Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive16

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Zao xing yang – Deleted – 07:12, 5 May 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;" |

Zao xing yang

 * - unsourced accusations of criminal conduct committed by only what could be argued is a notable person. Corvus cornix 22:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the real title of this redlinked article? — Athaenara 08:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it got deleted. MER-C 07:12, 5 May 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;" | List of alleged al-Qaeda members – Deleted – 07:11, 5 May 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;" |

List of alleged al-Qaeda members
- invalid information is being added by IP. After I removed the name after it appeared on the article for 20 days, it was readded within 30 minutes by a similiar IP to who added it the first time. Then, after remaining on the article for about 20 hours, it was removed by someone else but was readded 4 minutes later. I have removed it again, but the IP has been warned (final BLP2 warn after the second installment) and has continued. I'm concerned that the IP can/knows how to change their IP so semi-protection may be appropriate. This is related to OTRS. I think the IP should be blocked, but the page should remain monitored.
 * Initial adding:
 * Second adding:
 * Third adding:

The name being added is a living person who isn't notable and doesn't have an article. Justification for semi-protection is this article is ripe for abuse for cases like this. Installment of any name on this list that isn't factual (let alone there is only 1 source on the list that I haven't checked out for fear of the FBI) could cause major problems, especially for a notable person (could you imagine a B-list celebrity on the list that goes under the radar for months? anyone really famous that's added would likely be quickly removed). Further, this may be deleted. Is being an "al-Queda member" notable? Perhaps, but do we need a list of them? Not really IMHO, but that's a matter for another time. MECU ≈ talk 13:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * AfD'd. - Merzbow 06:51, 4 May 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;" | Charles Mudede – Resolved. – 10:00, 5 May 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;" |

Charles Mudede


Someone involved in BLP might want to keep an eye on this one. I ran into Mudede at a conference this weekend, and he told me that there have in the past been nasty and untrue things about him in his article, especially efforts to tie him to Robert Mugabe (whom he does not by any means support). He said that in the past, not really knowing any proper procedures to approach this, he has come in himself and removed some of this stuff; as a journalist, he fully understands that was not the best way to do things. It would be much better if someone neutral would work on getting the article properly sourced; I don't think anything in it right now is particularly bad (though it might be inaccurate). Also, when you are done, someone might want to approach him (charles AT thestranger DOT com) and ask him to review for inaccuracies (for that matter, he also might give someone a lead on aspects of his life that aren't yet adequately covered) and probably explain to him how he can get an RSS feed so that he can keep an eye on it himself. (Also, someone might want to suggest that he take an account so that it is clear which edits are his.) - Jmabel | Talk 20:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it proper to comment on someone's personal relationship in a wikipedia site without verification? Isn't this potentially slanderous?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.218.211.164 (talk • contribs) 21:30, April 23 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing slanderous in the comment above if that is what you are referring to. --Gbleem 14:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't expect him to jump through a bunch of hoops to keep people from slandering him. I'll add the article to my watchlist. --Gbleem 14:37, 24 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;" | Kenn Ogger – Article deleted. – 10:00, 5 May 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 Ogger

 * Articles for deletion/Ken Ogger

I blanked out this page since everything on it was uncited and potentially negative for this person. He is a former Scientologist who left that and became a critic of it and then got tired of that and seems to want to just get on with his life. I don't think he needs a WP article. Steve Dufour 04:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The article was put back. I put a speedy delete tag on it. Steve Dufour 14:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is now formally nominated for deletion. Steve Dufour 15:00, 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. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Chad Barrett – Inactive. – 10:00, 5 May 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;" |

Chad Barrett
A player for the Chicago Fire named Chad Barret was linked with Real Madrid. Found his Bio through Chicago Fire current roster only. I cannot find the Real Madrid story anywhere else on the web. His page is poorly sourced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danxp2 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Jenna Elfman – Inactive. – 01:12, 8 May 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;" |

