Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive13

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Michael Savage (commentator) – Inactive. – 01:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Michael Savage (commentator)

 * - Discussion alludes to lawsuit involving content in his biography and it was apparently mentioned on the radio show. Probably deserves a review as well as a close watching of the article.  --Tbeatty 06:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We need more editors watching this page and checking for inaccuracies/unverified claims and overall NPOV coverage of Savage's controversial commentaries on a plethora of subjects. In addition, we need people to be on the lookout in case since further threats of a "lawsuit" are mentioned on the show, triggering vandalism. The first time it was mentioned, Jimbo was left to clean up a few vandals all by himself. See Jimbo's recent comment on Talk:Michael Savage (commentator).  Danski14 16:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Yevgenia Albats – Inactive. – 01:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Yevgenia Albats

 * See my comments here Talk:Yevgenia_Albats. User:Vlad fedorov repeatedly inserts libelous claims supported by unreliable or at least not neutral Russian-language sources published by Russian "yellow press" with explicit purpose to defame an opposition journalist who criticized Putin's administration and FSB. Vlad Fedorov went so far as deleting my comments on Yevgenia Albats talk page. Biophys 14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See my comments here Talk:Yevgenia_Albats. User:Vlad fedorov repeatedly inserts libelous claims supported by unreliable or at least not neutral Russian-language sources published by Russian "yellow press" with explicit purpose to defame an opposition journalist who criticized Putin's administration and FSB. Vlad Fedorov went so far as deleting my comments on Yevgenia Albats talk page. Biophys 14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Casey Serin – Inactive. – 01:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Casey Serin

 * - On 2007-03-14, two days ago, the subject complained on xyr web log that this entry was not written in a way that adhered to the biographies of living persons policy. I've made a quick first pass, removing some of the most obvious unsourced controversial material, including wholly unsourced claims about the subject's wife, but attention from other editors is required.  Uncle G 19:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Related: Articles for deletion/Casey Serin.  — Athænara   ✉  02:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A US Department of Justice IP of got reported to AIV over this, possible BLP issues. - Denny  ( talk ) 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Christopher Michael Langan – Semi-resolved, very slowly. – 10:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

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

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

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

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

As is the way with these things, there are an endless number of potentially relevant diffs. Here, however, are the diffs I consider to be the most critical: I hope this helps make the issue clear. I believe this is a serious and ongoing policy violation with potential legal consequences. I believe outside assessment is necessary, given the antipathy to the subject by the involved editors. FNMF 04:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. Asmodeus: original request for removal of potentially libelous material
 * 2. Response by Arthur Rubin
 * 3. Response by Asmodeus
 * 4. Opinion of Sheerfirepower
 * 5. Sheerfirepower
 * 6. Response of FeloniousMonk
 * 7. Further comment by Sheerfirepower
 * 8. Opinion of FNMF
 * 9. Edit deleting section by FNMF
 * 10. Reversion of deletion by Arthur Rubin
 * 11. Comment on reversion by FNMF, indicating all the violations of official policy by editors of the entry
 * 12. Undoing reversion by FNMF
 * 13. Comment by Guettarda
 * 14. Reversion of deletion by Guettarda
 * 15. Comment on reversion by FNMF
 * 16. Undoing of reversion by FNMF
 * 17. Comment by Guettarda on User talk: FNMF
 * 18. Reversion of deletion by Arthur Rubin
 * 19. Comment by Guettarda
 * 20. Comment by FNMF on User talk: Guettarda
 * 21. Comment by Guettarda on User talk: FNMF
 * 22. Comment by FNMF on Langan talk page
 * 23. Comment by FNMF on User talk: Guettarda
 * 24. Comment by Guettarda on User talk: FNMF
 * 25. Comment by FeloniousMonk on Langan talk page
 * 26. Comment by Guettarda on User talk: FNMF
 * 27. Comment by Arthur Rubin on Langan talk page
 * 28. Comment by FNMF on User talk: FeloniousMonk
 * 29. Response by FNMF to Arthur Rubin's comment on talk page
 * 30. Note left for Jimmy Wales explaining circumstances of the dispute


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

Some conflict at the entry has resurfaced over inclusion of a section describing Langan's ideas.
 * Update 1

After several weeks of drafting and preparing the section, an editor who had refrained from all involvement deleted the section shortly after inclusion, on the grounds of NOT and NOR.

Opposing editors have pointed out that Langan's theories are notable in relation to the subject of the entry, and that secondary sources support the statements made in the section.

It has further been pointed out that when the entry on Langan's ideas was deleted, * one justification given for the deletion was that the ideas could be discussed in the Langan entry itself. FNMF 23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sections:
 * Article: "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU)"
 * Talk: "Removed CTMU description" and "Finish incomplete removal of CTMU exposition…"


 * (removal - sample diff)
 *     (removal - sample diff) ( strike : see posts below.) 
 * (removal - sample diff)
 * Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) *
 * Comment & citations in re notability of CTMU in that AFD discussion


 * Added userlinks, specific article/talk sections, CTMU AFD. — Athænara   ✉  03:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Clarification on CTMU debate: Since my username is posted up here ... The sole removal done by User:Dreftymac diff here was done strictly to balance the article which was in an indeterminate state. Not to advocate exclusion. A prior editor removed disputed content that was favorable to Mr. Langan, but did not remove equally-disputed content that might be interpreted unfavorably. I considered this outcome to be unfair and unbalanced. Since at the time the preponderance of the evidence seemed to favor exclusion, I completed removing the disputed content and requested additional rationale for inclusion (since the burden of evidence always rests with the proponent). FNMF gladly provided a rationale, and I considered it to be a good faith and consistent interpretation of policy, and I indicated such on the discussion page. I next made proposals for calm and compromise between the two "sides" of the debate, since both had raised valid points. (see Talk:Christopher Michael Langan and Talk:Christopher Michael Langan ).


 * I endeavored earnestly not to take "sides" in this matter. I do consider that FNMF has been quite rigorous in requesting both adherence to, and express justification based on Wikipedia policy. Also, some of his legitimate questions posed to other contributors seem to have gone unanswered. This article appears to be a battleground. I have attempted to represent a singular voice of calm, neutral deliberation, but it seems a safe bet that it's just a drop in the bucket. dr.ef.tymac 10:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for clarifying that for those of us who have not been closely involved.  — Æ.   ✉  13:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I remain unpersuaded by those editors arguing to exclude a referenced section explaining Langan's ideas. Unfortunately, these editors are determined, ignore counter-arguments, and don't properly explain their own position. I believe the fundamental reason for this is that there is a group of editors biased against the subject of the entry. Editors attempting to improve the entry have, one after another, dropped off editing the entry, no doubt due to frustration. In this context, it has become nearly impossible for me to continue arguing the case. For these reasons, I believe the entry will remain in an inferior state for the foreseeable future. FNMF 00:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Update 2


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Perez Hilton – Resolved. – 01:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Perez Hilton

 * - The paragraph under the title "HIV Diagnosis" is nothing but a bunch of libel. It should be either taken down or replaced. // Anonymous = 12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Already repaired by Shadowbot (diff). No further action required. AvB &divide; talk  23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Joseph Darby – Resolved. – 01:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Joseph Darby

 * - This is the fellow who expose the Abu Ghaib situation. The article makes many unproven claims and needs (at least) a Living Person tag. Can some Smart Person add that for me? I added a Disputed Tag already. Paul, in Saudi 13:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The WPBiography tag has already been added to the talk page, where it belongs. No further action required. AvB &divide; talk  23:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Peter Werbe – Resolved. – 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Peter Werbe

