issue of religion, Trump's parents and grandparents and siblings' known religious affiliations, his church attendance at Marble Collegiate, his divorces, etc., which taken in sum make it nearly impossible, unless he has converted, of which no evidence exists, that Trump is, in fact, Catholic.

An example of comprehensive research which User:Bbrezic simply ignores is as follows: "According to a number of biographies, Donald Trump's parents were both longtime members of Marble Collegiate Church. Trump married Ivana Winklmayr at Marble Collegiate (New York magazine 10/15/1990). Dr. Arthur Caliandro, minister of Marble Collegiate, performed his wedding to Marla Maples in 1993 (New York Times 12/21/1993). Maples said she met him at Marble Collegiate. His most recent wedding was at an Episcopal church. Trump's father's funeral was at Marble Collegiate (NY Daily News 6/16/1999) as was his mother's (NY Daily News 6/26/1999). He clearly was raised Protestant. What is the source for identifying him as Catholic? Thanks. User:Bebill, 23:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)"

Summation
Cindy Adams is not a reliable source and her article simply says four words: "The Trumps are Catholic," offering no proof whatever. Likewise, although of higher calibre, The Daily Telegraph article in question provides no evidence whatever for its five word, one line comment that Trump is Roman Catholic, and is, in my opinion, mistaken. Likewise, the site known as www.catholicvote.org asserts that Trump is Catholic, but like the other examples there is no direct quote whatever from Trump to back this up, even though the issue deals with Trump's possible candidacy in 2012 for POTUS and the extremely important issue of abortion.

I have made Google searches for any solid or first-hand evidence of anyone in the Trump family's denominational preference and aside from the above, seriously flawed in my opinion, examples, I have come up empty handed. No church membership, no mass attendance, no denominational schooling, no indication of religiosity at all.

I am willing to admit if I am wrong re Trump or if I have erred in my way of handling this, but given the importance of Wikipedia in disseminating information, which is copied or relayed via myriad mirror sites worldwide, or cited, I think the matter is important enough to be reviewed here. I will notify his/her talkpage of my raising this BLP matter here. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Views