Jenna Elfman
- Some new users,not familiar with policy, insist on adding poorly sourced materials. (See talk page for clear evidence that the best sources are rather dubious). I've reverted twice already (with comments on the talk page), so some help would seem necessary as it seems some people would not bother to read or understand the BLP policy. I'm not sure how the talk page material should be edited, as BLP also suggests some removal of talk page material would be appropriate here. C S (Talk) 06:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Legitimate discussion about whether to include something can stay provided the offending material attributed to another entity. Discussing whether Bob said Jane is a slut and whether the National Inquirer is a reliable source when they print an article that says Bob called Jane a slut is not the same as wiki user calling Jane a slut. --Gbleem 09:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just posted something on the talk page. Unfortunately you may just have to keep an extra eye on the page until he gives you a better source or gets bored. --Gbleem 10:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * BLP says, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." In this case, the discussion has not, luckily, gone to the point of great detail of these allegations, but there are some mentions and links given.  So perhaps editing of the talk page is not necessary.  But note that even discussion of poorly sourced material, "legitimate" or otherwise, has often been removed or heavily edited at the behest of official Wikipedia personages.  The difference would seem to be that it's ok to discuss whether a said source is reliable, without going into detail about what the accusation is.  --C S (Talk) 10:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Removing poorly sourced claims from the talk page is fully legitimate and the arbiration committee agrees with that Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart (while not involved in this controversy, I made a length comment in the talk) and also Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. I myself have removed poorly sourced and unsourced comments and claims from talk pages. In this case, from a brief read through, I would agree there's no reason it shouldn't be removed, altho I don't think it's that urgent either. The purpose of the talk page of course is to discuss additions and sometimes it can be helpful to include something which you've heard but don't have a good reference for. So it does come down to a bit of a balancing act. But it when it comes to a living person, especially a private figure (although it's not clear whether this applies to Jenna) we should usually err on the side of caution in removing poorly sourced claims even from the talk page, especially if there has been no success in finding a source (of course this may mean the same thing will be repeated in a year's time but this can't be helped) Nil Einne 17:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added (2) separate citations to this article from About.com, which is published by a little company called The New York Times Company. Also added a citation from MSNBC.  Smee 07:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
 * We have to be careful. Although the New York Times newspaper has a certain reputation this does not mean that any property owned by the New York Times Company should be treated the same. --Gbleem 10:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Jenna Elfman. — Athænara  ✉  09:59, 20 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;" | Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming – Inactive. – 01:12, 8 May 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;" |

Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

 * - This is a bit of an unusual issue but my concern here is that one editor does not agree a BLP template is merited. The article in question is basically a list where we list scientists who supposedly oppose the mainstream..... In fact we not only list them but categorise them according to their supposed claims/beliefs. We base this on sourced quotes which we include. As you might expect, we get the occasional poorly sourced addition and also a fair number of times when what someone is saying is disputed (i.e. whether or whether not they actually oppose the mainstream assessement). Check out the talk page and archive for that.
 * While some contributors ask on the talk page first, some just go ahead and add names. There are a number of editors watching who usually quickly revert controversial additions so the actual additions don't usually last long. But given the fact that this is obviously a list which many scientists will not want to be on, I feel it is important to remind editors of BLP in the talk page with the template. The template will hopefully remind or inform editors they should discuss additions first. And the template should also remind editors taking part in discussions that unless we can be highly sure we're right, we should not add people to the list. However one editor in particular doesn't agree with my addition of the BLP template.
 * So basically, I'm wonder if others agree the BLP template is warranted? And if so, is anyone willing to try to explain this to Childhood's End? Nil Einne 17:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. However that will not count for much around here. :-)  Steve Dufour 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I would only like to add a few comments here. First, I do not entirely disagree with the motives explained by Nil Einne herein. The point that I have tried to explain to him/her is that as of now, BLP applies to the article whether or not there's a tag on the talk page, and nothing in the article as of now is under dispute as to whether it is a misinterpretation of the author's views. There being no emergency or BLP issue, and BLP applying anyway to the article, I do not understand this sudden need for a tag, especially since it could be used to push a POV (see the whole discussion for further details if needed). Regards. --Childhood&#39;s End 18:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked out the discussion. After all that was said it seems that a BLP tag is a good idea. How could it do any harm to remind people of an important WP policy? Steve Dufour 23:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm puzzled how someone can argue against a reminder of policy on an article where such policy is especially relevant. No one is born with a knowledge of WP policy, so pointing it out for the benefit of new editors (or even experienced ones) is helpful. Raymond Arritt 10:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you delete the list then you don't have to worry about a tag. Even with the criteria it looks like an opinion piece to me. --Gbleem 14:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the global warming skeptics will howl bloody murder if their list is deleted. Propose it if you want but I'm not stepping into that minefield. I do think that sooner or later, someone will publicly object to being on the list and it will reflect badly on Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt 14:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I think it would be the global warming proponents that would object they seem to have abducted this list. Irate velociraptor 04:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Second section opened later about same article.
 * - The tone of the opening paragraph imply a lack of intelligence on the part of people who are on the list. I changed the first paragraph so it didn't have such a tone but it was changed back.  Irate velociraptor 07:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)//