 * - This article appears to have been a problem for a while. Although it has died down now, hopefully others can watch it. Specifically appears to have been trying to insert a certain POV into the article. He was warned after it resulted in an OTRS but appears to have continued to some extent. Unfortunately Peter Werbe, apparently not satisfied with the OTRS response has been editing as  (see this )  and possibly  * raising COI issues. No one appears to be watching it properly, I just stumbled upon it and don't tend to watch articles much. I did remove some problematic stuff from the talk page but hopefully others can help keep an eye on it Nil Einne 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the article and I don’t see anything wrong with it at this time. If you have a specific concern, please bring it to our attention. I’ll put it on my watch list. Fair enough? NeilinOz1 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1)  Strikeout * - unrelated crude vandalism.
 * 2) User John Alder has not edited the article since October 2006.
 * 3) User 75.45.251.26 has not edited the article since then, either, and reverted Alder's edits.  The diff cited above in the report indicates it was Werbe.  It may have been.
 * 4) According to the KFPT AM 790 station page for Werbe's show the subject describes himself as a libertarian socialist.  The substitution of "progressive" in the first sentence of the article looks like weasel-wording.   — Athænara   ✉  09:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies I didn't check the other anon's contribs just guessed it might be the same person based on thje similar IPs Nil Einne 10:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, just to make this clear, my primary concern was that altho the stuff appears to have died down now, it appears from the history no one was watching. Given that this has been a problem article I just wanted to bring it to attention here so someone could watch it (I personally don't tend to watch articles). Now that Athænara is watching it should be fine. Nil Einne 10:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Lewis Libby – Inactive. – 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Lewis Libby

 * - There seems to be an editing impasse around the appropriateness of including a particular reference and source. It would be most helpful for other editors who don't have strong feelings about this to take a look and weigh in on the discussion. Notmyrealname 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Which specific impasse? — Athænara  ✉  08:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, not trying to be coy. Just seems that all parties have their hackles up about any representation of the whole thing. The disputes seem to center on whether Libby's ethnicity/religion should be included in a category (the questions seem to be both whether this is accurate and also whether it is relevant), and whether there should be some reference to the article about Libby's ethnicity/religion should be included in the Wiki bio. There are now several pages of archived discussions on the talk page. Tensions are high. Not sure all parties would agree to mediation. I can give a further account if you'd like. Notmyrealname 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the archives you described. In my opinion, Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency can be used as a reliable source. His extensive ears of service with the Associated Press can be verified. JTA appears to be a very small Israeli news agency but kampeas brings sufficient reliability with him from the AP. However, investing a large amount of space in the Wikipedia article to the issue of Libby’s religious beliefs is very questionable. It’s best to reduce such material to one or two sentences, preceded by “Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency says …” NeilinOz1 19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether Kampeas is a reliable source, but whether inclusion of material about the Temple Libby allegedly belongs to violates WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Given that the JTA is not Israeli, I suspect you haven't really researched this properly. Jayjg (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, as in the talk pages of the article, is not presenting what is contested accurately. Jayjg has removed at times the entire reference, and he has removed every other Wikipedia editor's reference to Libby's being Jewish, or to fact that there has been confusion about the matter of "Libby's" so-called "Jewishness."  He objects not only to the mention that Libby belongs to a specific Jewish temple but to any mention that the man is Jewish, as sourced with multiple interviews of Libby's colleagues, professional and personal acquaintances, by Kampeas in his article published for the New York City-based Jewish Telegraphic Agency, an article reprinted in The Jerusalem Post (which is published in Jerusalem and part of the original citation that I included), which Jayjg deleted several times.  There is now a Wikipedia article for Ron Kampeas, and one can read about the basis for his authority as a journalist in it.  When he worked for the Associated Press, at times he was based in Jerusalem, then in Washington, D.C., as well as other locations (since 1992); then he resigned his AP position to become Washington, D.C. bureau head of Jewish Telegraphic Agency.  The article is being cited for the entire article, not just for one detail; however, Kampeas provides verification that Libby and his family are affiliated with a Jewish temple as one of the items that he discusses as evidence of what he terms the matter of "Libby's Jewishness?" being the source of "misapprehension" (and he uses the question mark) in the JTA original source). --NYScholar 06:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I originally posted [correction: a response to] a notice about this article in this noticeboard. I don't know where the previous material is, but extensive discussion can be found in the current and archived talk pages at Talk:Lewis Libby. I have documented the citations that I have added and all of my references have at times been deleted by one or two of the same editors. Please review the problems with this article. Thank you. [Update: The original notice re: this article that I posted [correction: a response to] is in archive 10 of this noticeboard [see links provided by user Athænara more recently; useful to consult]: [corrected link:] Archive 10, item 25. Please note: the user posting this current notice, Notmyrealname, has been involved in the content dispute, as I have been, and is not a neutral observer, in my view; s/he is one of those one or two of the same editors continually reverting mention of Kampeas' discussion or citations of information based on Kampeas. I have offered anywhere from one sentence to five lines of text in neutral language, that has been continually reverted by these other users.] --NYScholar 00:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC) [updated and corrected. --NYScholar 19:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)]
 * As I said, everyone has their hackles up... I would kindly ask that the above user keep her/his discussions to the topics at hand and refrain from making personal comments, such as insinuating that I am a Sock Puppet. To paraphrase the Elephant Man, I am not a sock puppet--I am a human being. And for the record, I'm the one who started the last discussion on this noticeboard. Now, leaving all that aside, the current dispute involves, among other things, whether it is appropriate to include the specific house of worship that Libby is a member of. Again, the intervention of other editors who are not interested parties would be greatly appreciated. Notmyrealname 03:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd; please stay on topic. My comment above says nothing about the previous user in the manner that that user is stating above (read my comment). I referred this noticeboard (as I have done before--[corrected link]: archive 10, item 25--to the current and archived talk pages of Talk:Lewis Libby. I mention that the previous editor is also involved himself/herself in the content dispute and that s/he needs to disclose that, just as I have done. [....moved to my talk archive 4.]  For the record, I have never used the term "sock puppet" referring to any particular user in Wikipedia; that is apparently that particular user's own fixation.  I am, however, concerned that there have been multiple anon. IP users who have vandalized the article on Lewis Libby, frequently leading to the need to semi-protect it (they increased from March 6, 2007, the day of Libby's conviction, on); none of us other ordinary users would know who they are, as they are "anonymous." Speaking for myself, I edit Wikipedia using one user name. This one. I do not edit Wikipedia using an anonymous IP. I think that this article still needs semi-protection, due to the potential vandalism by anonymous IP users. --NYScholar 06:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC) [....]
 * Sorry, I assumed this had been a reference to the earlier discussion on this board, not the request for semi-protection. I have never been blocked for violating the 3RR, however that is not the case for several of the other editors in this dispute. The current version of disputed text that the above editor is trying to insert includes not only a misplaced reference to an article that discusses why some White Supremacist groups think that Libby's ethnicity is important (a topic already poorly covered in Neoconservatism) as well as the actual house of worship that lists Libby as a member. The above editor is also impeding any meaningful discussion of the issue on the talk page by inserting dozens of comments each week. Again, the input of outside editors with no stake in the topic would be most helpful. Notmyrealname 02:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can see from the Lewis Libby logs and talk pages (or my own edit history) that I am an interested party. I have cataloged the above user's attacks on my on my talk page. The above comments and the other several hundred over the past few weeks on the talk page are typical of the situation we have on the Libby page. Again, it would be helpful for other non-interested editors to help everyone bring this issue to some sort of resolution.Notmyrealname 15:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[To shorten the comments that I added here in response to other user, in response to the request below, I have moved them to my own talk page archive 4. I may shorten them further if I have time. I am working on a non-Wikipedia-related project with a deadline and cannot take more time with this Wikipedia dispute. Please see the talk pages of the article on Libby. [Note: Counting edits is misleading; most of my edits are typographical corrections to the comments that I added. See my talk archive 4 for the moved comments and the current and archived talk pages of the article for other comments by me and other users specifically about the editing content dispute (not contributors; in my view, contributors are not the subject of this dispute; the dispute is about article content being deleted by users).] --NYScholar]


 * (Previous discussions, same article: in WP:BLP/N archives 10 and 12.)