 * From Politicsdaily, Catholicvote.org "identified Trump as a Catholic, but he is apparently a member of the Dutch Reformed Church." Politics Daily appears to me to be a reliable source. The article should not say "Trump is a Catholic", given reports to the contrary and the lack of statements by Trump identifying his own affiliation. Nor can we delete reliably sourced references to him being a Catholic; your opinion the sources are "seriously flawed" is your own synthesis based on the evidence. My proposed neutral/compromise solution: a statement such as "Donald Trump, who has been reported in some sources to be Catholic (references here), is according to Politicsdaily, 'apparently a member of the Dutch Reformed Church'." Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, Jonathan. I agree that the "article should not say 'Trump is a Catholic'" but that is what the editor with whom I am having this dispute has done. I updated the article in line with your recommendations. Perhaps you could watchlist the Trump page so as to monitor any possible edit warring. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What??? Either he is a Catholic or he isn't a Catholic. BLPs shouldn't be used to gather up every unsubstantiated quote just because it is a quote. John lilburne (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In all honesty I must admit I also agree with this. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised at the assertion that it would be either black or white. For a sense of how much ambiguity there is in relation to whether someone is Jewish, see Who is a Jew; I suspect one can find similar ambiguity about being Catholic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Either he is a Catholic or he isn't a Catholic". Its rarely that simple, and since he apparently hasn't self identified in public, and we can't read his mind (any assertion to the contrary would violate WP:FRINGE and WP:OR simultaneously), reporting what contradictory reliable sources have said is the right way to go. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If your sources are contradictory, then they are not reliable in this matter. I thought BLP says you should only ascribe religious affiliation if he self identifies. I was Christened CofE, my mother is Roman Catholic. I went to a CofE run school in London. During much of my 11th year I went along to the Synagogue with my friend on Saturday mornings, we went fishing afterwards. I attended Baptist services and discussion groups at the Manse during my early teenage years, and I used to get the top marks in school examines on Religion. From the age of 10 I've always considered myself to be an Atheist. John lilburne (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We just reflect reliable sources, its not our place as editors to draw conclusions. If the reliable sources are ambivalent than we reflect that in the article.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 14:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But Keithbob -- we as editors need to be responsible before propagating unfounded or questionable assertions as fact since way too many people get their information from Wikipedia. Though not directly related to the Trump matter, I would point out the increasing use of blogs, MySpace and YouTube as cited references/sources in BLP-related articles. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am only editing the Donald Trump page in accordance with Wikipedia rules, and Wikipedia rules state that Daily Telegraph is a reliable source. Yet you, have updated the article once again today with out any consensus, only with recommendation from John lilburne. Your only proof that Trump isn't Catholic is you own personal belief that you suspect the UK Telegraph is mistaken. What is that? So now, your own personal beliefs are placed in front of reliable sources, prescribed by Wikipedia standards. Since when does a person has to attend a certain Church to be characterized as a member of that Church? We have the example of Patricia Heaton, who was raised as a devout Catholic and yet she attends a Presbyterian Church with her family. Despite that, Heaton claims she is still a Catholic.--Bbrezic (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You are not an automatum! You are meant to be applying common sense and assessing the worth of each source you use. A guide to that is whether the source is generally reliable, but it does not follow that it is always reliable in every instant. Two reliable source that differ on a point of fact cannot both be reliable on the fact in question. Either one or the other has to give. That is not the same as having two differing sources on a matter of opinion then you can quote both. But in this instance by giving equal weight to both 'facts' all that is being imparted is that he probably doesn't have a shrine dedicated to Quetzalcoatl. John lilburne (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bbrezic -- I accept that defining people by religion, which is not something I did to initiate all this, rather Eversman did, can be ambiguous. However, Patricia Heaton's religious beliefs and background are known and understood. Has anyone ever heard Donald Trump say a word about any Catholic or even religious beliefs? Any quote, anywhere, ever....? Trump reportedly declared himself pro life in what is a transparent attempt to position himself, as I pointed out somewhere, as a possible POTUS candidate in 2012. Again - nowhere anywhere is there any reference to any religious beliefs he has ever held in his entire life until very recently when this notion that he is Catholic surfaced because he claims he is "pro life". Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * John lilburne says: a) "If your sources are contradictory, then they are not reliable in this matter" and b) "BLP says you should only ascribe religious affiliation if he self identifies". I am not aware of any WP policy that supports either of these two statements. If I am incorrect, could someone please provide a link to the appropriate section of WP:BLP? Secondly, I don't believe that the sources are contradictory anyway, since one's religious affiliation may change and The Daily Telegraph says in Oct 2010 that Trump is Catholic and the Daily Politics says in Feb 2011 that Trump is "apparently" something else. I am OK with both sources/religions (and it appears that uninvolved editor Jonathanwallace is also) being reported in the article but if someone put a gun to my head adn I had to pick (and I don't think I/we do) I would choose The Daily Telegraph as the most reliable source because it is more well known and it doesn't waffle like the Daily Politics which uses the word "apparently". However, that said, I am OK having both sources/religions in the article as long as the sources are attributed and the wording from Daily Politics is in quotes, as it is right now.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you try WP:BLPCAT and if you aren't supposed to categorize and list people without them self identifying why would you think that sticking the nonsense in somewhere else would be OK? In any case the Daily Politics site references the Catholic Voice site which claims he is ex-Catholic. So rather then putting in maybe he is maybe he isn't crap why not wait until he self identifies. John lilburne (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the policy you had in mind when you made your statement about Trump needing to self identifying his religion. I don't agree with your application of WP:BLPCAT policy to the entire article since it is specific to Categories which label a person. I also don't think that text in an article based on reliable sources should be called "sticking the nonsense in somewhere else". That said, I appreciate your opinion and respect your position. Let's see what other uninvolved editors have to say. Thanks.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 17:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is absolute correct -- BLPCAT applies to categories (and now infoboxes) but not to the text of an article, where it is possible to address matters of nuance and interpretation as necessary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Rms125, Please do not put words in my mouth. I said: "we just reflect reliable sources". I did not say that I supported "unfounded or questionable assertions as fact" or that personal blogs, MySpace and YouTube were reliable sources for BLP articles.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keithbob -- I sincerely apologize. That wasn't my intention. I was trying, and clearly I failed, to just kind of tie together the different forms of unreliable media whose assertions are often mistaken for fact. Please accept my apologies. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, I make mistakes too. Thank you for your note! :-)--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Kai Bird
I notice that someone has added a highly critical even libelous quotation from Benny Morris to the entry "Kai BIrd." I think this quote is unfair and should be taken down. At the very least it should be balanced with quotes from many of the highly favorable reviews my memoir has received. And you might add the fact that the book has recently been named a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award.