 * It looks fine to me. Saying they oppose the mainstream opinion is accurate and neutral, there is no need to hide the fact that they are a minority. --Tango 11:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The language in it is not neutral


 * I agree with the last person the language is not neutral it should be a short explanation of what the list is for followed by why they are on the list. a couple of good examples of this are

List of fictional United States Republicans List of fictional United States Democrats Irate velociraptor 04:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There should be a "current" before "mainstream"... 30 years ago consensus was that we were facing a global cooling. Randroide 12:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a common perception but it is incorrect. There was some hysteria in the popular press but definitely not a scientific consensus. See Global cooling. Raymond Arritt 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the link, it is very interesting. OTOH, I own some Spanish Scientific journals from the 1970s and early 1980s warning about the global cooling. Moreover, Carl Sagans Cosmos warns (chapter Heaven and hell) about both risks, global warming and global cooling. Randroide 15:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Does this disagreement involve WP:BLP? It seems to involve language about people's opinions as distinct from biographical language. --Shirahadasha 15:26, 25 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;" | Cho Seung-hui – Inactive. – 01:12, 8 May 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;" |

Cho Seung-hui
- This is a bit of a mess at the moment with frequent attempts to include irrelevant details about his parents and sister. I don't see any reason why the names of any of these people or their addresses or even their place of work is relevant. Perhaps mention of their job and what city they live in but anything else seems gratiotious. Some contributors are defending these on the premise that the media have already revealed these but BLP requires additional considerations IMHO. Nil Einne 09:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the rush to have an article on him. The same with the next person down the list. Steve Dufour 03:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not looked at the details of the article, but I agree with Nil Einne on this - details about his family are really beside the point. A sketch of their background is ok, but otherwise I think it can well be a BLP problem. As for why there's an article about him, it's obvious, Steve - people want to find out basic facts about someone who leaps into the news, and Wikipedia is about the only place you can do that in this breaking-news way.  But again, his family have privacy rights - they didn't choose to put themselves in the public eye, and I think we need to be careful. Tvoz | talk 05:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears information has been removed where there is no more BLP violation. The only thing given is the sister's name and the fact she works for the U.S. Department of State which is slightly relevant to the part about her "response". Cbrown1023 talk 19:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Cho Seung-hui is dead, is BLP relevant to an article about him? 129.97.79.144 21:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The concern here is what is said about his living family memebers. --Gbleem 10:36, 22 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. – 01:12, 8 May 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

 * (SPA)
 * [ user Truth seeker is also user ]
 * [ user Truth seeker is also user ]
 * [ user Truth seeker is also user ]

This may still be below the threshold of immediate action necessary, but perhaps some experience editors can watchlist this page. single purpose account User:Liam Patrick is busily expanding the "Jewish Controversy" section and I'm not clear whether the stuff should be copy-edited, shortened or deleted. --Pjacobi 19:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Article protected April 20 — scheduled to expire April 25.  — Æ.   ✉  00:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am having difficulties with the biography of Robert_Sungenis. User:Liam Patrick especially, appears to be biased and is trying to use the bio to accuse Sungenis of anti-semitism. User:Otheus is trying to mediate, but it is a slow process.

The problem is there are no reliable third party sources to establish the fact. The main source is a biased blog created by some of Robert Sungenis ex-employees. They state their bias and agenda. The other sources are related to this one (except perhaps one, but ultimately it can alsoe be shown to be related).

I have propsed a means by which the editors can use Robert Sungenis own words to indicate that he has been accused of anti-semitism, and of course that he denies it (which gets stated in either case). To me this removes the issue of using inappropriate sources per BLP (biased, agenda driven, partisan, blogs, etc).