 * Please make your comments as concise as possible.
 * Fellow editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.
 * More than thirty of the last fifty edits in the noticeboard history are by NYScholar—not only far too numerous, but in complete disregard of the request at the top of the noticeboard.  — Athænara   ✉  10:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry Athaenara; I moved most of my comments to my own talk page archive 4 and added [....] above; I hadn't noticed the request at the top of the noticeboard; I had followed a link that went directly to this section originally; most of the edits that you count are actually minor typographical error corrections in my comments, which I found after posting them. --NYScholar 19:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would add to this discussion whether others think it appropriate to list Libby on the Temple Rodef Shalom page. He is the only congregant listed. Notmyrealname 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * [....] See Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom. --NYScholar 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * [....] Moved reply [by User Quatloo] to my comment to the appropriate talk page. It showed up after I had already moved my comment that it refers to there. --NYScholar 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Would the various parties involved agree to binding arbitration? Notmyrealname 17:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This reference to "binding arbitration" is clearly premature. This user keeps making this matter a dispute about contributors, as "various parties"; it is not. It is a dispute about the content of an article. There are many so-called "parties" to this editing-content dispute. This clearly-premature reference to "binding arbitration" is yet another red herring focusing on particular contributors and not on the content of the article (to which the above user has actually contributed barely any content at all (one disputed statement since corrected). As a longtime contributor to this article, who has helped to develop many parts of it (including its citations and references sections), my view is that the article needs the eyes of truly-neutral Wikipedia administrators who themselves do not have editing histories of editing articles pertaining to subjects relating to the article on Lewis Libby.  Administrators involved in "policing" Wikipedia's references to "Jewishness" and "Israel" in other articles cross-listed in Lewis Libby are, very often, it appears to me and others, not neutral. To find the number of Wikipedia users and editors who have expressed viewpoints on editing the article on Lewis Libby, please consult Talk:Lewis Libby, its linked talk archives, and the previous BLP noticeboard linked already by User Athaenara above: archive 10, item 25, where a number of other users ("parties") have contributed their views. The particular content in dispute has a long history of contentious disagreements by many editors (contributors) and other Wikipedia users (all "parties" to the dispute). --NYScholar 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Note: (as per my talkpage header): I will be engaged in extensive domestic and European travel, academic research conferences, and related academic research throughout the months of April, May, and June, away from my home computer, and will most likely not have any time for Wikipedia-related work or any such content editing disputes as this one at least during that period and/or from that time on. --NYScholar 19:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As stated at the top of this noticeboard : "For general content disputes regarding biographical articles consider using Requests for comment/Biographies."   — Athænara   ✉  23:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Carl Djerassi – Resolved. – 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Carl Djerassi

 * - At the very least, there are serious problems with tone (I've mentioned two on the talk page) and the article is very short on inline citation. I did some basic cleanup, but I really don't know much about the subject, and this area is not a priority for me; someone else should have a look. - Jmabel | Talk 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen several additional problems with the article’s tone; you may have overlooked these problems, because they were clustered in the last section of the article. I’ve cleaned them up. If there are any further problems, please let us know. NeilinOz1 19:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Dmitry Salita – Resolved. – 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Dmitry Salita
- Unsourced personal opinion added by User:German.Knowitall and other material is deleted without reasonable explanations. // TAG 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed a lot of unsourced nonsense from that article. --Deskana (talk)  18:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also removed some stuff that seems to have no references online. The only references were exact replicas of the text of the article, which either means they were copied from that website (without referencing it, probably violating copyright laws) which means they should be removed, or that website copied Wikipedia, in which case it has no source and should be removed. --Deskana (talk)  18:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work Deskana. I fully support your edits. NeilinOz1 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Please advice on how to deal with this in future ? --TAG 20:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Well, I just read through the article. Anything that didn't have a source and was criticism I removed immidiately. Anything that didn't have a source (regardless of whether it was positive, negative or neutral) I tried to find one for. For example, I copied the first few words of a quote from the page, and entered it into Google. For one of the quotes the only exact match was Wikipedia, the others being totally unrelated to the person that had matched on random words. For another there were two exact matches, but it was pretty clear one was just a copy of Wikipedia, so therefore it was unsourced. Then basically all you're left with is sourced comments, which is what BLP says is the standard. I hope this advice is useful to you. --Deskana (talk)  20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks once more. I've not removed information about him that was published on his website - as self-published was fine per Wikipedia guidelines. But I'm fine with your decision - as this information is in one place (his website) - not spread out - so anybody will be able to find it. Your assistance has helped to get out of edit war.--TAG 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Dominic Davi – Article deleted. – 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Dominic Davi

 * - Dominic Davi was recently arrested following an allegation of rape, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper (philly.com) and you can see the |diff here . Except the information was reverted because "allegations aren't notable". Before starting a needless edit war, I'd like to know if this is true according to Wikipedia policy? The information is certainly from a reliable source and being arrested and extradited seems notable. Chevinki 23:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd probably agree with you, as such heavy charges seem notable to me. Wikipedia, however, doesn't have any policy regarding notability. We have Notability, but that's a guideline in dispute. Just be careful and continue using language emphasizing that these are alleged acts and charges, and continue to cite your sources extremely well. Also, looking at the page's history, it seems that you have violated WP:3RR &mdash; a policy designed to prevent back-and-forth edit warring &mdash; which can be grounds for a temporary block. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 04:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I know the rules and their purpose. WP:3RR makes exceptions for obvious vandals. It seemed like it was simple vandalism to me since the information kept being blanked any an anonymous editor without any given reason. I asked for semi-protection for the page and was told to keep reverting it. When it was blanked with a reason given, I came here. So I think I'm pretty safe from being blocked. Until Notability and all that gets sorted out, I figured this board was experienced enough in such matters to be a de facto guideline. Chevinki 08:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Article deleted: Articles for deletion/Dominic Davi.  — Athænara   ✉  00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Andrew Pugliese – Article deleted. – 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Andrew Pugliese

 * - This looks like a hoax article to me. A non-notable kid? Abbeyvet 00:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a hoax, see its original version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Pugliese&oldid=100358789. I've added the prod tag, it should be gone in 5 days. AvB &divide; talk  23:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Article deleted, case resolved. AvB &divide; talk  22:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Wayne LaPierre – Resolved. – 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Wayne LaPierre

 * - To whom it may concern:  I was using Wikipedia today (as I often do) and found this in the discussion section of Wayne LaPierre's article.  I don't know if this should be allowed to remain on the site but I would think that it could definitely be construed as libelous.  I also imagine that it might be repeatedly posted.  I don't know what can or should be done but I wanted to bring it to your attention.  I've taken the liberty of removing it from the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.189.198 (talk • contribs) 00:40, April 2, 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced potentially libellous material removed per WP:BLP April 2 2007. — Athænara  ✉  00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Don Murphy – Inactive. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Don Murphy
Please see talk page- User: Phil Gronowski has added libelous material to Murphy entry while in a feud with Murphy himself. Murphy says clearly that the fight didn't happen. IT IS NOT referenced under Tarantino's entry the guy who hit him supposedly nor Hamsher's, whose book supposedly was responsible. It is not, clearly, even a minor event much less a major event in the guy's life. Yet here it is PUT THERE by a guy who admits to being in a feud with Murphy. That is NOT what Wales would have us do. WE MUST err on the side of protecting the rights of BLP. The guy himself says it didn't happen - personally, on the very website that Gronowski cites, donmurphy.net. Therefore if we take one thing as evidence we should take all things. PanFordThunder 06:44, March 20, 2007 (UTC)


 * Two posts a few days ago ("I may come back in a year or so" and "I left wikipedia") may mean that this disruption has ceased.  — Athænara   ✉  21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Zakir Naik – Inactive. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Zakir Naik

 * - there has been a persistent reinsertion of defamatory material against Zakir Naik through the subjective interpretion of a youtube video of one of his lectures (i.e. a primary source).  ITAQALLAH   18:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Nick Palumbo – Inactive. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Nick Palumbo