Kai Bird

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.244.98 (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would agree about balance, this seemed a very odd addition. I've just removed it, although it could perhaps go back in (but without a cite to blogspot, which is not a reliable source) if balanced with other views. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It was reliably sourced to The New Republic. Benny Morris is a notable Israeli historian, and the review goes into very substantial detail as to the problems he perceives with Bird's book. I re-added a briefer version of the edit, balanced by a good review from Christopher Hitchens. WP:PRESERVE says: "Try to fix problems...preserve appropriate content". Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's try to fix the problem. I see there still being a problem of balance. That's what needs to be fixed - aside from the obvious problems of WP:RECENTISM, such as the question of why his other three books don't receive mention of this type. Were they not reviewed anywhere? Or just not perceived as useful in the endless Middle East POV-fest ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no dog in this hunt--truly uninvolved editor unfamiliar with either Bird or Morris, who got involved because of the posting here. I have no problem with adding reviews of other books, or if you want to propose tweaks to the language I added, lets discuss. Oh, and I don't see how recentism applies--the Morris review is the latest in a series of reviews of the book going back about a year. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting you're part of the POV-fest, of course.


 * As regards recentism, my point was that if we are being genuinely encyclopedic, then books written in 1992 or 1998 are no less significant in the author's biography than one written in 2010. Possibly the earlier books didn't receive as much secondary coverage, but if that's just because more people want to write opinion pieces about the Middle East, or because there was less internet coverage of such things in the 90's, then it's a distorted picture. Quite aside from which, the 2010 book is seemingly as much a memoir as a historical or biographical work, so is less significant than the earlier works in any case.


 * Coming back to the discussion of the book itself, the Morris quote is extremely strong - almost accusing the author of falsification or similar - whereas the Hitchens quote is extremely weak and really indicates little more than that the book is fun to read (which does nothing to challenge Morris' comment). If we can't find a reliably sourced quote that presents the opposing view to Morris, how would you feel about having a second "positive" quote to balance things out? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Two positive quotes is fine with me. In the short while I spent looking at this, I found mainly mixed reviews (NY Times, Washpost) so Hitchens was the best I found. I agree adding reviews of earlier books as well is a good idea. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if perhaps a different quote might be taken from Morris' review, one which is less inflammatory and more informative to the reader. That Morris is critical is surely noteworthy, and I doubt if Mr. Bird would object to including that criticism.  But cherry picking the most outrageous statement (and, read literally, surely false)  strikes me as premature at best.  If it later emerges that the criticism is reasonable and the consensus of other historians, then of course it must be added.  But right now it strikes me as insufficiently grounded to be the best possible quote we could use.  What we are telling the reader right now is practically of no value at all: that it is a memoir and history, and that another historian has said something outrageous about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * [Addendum] Ugh, even worse, I see that our quote is an outrageous misquote of the review. "Israeli historian Benny Morris writes that 'practically nothing that Bird tells his readers about the Arab-Zionist conflict conforms with the facts of history'."  The actual text reads: "From this point on, to the best of my knowledge, practically nothing that Bird tells his readers about the Arab-Zionist conflict conforms with the facts of history."  The "From this point on" qualifier is quite important in the overall context.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As you suggested, I substituted a different quote from the Morris review. Just to clarify things which may not need clarification: I am not the editor who originally added the Morris material, but an uninvolved one who saw the original posting here and tried to help. I did miss the "From this point on" distinction, though. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Lee Kuan Yew
Kindly clarify which information is correct : Did he or did he not work for the Japanese ?

1) From Wikipedia written in Chinese Language, it did not state that Lee Kuan Yew was able to find work transcribing Allied wire reports for the Japanese.

2) However, information taken from Wikipedia in English Language, it stated clearly that he was able to find a transcribing work and also as a English-language editor from the Japanese.

From Wikipedia in English Language : Early Life ................Having taken Chinese and Japanese lessons since 1942, he was able to find work transcribing Allied wire reports for the Japanese, as well as being the English-language editor on the Japanese Hodobu (報道部 — an information or propaganda department) from 1943 to 1944.[5][8]

We hope that the respective editing department verify the source in English language before making necessary editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.84 (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The information in the article is party confirmed by the Time magazine source (which says only he worked for the Japanese but not in what capacity) and fully confirmed in this book which appears to be a reliable source.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Leonel Fernández
The section Criticisms and corruption allegations] reads like an essay and appears to reach far beyond what the sources say, particularly using weasel words like "widespread" and "increased". Neither claim appears in the sources. I notice too that there is an unsourced claim in the lede "There has been a great deal of criticism about government corruption during his tenures."

This section was inserted by an anon here.

I think this should all be removed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It just appears to be partisan attack content - perhaps with stronger citations a sentence might be worthy of reporting - there was an investigation but no indictment - most of its cited to - via - the free libary see here - as its written I support its removal also.note - I trimmed it quite a bit. Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes three of us. So I removed what was left :) --Errant (chat!) 09:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)