I would appreciate anyone coming over and taking a look for yourself.Start at the bottom of the talk page and work up, because it gets much too long. Truth_Seeker 16:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: After five days of page protection on Robert Sungenis ended, the article has been edited over fifty times by two users: Truth seeker ( 30+ ) and Liam Patrick ( 20+ ). — Athænara  ✉  03:15, 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. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Wayne Crookes – Inactive. – 01:12, 8 May 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 Crookes

 * - Canadian media are reporting today that Crookes is suing the Foundation for libel. // A. B. (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * More media coverage:
 * The Globe and Mail: "Libel lawsuits takes aim at Internet postings"
 * The Vancouver Sun: "Former Green campaign manager says he was libelled, sues Google"
 * WebProNews: "Canadian Sues The Messenger"
 * CKNW: "Local man sues Wikipedia"
 * --A. B. (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest someone take a look at Talk:Wayne Crookes. I don't have the time, but some of the stuff may be problematic. --A. B. (talk) 02:48, 21 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;" | Jim Lampley – Inactive. – 01:12, 8 May 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;" |

Jim Lampley


See Jim Lampley. He seems to have been arrested on a number of charges - and pled guilty. But the article seems to imply (at least at times because there's an edit war here) that he was convicted. But he may only have been technically convicted of something much less than the charges. There seems to be some sort of POV pusher here. I'd received OTRS complaints, but now that someone has posted to my talk page I can put the info here and get more eyes in it:

''"Did you know that, in addition to his sportscasting duties, Lampley is an outspoken liberal commentator? That the judge was the daughter of a GOP kingpin, Gerry Parsky? Of course, domestic violence charges are a serious matter and need to be investigated thoroughly; however, the investigation show there was no evidence of the allegations in this case. Even Mr Lampley's former wife, Bree Walker publicy stated that he was not capable of the charges that Ms Sanders brought. That the apartment the complaining party was living in was not hers, it was his....although all news accounts say it was hers. That the DA dismissed the case and investigation due to lack of evidence. That the only thing Lampley was guilty of was 'coming within 100 yards of his own apartment' by having a meeting with his property manager. If you'd like to contact his attorney for the facts, his name is Thomas Warwick in San Diego. Perhaps he can provide the court papers and what the facts showed re: the no contest plea. Mr Lampley could not factually dispute that he was technically within 100 yards of his own apartment the day he was meeting with his property manager. The investigators, on the property to interview the complaining party, noticed Mr Lampley leaving the mgr's office and arrested him at that time. The complaining party also was driving Mr Lampley's BMW until the proceedings concluded. We live in a litigious society and anyone can charge another party with a variety of claims. Your treatment of highlighting the charges and not of the ultimate disposition is not totally fair, despite whatever take you get from the media. The print media in San Diego is definitely skewed right. The north county of San Diego is generally a very conservative climate, where the charges were brought and where the court was located. There is much more to this story than the sensational headlines."''

Can someone check the sources and make sure that the article a) reflects the facts b) doesn't give undue weight to dismissed allegations/investigation.--Docg 19:35, 21 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;" | Norman Lamb – Inactive. – 01:12, 8 May 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;" |

Norman Lamb

 * - I am having difficulty with who is insisting on his additions to this biography of a current British Member of Parliament. While the main issue is over NPOV (he is a political opponent), part of his claims include questionable and unsourced claims about Norman Lamb. I would appreciate other voices persuading him to discuss and amend his edits. Sam Blacketer 19:36, 21 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;" | Crystal Gail Mangum – Inactive. – 01:12, 8 May 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;" |

Crystal Gail Mangum


I've tried to explain to Duke53 that just because Crystal Gail Mangum's accusations are no longer being pursued by the authorities, does not necessarily mean that they are false. In fact it definitely does not mean that legally and factually. He does not understand this and has reverted a minimum number of changes that I have made simply removing the word "false" from the statements. I have no dog in this fight and only care that we don't have potentially libelous statements on Wikipedia. You may wish to examine Duke53's other contributions, which I have not done in detail but, based on the labels seemed disturbing. Student7 22:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The NC Attorney General stated definitively that the "attack" Ms. Mangum claimed happened never occurred. That would make her accusations false.  If you've actually been following this case, there is no longer any controversy over the fact that her accusations were false.  That is what prompted the AG to take the extraordinary step of declaring that the people Mangum accused are factually and legally innocent. Unlearned hand 03:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

While not a biography, they are defaming the same person in this article. RipCurl this time. Kind of a team effort you might say! :) Student7 01:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal


 * 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;" | Jimmy Wales – Inactive. – 01:12, 8 May 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;" |