 * is constantly trying to edit the article to remove any negative information as 'libel'. The libel in question, which stated that Palumbo has taken negative reviews and reworded them to make them positive, is backed up with citations referring to the original review and a link. I had reported this article earlier and other editors managed to get the article to BLP standards, but s noone is constantly reverting it to his original section which is pretty much a glorified fluff piece.--CyberGhostface 22:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The paragraphs that are disputed are so long that I'm a bit lazy to read the whole thing. But if I understand you correctly, you are saying that your only source for this claim is by comparing the original review with the quotation? Sorry but even tho this is a very straight forward exercise it's still OR. Also, you need to establish it's controversial. While the practice itself might seem controversial, unless there you have a source to establish that it's controversial in this particular instance it should generally be left out Nil Einne 18:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it original research? On one side we have postings on Nick's websites with his version of the review, and another we have the real review. There's no doubt to the validity of the reviews. Is it controversial? I don't know. Nick's not exactly a big name in Hollywood. But I didn't state that it was controversial, I merely stated that Nick supplied false information.--CyberGhostface 19:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked out the article. He seems like a really dislikable guy but I went ahead and removed some of the POV remarks.  It seems to me that anything posted on the Internet is hard to trace for sure to one person.  This was a problem with several of the points made in the article. Steve Dufour 10:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Daz Sampson – Resolved. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Daz Sampson


A user, using both an anon IP (86.6.207.111) and as Brine Pepaz is continually adding libellous material to the Daz Sampson article, suggesting that he bears a resemblance to a certain child murderer. This is clearly not encyclopedic and not factually based. It is also potentially serious libel. However, whenever I revert the edit he restores it. // TomPhil 13:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly inappropriate, probably libelous and extremely dubiously sourced. Revert on sight without regard to 3RR and if they do it again, they get a block. FCYTravis 20:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Richard Walter – Inactive. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Richard Walter


& have been battling over this article, with 3RR violations and threatening comments from both to each other. The content dispute centers around allegations of perjury and falsification of credentials. I'm signing off for the night, so hopefully others can step in. -- Scientizzle 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The court case cited by User:Bturvey seems to be verifiable, although the source being used (corpus-delicti.com) is not the best one. I found the case (Drake v. Portuondo) on FindLaw.com. Mike Dillon 05:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This biograhy page seems to have been created with a large amount of false information, perhaps gathered from a phony/ anonymous press release posted at "www.richarddwalter.com". Walter's false testimony was actually confirmed in NY v. Robie Drake - his testimony was determined to be false, misleading and could be presumed perjurious on at least one point (perjury being a very specific type of false testimony).

This is all confirmed in the judge's ruling at: "NY v. Robie Drake" (2006).

I editted the many factual inaccurancies in the page with references to the court record online and articles regarding Mr. Walter's false testimony. However an anonymous editor immediately swooped in and removed those edits. I have reverted the page and posted a warning to the anonymous editor.

I expect that they will change the edits again and that this issue will become something that needs an official look - as there are quite a few dedicated and obsessed people determined to keep the actual substance of this court ruling from being public. It hurts Walter, and it hurts them because of their association with him.

Not only has editor 24.240.17.187 repeatedly removed the accurate edits made to the Richard Walter article that I have made, but this individual is also repeatedly removing my attempts to discuss it in the talk section. Clearly, this person is attempting to further the perpetration of fraudulent information in hopes of staving off the inevitable discovery of Walters as a fraud by the public.

See: "The Forensic Fraud Archive", which my company maintains to document such cases. Walter is listed alphabetically at the end, with links to supporting court records.

The acrobat file was obtained from United States District Court, Western District of New York. Just select judge John Elfvin's rulings for March 2006 re: the Drake case. You'll need to select more than 10 documents per page to see it.

Please feel free to contact me directly.

Brent E. Turvey, MS Forensic Scientist bturvey@forensic-science.com Bturvey 17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrator:

Richard Walter seems to have been created with a large amount of false information, perhaps gathered from a phony/ anonymous press release posted at "www.richarddwalter.com". Walters's false testimony was actually confirmed in NY v. Robie Drake. In 2003 and again in 2006 his testimony was determined to be false, misleading and could be presumed perjurious on at least one point (perjury being a very specific type of false testimony) by a fedeal judge.

This is all confirmed in the judge's ruling at: "NY v. Robie Drake" (2006). The acrobat file here was obtained from United States District Court, Western District of New York. Just select judge John Elfvin's rulings for March 2006 re: the Drake case. You'll need to select more than 100 documents per page to see it. Get the drake file.

I editted the many factual inaccurancies in the page with references to the court record online and articles regarding Mr. Walter's false testimony. However an anonymous editor immediately swooped in and removed those edits. I have reverted the page and posted a warning to the anonymous editor. Now, an original anonymous creator of this false information page designed to rescue Walters flailing credibility, has stepped in to replace anonymous editor. I am not certain these are two separate individuals.

At any rate, I expected that whoever created the page would change the edits and that this issue would become something that needed an official look - as there are quite a few dedicated and obsessed people determined to keep the actual substance of this court ruling from being public. It hurts Walter, and it hurts more than a few because of their association with him.

Anonymous editor 24.240.17.187 has removed the Richard Walter page at least six times aleady and has also removed this section from the Talk: Richard Walter page at least six times, since 3/18/07 to prevent me from even having a civil discussion about it with others. has done the same. Not exactly actions that are conducive to resolution, let alone communication. They just don't want the ruling public because of their hero worship (that's assuming that one of the individuals is not actually Richard Walter -this a very distinct possibility).

This information is not libelous. It is corrective. It is the posting of a court's ruling using the court's own document. The Wikipedia entry currently states that Walters was exonnerated by the judge in the Drake case. This is not just false, it is beligerantly deceptive at this point.

Note please that I am the only person in this dispute who must testify in court on a regular basis, under oath - and that I am also the only one willing to be identified.

As it stands, the article is full of false and bloated information about Walters that is designed to prop him up despite the court ruling - so that those who use Wikipedia as their primary nfo source (and there are many too many) will be misled. It is a disgrace to the professional community, and it is the furtherance of a weakly crafted fraud.

Do not hesitate to contact me for further assistance.

Brent E. Turvey, MS - Forensic Scientist Bturvey 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Brent continues to write libel. His above post states: "Mr. Walter whom has long been regarded as a charlatan by the courts." That is, in itself, a libelous statement.

To accuse someone of perjury is a serious charge. Mr. Turvey makes that claim on his own websites, but that is a matter between Mr. Walter and Mr. Turvey to settle in civil court.

I hold Wikipedia to a higher standard.

In reading the court document, in the final ruling in the Drake case, the judge overturns the appeal.

In his opinion, the judge states that Mr. Walter "may" have committed perjury (which he did not), but he rules that such an issue is a moot point because Mr. Drake does not have the basis for appeal.

Thus, Drake's appeal, and all of its allegations are ruled false.

I welcome you to read the decision on Lexis-Nexis and not Mr. Turvey's doctored version on his websites.

While on Lexis-Nexis, I would also encourage you to read about Mr. Turvey's false statements under oath in Mississippi last year and his previous false statements under oath regarding his employment by the Sitka, Alaska Police Department as a detective. (Mr. Turvey lost in court in his bid to claim that he was employed as a detective in Sitka).

Because Mr. Turvey was not allowed into the AAFS, he has spent his short career creating his own organizations and schools. His organizations are nothing more than him and a few of his former "students" posing as a substitute for the AAFS.

Still, the bitterness of rejection has never been exorcised from his soul. He maintains a website that lists several well-respected forensic pathologists as "frauds" (Mr. Walter is not his only victim).

With all due respect, his situation reminds me of a jealous child in the playground who wants to "take his toys and play on his own".

I suggest that the Richard Walter page remain permanently locked in its pre-March 17th state.

Please disregard Bturvey's threat to "show why wikipedia can't be trusted as a source in my class". He has many more enemies than friends; no one will stand in his defense. 02:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the proper place to make a comment on this, but I believe I can act as an impartial party in this dispute.

On the one hand I do believe that whomever created the page in question, and some related ones, is doing so in an attempt top promote this person in an way that is deceptive to some facts. I did some edits in the past to try to fix this (might have been on as an IP account at the time).

On the other hand the accusations that Richard Walter was a charlatan in the court case that made the news are simply one sided, unrealistic in my opinion (some lawyer tried to get a conviction over turned because Walters as an expert witness testified about "picquerism" as a term that allegedly no psychologists heard about... which has just got to be complete nonsense, as the term is included in most abnormal psychology classes and even introductory psych textbooks and is, in fact, used professionally by experts in the field of criminology and psychology, for example Robert D. Keppel in several books and articles). Any mention of this case needs to meet WP:NPOV criteria, which would not be simply repeating outrageous accusations of one side if they were truth.

The accusations made above by both sides are quite extremely biased and do not meet the expectations of this project. The standard policies here of NPOV and Verifiability can and should apply. It was what I was doing with earlier edits and I think it can succeed in the future as well. DreamGuy 17:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a serious concern about the arguement between and activities of two users and an IP, User:Buzzle45, User:Bturvey and. Accusations are flying between these three on the article talk page, WP:LE talk page for a little while, and my talk page. The middle user, Bturvey, has been blocked for 48 hours as a result. It seems that there are serious concerns that libellous information is being added, and I have had an email from Bturvey stating that Buzzle45 is "A person acting with Richard Walter sitting over their shoulder, acting as his publicist" I have the email ready to forward to anyone who is concerned. //SGGH 19:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This is Buzzle45. No one is sitting over my shoulder and I am not a publicist. I am concerned that once unlocked, Bturvey or someone on his behalf will continue to post libelous information on Richard Walter's page. Mr. Turvey has a personal vendetta against Richard Walter and apparently cannot rest until he slanders him all over the internet. I am hoping that the article remain locked. If need be, the whole "Drake case" incident can be left off. No information about that case is better than libelous information. 00:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There's also a lot of information here (look above to my original post; this post, reflecting 's stance, and again here; and this post reflecting 's stance). This edit war spilled onto my talk page and numerous other pages. -- Scientizzle 19:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that this has been dealt with further up in this page, with the sources cited by Bturvey being seen as reliable. SGGH 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have some real problems with the sources Bturvey provided... or at least the way he's trying to use them. The court case does exist, and some lawyer trying to come up with a reason to have his client's conviction overturned did try to call Walter's competency into question, but it is simply incorrect to say that the court or judge ruled him as being fraudulent -- and in fact the most notable item that was brought up as an example of his alleged incompetence (use of the "picquerism" term) is no such thing at all. Bturvey's website very clearly shows that he is an extreme POV on the matter -- even going so far as to try to claim that Walters is involved with Dr. Robert Keppel to fraudulently promote themselves as experts when they clearly are not. I don't know about Walter's credentials, but Keppel's are simply unquestionable, as he is a pioneer in the field of criminology, is editor (with David Canter) of the academic journal Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, and by some sources is the one who even came up with the term "serial killer". I do see that Walter has, in fact, coauthored some titles with Keppel, so the claim that he (and also Keppel, as stated on Bturvey's website) has no background in the field must just on the face of it be agreed to be incorrect. Bturvey's site as a source of information may not even be notable or authoritative. We could certainly make reference to real, verifiable sources on this topic, but conclusions on the topics by either Bturvey (claiming Wlater's was shown to be a fraud) and by the person posting pro-Walter's claims (that the judge totally exonnerated Walters... as that doesn't seem to be the issue the legal point hung on) or both biased and original research/views of the contributors and not factual. DreamGuy 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales says that in an article about a living person, “no information” is better than “inaccurate information.” It would be best to stub the article, put full protection on it, and allow administrators to do all the direct editing. The people who are arguing about article content should still be allowed to participate on the talk page. If they provide information from reliable sources, administrators can put it in the article. But as a long-term solution, article protection is unacceptable. At some point, protection must be removed; and these editors must understand and accept that they can’t be allowed to use the article to present their own points of view. This is a reasonable and neutral solution. NeilinOz1 19:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but has this noticeboard's role vis à vis this article's problems been fulfilled yet?


 * General content disputes go to Requests for comment/Biographies, while severe and prolonged problems with misbehaving editors go to, for example, Requests for comment/User conduct and Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.  — Athænara   ✉  01:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Robert Sungenis – Inactive. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Robert Sungenis

 * - A group of people are using Robert Sungenis' Wikipedia bio as a means of libeling him. They are using a blog which is bascially accusing Robert Sungenis of being an anti-semite as the main source for distorted and ugly accusations. I have removed the section and put up a dispute tag. Take a look at some of the past edits.

My account has been sabatoged (not necassarily related to this) so I am operating anon.

Truth_Seeker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.81.205.20 (talk • contribs) 20:33, March 21, 2007 (UTC)


 * A blog certainly isn't a reliable source, and seems very POV. I will check on the users making these edits and see what message could be left asking them to check up on their contributions. Protecting the article will be a good idea if the changes continue at a high rate. SGGH 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do so, and keep it in the current "mild" form until all editors can agree.

How do I get my account fixed?

Thanks,

Truth_Seeker —Preceding unsigned comment added by  63.81.205.20 (talk • contribs) 21:03, March 21, 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I created a new account. Truth seeker new 21:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, what's wrong with it? If this is it, it looks like it's working.... SGGH 09:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe he/she lost his/her password? If so, you should be able to have a new one e-mailed if you entered an e-mail address. If not, I'm not quite sure what can be done... Nil Einne 18:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I got it to work. I wonder if I can delete my new accout? Anyway, here is my proposal for the new section on Sungenis' Jewish viewpoint. What do you think?

Position on the Jews

Robert Sungenis strongly holds to a view of Biblical inerrancy which, as he claims the Church has traditionally done, tends to emphasize the literal interpretation strongly where appropriate. This, plus his interpretation of Patristics, Conciliar, and Papal pronouncements has lead him to some of the following positions on the Jews and Judaism:

1. The Jews did have (in the time of Christ) a "hardened heart", and still predominately have this condition today (ref. Rm 9:18-32; 11:5-23)

2. The Jews are no longer a special people (above the gentiles) in God's eyes (ref. Gal 3:28 '...There is neither Jew nor Greek...',Col 2:11-16; Eph 2:11-16; Ac 10:34-35; 5:1-4; 6:12-16; Rm 2:28-29; Heb 7:18; 8:13; 10:9; 2Co 3:6-14).

3. Jewish converts to Catholicism should not practice Jewish rituals and festivals, nor seek special identity markers within the Church (Acts of the Apostles, Council of Florence)

4. Though speculatively possible, there likely will not be a massive conversion of Jews at the second coming of Christ. Robert also identifies theological difficulties in holding this position. Robert holds that only a remnant will be converted, and this throughout the time of the gentiles. (see the Mark Cameron debates)

5. Today's national Israel was not predicted in the Old Testament (misinterpertations of Isaiah 66, Genesis 12:3),nor does this represent the final fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (this already occured in the Old Testament, Joshua 21:43-45; 1Kings 8:56; Nehemiah 9:7-8), nor does the the cedeing of control of Jeruseluem to the Jews of Israel in 1967 indicate the time of the "fulfilment of the gentiles" (Luke 21:24, Rm 11:25).

6. The Talmud is an anti-Christian document.

7. The Mosaic covenant was fulfilled by and replaced by the New Covenant with Christ (ref., Hb 7:18; 8:13; 10:9; 2Co 3:6-14; Gl 3:10-29).

8. The New Covenant fulfills the Old, not vice-versa.

9. Jews do need to convert to Catholicism to attain salvation.

The same thinking, Biblical exegesis, and interpretation of Patristics, Concliar, and Papal pronouncements which have led to Robert Sungenis being lauded by Catholic apologists when applied to Protestant ideas, have caused some consternation amongst some Catholic apologists and even secular groups when applied to the Jews. Especially contentious to some apologists are his speculations interpreting points 1,5, and 6 to events and people today.

END PROPOSAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth seeker (talk • contribs) 03:35, March 24, 2007 (UTC)

Truth Seeker, don’t try to delete your “Truth Seeker New” account. Just provide a link to it from your “Truth Seeker” account with an explanation that you used it briefly when the “Truth Seeker” account wasn’t working. In almost all cases you should use just one account, so use the “Truth Seeker” account and stop using the other one. For the Robert Sungenis article, as a general rule blogs are not acceptable under our WP:ATT policy. Specifically, they do not satisfy our concerns about reliable sources. There are a few exceptions, but the blog that’s being used as a source for anti-Sungenis criticism doesn’t meet the criteria for an exception. The blog, all references to it, and all material taken from it should be deleted from the Robert Sungenis article. NeilinOz1 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * When I requested a lock, I requested that a specific version be locked (the one previous to the currently locked). One of the editors somehow just happened to get an edit change in right before the lock went on, and added the links back. The version I requested for locking had all the links to blogs removed. Truth seeker new 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The page was protected as the result of an edit war. You can't choose a version to protect it on. --Deskana (talk)  22:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how someone can be writing (in the Talk section) without IP tracking on? Truth_Seeker 23:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Carlos Mencia – Resolved. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Carlos Mencia

 * is constantly edited, with potentially libelous statement thrown around (plaigerism, disputed ethnic decent) with regular 'ol vandalism. I have no idea what is the "right" version to which I would revert the article. -- Scientizzle 00:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've requested semi-protection on the article, but I agree that it's difficult to figure out what the pre-vandalism version is. There are a number of NPOV issues that need clarification in this one.  JavaTenor 01:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

When in doubt, take it out. Any material that is questionable should be removed. Reduce it to a stub if necessary. Then you can have a discussion on the talk page, to decide what should be put back into the article. Use only reliable sources, preferably those with a neutral point of view. Partisan sources, especially self-published ones, should be used with extreme caution or not used at all. NeilinOz1 19:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Geoffrey Giuliano – Inactive. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Geoffrey Giuliano

 * claimed to be Giuliano, but wasn't very politic about his attempts to remove what he called libel on his bio page, and was 3RR-blocked, and then banned for legal threats. (Giuliani lives in Thailand, and now anonymous Thai IPs are being threatened with permanent blocks for their edits to the article.)  I take no position on whether the editor claiming to be Giuliani is right or wrong, but WP:BLP never came up in the Talk page of the article, and someone should review what has happened.  At a minimum, it does not appear WP:BLP has been followed. -- TedFrank 17:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * claimed to be Giuliano, but wasn't very politic about his attempts to remove what he called libel on his bio page, and was 3RR-blocked, and then banned for legal threats. (Giuliani lives in Thailand, and now anonymous Thai IPs are being threatened with permanent blocks for their edits to the article.)  I take no position on whether the editor claiming to be Giuliani is right or wrong, but WP:BLP never came up in the Talk page of the article, and someone should review what has happened.  At a minimum, it does not appear WP:BLP has been followed. -- TedFrank 17:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You say Giuliano STOLE a tape from PETE TOWNSHEND of the WHO!!! You say this because it was in an article in Eye Magazine WHICH WAS LATER SUED FOR THIS MATTER AND PAID GIULIANO $250,000 USD. So WHY are you REPEATING IT? We ALL know that legally to REPEAT A LIBEL IS A LIBEL. Please remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.185.66 (talk • contribs) 21:22, March 21, 2007
 * The magazine's Web site still contains the purported "libel." If it was truly found to be libelous, it wouldn't still be published on the Eye Weekly site. Please provide a source for your assertion that the matter has been found to be libelous by a court. FCYTravis 05:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If a court has found that the statement was libelous, then the article should indicate that it was a false statement. A court case resulting in a $250,000 judgment for libel is notable. It would vindicate Giuliano’s claims. Where can we learn more about this judgment for $250,000? We need reliable sources to support this if we’re going to use it in the article. NeilinOz1 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Paul Martin – Resolved. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Paul Martin

 * - This entire article has been structured and written as a very biased attack on the Former Canadian Prime Minister. It contains multiple unsourced attacks, including a claim that Martin's son (who is married and has a young child) is a prominent member of the gay community. The entire article is questionable and goes to great lengths to expand on partisan political attacks that have been made against Martin by opposing political parties. So much of the material in the article is inaccurate and unsourced it is almost impossible to list all of the dubious claims. The article as it is written has no place in a source like Wikipedia. I made some quick changes such as repairing the unsourced and innaccurate reference to Martin's so, but don't have a lot of experience in the protocals for editing Wikipedia articles so am hoping that others in the community can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.2.90 (talk • contribs) 18:53, March 22, 2007 (UTC)

“Outing” Martin’s son as gay is an invasion of privacy and must be removed. Questions of sexuality are especially sensitive, especially if the son is not a public figure and has avoided the spotlight. Unsourced criticism of Martin should also be removed immediately. Beyond that, the article about Martin should not be allowed to be used as a campaign advertising vehicle by his political opponents. Nevertheless, if there is a real controversy about Martin (as distinguished from a “manufactured” controversy that his opponents have blown out of proportion), if it’s about his performance in public office, or some illegality in his private affairs, and if it comes from a reliable source, it should be represented fairly in the biography. The Wikipedia article can’t “side with the critics.” It can’t even appear to do so. It can’t be used as a “laundry list” of every criticism raised by his political opponents. The sources used should be neutral. NeilinOz1 19:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Archimedes Plutonium – Inactive. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Archimedes Plutonium


I've rewritten this based upon sources. Please review. Uncle G 22:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | George Vithoulkas – Inactive. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

George Vithoulkas

 * Talk:George Vithoulkas - Could an admin please check in with this article? The subject of the article left a note on the talk page of the article via one of his assistants.  Abridged 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk:George Vithoulkas - Could an admin please check in with this article? The subject of the article left a note on the talk page of the article via one of his assistants.  Abridged 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Amir Taheri – Article protected. – 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Amir Taheri

 * - Contains multiple unsourced attacks, including a claim that his writings "are in fact ghost written by pro-Israel, neo-conservative handlers". Also contains dubious sourced attacks. (I don't have the time or energy to deal with POV-pushing this heavy — sorry.) // CWC (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * CWC is correct, the article as it stands now is a hatchet job. It begins fairly, but more than half the content is taken up by a "Controversies" section which can fairly be termed vicious.   — Athænara   ✉  08:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is somewhat better now, but not better enough, seeming to heavily violate undue weight. A "controversy" which is one person making an accusation doesn't belong in a controversies section. Ken Arromdee 04:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The following user/IPs have generated nearly all of the disruptive and tendentious editing of this article in the past two months:


 * ( February 2007 )
 * ( February 2007 )
 * ( February 2007 )
 * ( March 2007 )
 * ( March 2007 )
 * ( March 2007 )
 * ( February 2007 )
 * ( March 2007 ) 24 hr block
 * ( March 2007 ) 24 hr block
 * ( January—March 2007 ) 24 hr block
 * • ( (March 07) Possible cohort.)

Their edits in the past month (samples: 1 2) typically:
 * 1) Added unreferenced WP:NOR non-neutral speculation.
 * 2) Removed bibliography publisher/year/ISBN information.
 * 3) Often used misleading edit summaries, even quoting phrases from other editors' summaries.

As of 13:05, March 22 2007 (UTC), the article is protected from editing. — Athænara  ✉  09:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Heather Wilson – Resolved. – 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Heather Wilson

 * - DailyKos.com dug up a 14-year-old child molesting allegation against Jay Hone, the husband of Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM), three weeks before an election. As secretary of the state's Department of Children, Youth and Families, Wilson moved the investigative file from one location to another within the department. Political enemies have been trying to get mileage out of it ever since, and DailyKos.org dug it up three weeks before the election.

Despite these smear tactics, Wilson won re-election and now a Wikipedia editor wants to reward their efforts by permanently enshrining them in Wilson's Wikipedia article. Hone was never arrested or charged with any crime and the county prosecutor, a Democrat, admitted in a 1996 interview that Wilson broke no law by moving the file.

My efforts to enforce WP:BLP have been met with accusations of vandalism. Please help. Kzq9599 23:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if there is a reliable source proving that the Patricia Madrid campaign tried to use this as a campaign issue in 2006, it should be removed from the article. Since Madrid did not win the election, she didn’t get any traction with this issue even if she used it. All editors agree that no laws were broken by either Wilson or her husband. The allegation against Wilson’s husband was never proven. He was never even arrested. In the current atmosphere created by the Mark Foley scandal, this allegation is completely poisonous. We shouldn’t even touch it unless we’re forced to do so. By using this material, we would be forced to provide links to news articles that explore details of the unproven allegations against Wilson’s husband, who is a private person. This issue is decided by the prejudicial effect of hanging this unproven allegation around the neck of Wilson’s husband for the rest of his life. That prejudicial effect far outweighs any benefit to the article that might be gained from including a campaign issue about his wife. The section must be removed. If Wilson’s husband had been arrested and brought to trial, that would be different. If Wilson had broken the law by moving the file, that would also be different. The burden of probable cause would have been satisfied at least. But we don’t even have that much here. Obviously the authorities concluded that no crime was committed, so it should be kept out of the article. It's a close call, but in articles about living persons we must err on the side of caution. Delete the whole section. NeilinOz1 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is possible to address the issue, which was a 1998 campaign issue, in its proper historical context, as part of covering the 1998 election campaign, without including anything about the husband at all, and keeping the article focussed upon Wilson and Maloof. I've provided a suggested wording for doing so on the talk page, which I recommend reading. As I pointed out on the talk page, covering the issue fairly, and sticking to the parts that actually involved the two election candidates and their negative advertising, can have a beneficial effect, inasmuch as if anyone tries to one-sidedly re-hash the issue years later for partisan purposes, readers can come to Wikipedia to read about both sides of the 1998 campaign and how the entire affair actually concluded.  My suggestion was also to not have this removed from its historical context and in a "controversies" section, as it is now, but to include it in chronological order, alongside the existing discussions of the other election campaigns, giving it historical context. In other words: The husband is not legitimate territory for the article, but the election campaign's negative advertising, and Wilson's public responses (one problem with the current text being that it doesn't present Wilson's publicly stated view of her actions in public office at all) within that campaign explaining her view that her actions in public office were entirely proper, are, as long as they are in historical context and confine themselves to the politicians. Uncle G 11:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Lorraine Kelly – Article protected. – 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Lorraine Kelly

 * - various anons (apparently the same person) have added an unsourced defamatory statement, claiming that they have porn pictures to 'prove it' (diffs:, , also talk diffs: ). Can we get this one sprotected, as only anons seem to be involved, and it isn't a widely watched article (see Prot policy) given the frequency of edits. Cynical 18:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has been semiprotected since the day of this report.  — Athænara   ✉  03:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Ken Bennett – Resolved. – 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Ken Bennett

 * - Ken Bennett is the former President of the Arizona State Senate. His entry was written by someone the obvious intent to smear him.  His accomplishments are completely missing from his entry and and extensive writing has been done on an insurance issue and activities by his son.  20:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The negative material about Bennett is properly sourced. The stated criticisms are not adopted as true.  Instead, they are reported as opinions, attributed to the proponents thereof and supported by citations.  The article would be improved by the addition of material (positive and negative) about his time in the State Senate, but that's no reason to remove the information that's there. JamesMLane t c 01:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | James Hydrick – Resolved. – 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

James Hydrick

 * - Talk:James Hydrick page has unconfirmed assertion that a James Hydrick listed in a sex offender registry is the same person mentioned in the article. Because the connection is not clearly established, I'm not even sure it should be discussed on the talk page. An IP editor insists circumstantial evidence establishes they are the same person. Please review and determine if that talk page section should even be on there. It has not been introduced into the article yet. // Jokestress 20:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are quite right. I've removed the section from the talk page. AvB &divide; talk  01:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Ryan St. Anne Scott – Discussion continued on article talk page. – 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Ryan St. Anne Scott

 * - Abbot Ryan St. Anne Scott has, in an email to OTRS, issued a statement concerning various statements in this article which he considers untrue and potentially libellous (important per WP:BLP). As the OTRS agents are unable to check his (quite detailed) email, he has given explicit permission to re-post in on a public page, so that experts in BLPs and religion issues can have a closer look at it. His statement is now at Talk:Ryan_St._Anne_Scott/Statement. I'd appreciate any help on this matter, if somebody could check the article versus his statement and maybe also check the source (a printed newspaper article) which is the primary source and to which I do not have access. Thank you. --Mbimmler 19:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A summary of the Chicago Tribune article is here. The full text is here but I could not determine if it's genuine. AvB &divide; talk  19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * After a preliminary read I would say that both the current version of the article and RSA's preferred version may have libel issues without reliable sources. Obviously, unsourced contentious material leveled against RSA should be deleted, but it can't be replaced with equally unsourced accusations against e.g. the Catholic Church or other people, the latter introducing additional WP:BLP issues. This is also a problem I see with some of the assertions in the e-mail message on the Talk:Ryan_St._Anne_Scott/Statement page.
 * I'm copying the above to the article's talk page. I do not have time to do more now, maybe later. AvB &divide; talk  20:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The primary source I used in writing this article is the Chicago Tribune article, which I have seen. I have also seen other newspaper articles written about him from newspapers in Wisconsin and Minnesota that include the same material. As far as I know, the facts in the article are accurate.--Bookworm857158367 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstract of article at . -- Jeandré, 2007-04-02t22:05z


 * If someone pays for a full copy of the article, they will see that the text matches the full text of the article linked to at the Unity Publishing site above. I will add that if Scott or someone else wants to add further information to the Wikipedia entry clarifying or expanding upon the information -- provided it has been published somewhere and is verifiable, etc. -- I think that would be extremely appropriate. Looking at Scott's statement, it appears that he is not denying the main facts of the Wikipedia entry. He acknowledges having married, divorced, and given up a child for adoption; making a claim that he was sexually abused as a young religious; changing his name; being sentenced to probation for misconduct in public office; alleging fraud against the Shrine of Our Lady of the Prairies; establishing his Benedictine abbey at different locations, etc. He acknowledges that he believes in the Tridentine Mass and objects to the changes made after Vatican II. He simply objects to the terminology used to describe his particular movement and to the statements made in the Wikipedia entry that his claims of abuse, ordination, etc. could not be substantiated by the Chicago Tribune reporter. Note that the article does NOT say that his various claims are true or false, just that no proof could be found one way or the other. The explanations he makes in his statement, as well as the allegations he has leveled against the Roman Catholic Church in general, bishops, priests, his ex-wife, relatives of followers, etc., there don't seem appropriate to include in the Wikipedia entry unless there is a published, verifiable, reputable source that makes these same claims. When I originally wrote the entry, I read the claims on his web site as well as on the opponent's web site and didn't include most of them because I couldn't find anyone making the claims but Scott or the woman running the other web site. I included external links to both web sites to let people read more if they so desired. Everything I used in the article came from the Chicago Tribune article and the Matt Abbott article recounting Scott's statement at the 2002 press conference in Wisconsin. The Chicago Tribune in particular seems to me to be a trustworthy, reputable newspaper. If Scott has filed a libel suit against the newspaper in the past two years or if the paper has printed a retraction, that would certainly be reason to consider removing the Wikipedia entry. I haven't seen any report of such a lawsuit or correction. --Bookworm857158367 00:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with most of that. The situation is somewhat more complicated since we are allowed to cite information provided to Wikipedia by the subject him/herself (mainly about him/herself; info from the subject about others can prove the proverbial can of worms and should be dealt with conservatively if at all). See Wp:blp. AvB &divide; talk  12:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are allowed to cite information provided by Scott, then I would say he should be allowed to provide explanations about the circumstances of his ordination and his conviction for misconduct in office. I wouldn't remove the present material, however. For instance, one portion might read, "Though a Chicago Tribune reporter was unable to substantiate his claims in 2005, Scott said in a posting on Wikipedia that these were the circumstances ..." Then elaborate on the circumstances, but it needs to be made crystal clear that the claims are coming from Scott in his statement of April 2 (or whenever the correct date was.) It is only fair to incorporate it into the article if it is allowed, but the information from the Chicago Tribune article really should stand. --Bookworm857158367 14:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(Cont'd on the article's talk page) AvB &divide; talk  15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Peter Bucknell – Article deleted. – 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Peter Bucknell

 * Article:
 * User:

Note: I have tagged Peter Bucknell first as a db-bio, later as a db with a reason, but in both cases it got detagged. The article was earlier deleted, AFAIK because it was created by the subject of the article, and now has been recreated again by the person who is the subject of the article. I will leave it for now, could someone else have a look at the article, the editor, and the subject. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * At least some of this seems to be sourceable to sources outside of self-published ones, although we are dealing with a prolific self-publicist here (it's arguable that this is a useful trait for a musician to develop, of course). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Although the claim to having been 'Viola Professor' at the Crane School of Music disguises the fact that he was simply an Assistant Professor, which is a more minor position. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Howard K. Stern – Article semi-protected. – 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Howard K. Stern

 * has continued to add the phrase that this man is Jewish. While this is not necessarily libelous, Mortifer is unrepentant and refuses to find a source; his reasoning is that Mr. Stern looks Jewish. Worse, I think he may be getting him mixed up with Howard Stern (the other guy); as I will likely not be around, I ask others to please watch this article. If you see this phrase added, or even if it is present at all without a source, please remove it. Update: after looking through user's contributions, this appears to be a spa that has often added the unsourced phrase "who is Jewish" to articles, often when it is questionable or controversial (see Huey Long. Someone please watch this person, as I do not have time to undo his reversions. Thanks. Patstuarttalk·edits 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * has continued to add the phrase that this man is Jewish. While this is not necessarily libelous, Mortifer is unrepentant and refuses to find a source; his reasoning is that Mr. Stern looks Jewish. Worse, I think he may be getting him mixed up with Howard Stern (the other guy); as I will likely not be around, I ask others to please watch this article. If you see this phrase added, or even if it is present at all without a source, please remove it. Update: after looking through user's contributions, this appears to be a spa that has often added the unsourced phrase "who is Jewish" to articles, often when it is questionable or controversial (see Huey Long. Someone please watch this person, as I do not have time to undo his reversions. Thanks. Patstuarttalk·edits 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * People might also want to watch what's going on in the talk page. There was a lot of speculation about the subject of the article which didn't appear to have anything to do with the article, & some of it rather negative (e.g. suggesting he had built up a legal fortress in Bermuda by bribing corrupt officials) which I removed. Nil Einne 11:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected; there have been no edits to it in the past week. — Athænara  ✉  04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Patrick Haseldine – Inactive. – 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Patrick Haseldine

 * - The subject of this post is making frequent changes as User:PJHaseldine, without sources, and seems to be using it to push own agenda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NotPJHaseldine (talk • contribs).


 * If the editor in question is, indeed, the subject of the article (and it certainly looks like it) this is not a WP:BLP issue (see the policy text). In addition, User:PJHaseldine's edits seem harmless and consistent with the rest of the article (which looks like a true WP:AUTO from my side of the screen). The recent edits are also unremarkable in that they simply add more unsourced info to an already undersourced article.


 * FWIW, in my opinion most of this article qualifies as a typical vanity autobiography and should be userfied. However, it has been through an AfD with the result keep so I may be overlooking something. Frankly I have no idea what to do about this article. But I do not think it's a WP:BLP issue. AvB &divide; talk  00:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been no edits to this article since mid-March. — Athænara  ✉  04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Bob Clark – Resolved. – 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Bob Clark

 * - The questionable claims do not concern Clark himself, the filmmaker who recently died in an auto accident in Los Angeles. This is in regards to the driver of the other vehicle, who swerved into the opposite lanes of traffic and hit Clark's vehicle head-on. Reliable sources state that the driver was intoxicated and did not have a license. However, a number of anon editors have been adding various claims about the driver, Hector Velazquez-Nava of Los Angeles. The most common is that he is an illegal immigrant; one editor claimed the GMC Yukon he was driving was stolen. szyslak  (t, c) 20:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears someone has now found a source verifying that he is an illegal immigrant; not about the other allegations, though. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view editors have agreed on the article talk page that these facts can be included appropriately without being given undue weight. — Athænara  ✉  04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Paul Bérenger – Resolved. – 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Paul Bérenger

 * - This remark about Paul Berenger is biased and subjective: "only Prime Minister who practiced democracy and the only one who boosted the economy of Mauritius and also restored political stability." Shows no research has been undertaken prior to the posting of this article . Mauritius has always been a demoracy . Please verify your sources !!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.60.29 (talk • contribs) 18:35, April 6, 2007 (UTC)

The article has been edited for neutral point of view. — Athænara  ✉  04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

WP:BLP and primary sources published in secondary sources
This aspect of BLP seems to be causing confusion, specifically Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Here's the general situation; Imagine the subject is a lawyer/judge/litigant/ or in some way owes their notability to actions in a court of law which generates primary sources as a nature of its function. The secondary source, a newspaper, describes in broad strokes information gleaned from court transcripts because it is so detailed that discussing specifics would take too much space for a newspaper article.

Some believe that mentioning anything in a primary source such as a court record, which is not discussed in the newspaper article, would be a violation of WP:BLP regardless of its applicability to the subject's notability. If this is true then primary sources should never be linked since they will by their very nature discuss specifics/info not mentioned in the secondary source.

Others think that info from a primary source which goes into greater detail than the secondary source is ok so long as it doesn't try to change the POV expressed of the secondary AND directly relates to the subject's notability. I'm closer to this opinion since I agree that while all primary sources may not be acceptable for BLP references, certainly court documents related to notability should be because they are both reliable and verifiable. Anynobody 07:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I (cautiously) agree. The great danger with primary sources is that by the nature they tend to require synthesis to use in an article. To use your example, that of a court record, I could see using a court document that shows a person was convicted of a crime as proof that they were convicted, and received a certain sentence.  I imagine that this generally would not offend BLP provided the matter received appropriate weight within an article. Of greater concern would be matters that were testified to in a hearing, or alleged in court papers. Even if one side or the other wins the case, is that proof the a particular claim is true? Or was the other evidence so convincing that the prevailing side won in spite of the claim? Often the court won't tell you. Use of the documents in that type of case, I think, is problematic. Xymmax (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely they are sources to be used with caution, for the exact reason you pointed out, indeed synthesis and even all out original research could be easily introduced. I see the use of court records as being suitable to do essentially neutral things like;
 * Documenting each side's arguments without drawing conclusions,
 * Elaborate when a secondary source is vague in referencing aspects of a case, for example imagine a reporter citing how a lack of time would prevent person x from committing crime y without further elaboration. In this hypothetical lets say the court record shows x being in another country at the time. I'd imagine our text to read something like, "A report by Paper Z cited Person X's lack of time to commit the crime,[1] as court records show him/her being out of the country."[2] Anynobody 07:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With no secondary source having that as the reason for the statement, it sure looks like OR to me. Which I'm ok with, since I think the real problem is that you need to recognize a limit on the application of OR when it gets seriously in the way of what WP:NOTOR calls the "responsibility to present an accurate and factual overview of the topic addressed in the article". Suppose your text read "A report by Paper Z cited Person X's lack of time to commit the crime, stating that court records show him as being out of the country[1]", but examination of the court records show this statement to simply be false, not as a matter of what WP:BLP calls "a conjectural interpretation of a source" but as a simple black-and-white fact, the court records showing X entered the country the day before and left it the day after the crime. And further suppose that no RS can be found to contradict Paper Z, just, maybe, several quoting Paper Z. Do you suppress mention of Paper Z's influential but erroneous assertion? Do you quote it, suppressing mention of the fact that it's wrong? Do you quote it, but supply a caveat supplying the contrary evidence and expressing puzzlement, generalizing what WP:NOTOR suggests only in the context of "expert material"? (This is not a pure hypothetical -- I've recently had occasion to do the last.) Andyvphil (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can BLP apply to a group? i.e., a court ruled that a newspaper article was "prima facie libelous and defamatory" and awarded damages to a group for libel.  Now, a user keeps referring to the "sexual abuse" case when really it was a case of libel in favor of the group (and actually, the case he cites was a higher court case on a procedural/jurisdictional question, i.e., can an individual sue for libel if their group was defamed, or does defamation apply only to individuals?).  Given that a court already ruled these allegations libelous, it seems that it also would be libelous to re-post the same information on Wiki?  Advice would be appreciated.Renee (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I found the answer to my own question. Yes, the court agreed that a member of a group could be libeled if the group was libeled.  Here is the summary judgement where the judge denied the appeal (the appeal said only an individual can be libeled, not a group, the judge denied that), specifically, "Prima facie offence under section 307 I.P.C. is appearing against the accused applicant [the Pioneer newspaper]. It is not a case where charge sheet may be quashed." Here is the full ruling where the judge states the newspaper article and allegations are "prima facie libelous and defamatory." (page 4, #5) Thanks.  Renee (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)