Jimmy Wales

 * - Current dispute as to whether a section (now moved to the article's Talk page) criticising supposed "Wikipedia revisionism" by Jimmy Wales is neutral, appropriate to the article and meets requirements of WP:BLP. After some editors repeatedly reinserted the disputed section, an RFC was opened. One has created a misguided "sandbox" fork of the bio. An additional dispute over whether the description of Bomis under Jimmy_Wales should include "soft-core pornography" may also be ongoing (a discussion of Bomis is already covered at Jimmy_Wales). // LeflymanTalk 06:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The bio has now ratcheted up to introduce even more bias. This onslaught of anti-Wales propagandising is impressive. -- LeflymanTalk 21:51, 24 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;" | Henry Heimlich – Inactive. – 01:12, 8 May 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;" |

Henry Heimlich

 * Heimlich (Heimlich maneuver) has become an object of heated controversy, with son and partisans on the warpath. The article is a mess, riddled with unsourced assertions, POV and weasel words, mainly attacks on Heimlich. I've inserted a POV and deleted some flagrant weasel-worded POV, but what's left remains highly POV.  Apparently, partisans are using the article as a platform.  The New Republic has a major report about the flap in the current issue, which is bound to fan the flames, so the article here, what's left of it, may eventually have to be protected. &mdash; J M Rice 20:05, 24 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;" | Ongoing court cases (31 January 2007 Birmingham raid) – Inactive. – 01:12, 8 May 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;" |

Ongoing court cases (January 2007 Birmingham Raid)


I would be grateful for advice on how Wikipedia deals with claims of criminal activity which have not been proven or alleged in a court of law. The article 31 January 2007 Birmingham raid contains biographical information about a number of men, including Basiru Gassama, Amjad Mahmood, Pervaiz (Parviz) Khan, Zahoor Iqbal, Hamid Elasmar and Mohammed Irfan. It states that Gassama has been charged with “failing to disclose information” and that the others have been charged with “supplying terrorists”. As far as I can tell, those statements are correct and properly sourced.

The article also contains a number of other statements about the men, such as “they were suspected of planning to kidnap a Muslim British soldier, torture him. . . and behead him.” A section of the article focusing on “the plot” contains similar claims in more detail. These statements are properly sourced, with references to newspaper articles in which anonymous sources make these statements. However, the claims have not been made by any named police spokesman, security spokesman or prosecutor. They have NOT been made in a court of law. This is NOT a court case in which the men are accused of doing these things and deny it. The trial has not begun. Police have released no details of what the men are accused of (other than “failure to disclose information” and “supplying terrorists”). Prosecutors have not accused these men of anything at all, so far.

This is not a dispute with editors, as although I have made some comments on the article’s talk page I have also bought the issue straight here. If there is an issue with this, perhaps it should simply be cut out of the article immediately (I think it should). I hope it is also obvious why I have not simply done it myself – the claims are sourced, and maybe I am worrying about nothing. I am hoping people with more knowledge of Wikipedia policies (and possibly the English legal system and issues surrounding contempt of court) might take a look. Thanks. Hobson 18:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Michael Smith, Jr. – Article deleted. – 01:35, 8 May 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;" |

Michael Smith, Jr.
→ See also: Articles for deletion/Michael Smith, Jr.

Blatant lack of neutrality - The stub offered on Father Michael Smith, Jr.[] appears to me to be horribly biased. Perhaps someone could take a look and make the proper emendations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cestsura (talk • contribs) 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I recommend speedy afd because of lack of sources. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've stubbified it. No opinion on its AfD. Tom Harrison Talk 13:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was unstubbed and lots of claims re-added without sources. I've reverted.  Corvus cornix 20:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Zenon Panoussis – Resolved. – 09:57, 9 May 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;" |

Zenon Panoussis
Tagged for no citations, no WP:RS, only WP:OR. This article has been typed off Wikipedia and a copy/paste job done five years ago without anyone adding anything verifiable about it. COFS 01:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please be more specific regarding any WP:BLP problems here? AvB &divide; talk  22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an issue of adding more citations, but not a WP:BLP issue at present... Smee 23:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Agree. Can we archive this report? 2-3 days without actual BLP concerns posted here indicates there aren't any. AvB &divide; talk  15:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Does it make sense to include this boilerplate sentence in every case? Personally, I thought that uncited statements in biographies *are* a BLP issue. Ken Arromdee 14:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We were discussing BLP issues in the context of this noticeboard (see requirements at the top of this page). I'm sorry if that was not clear. How about archiving this report? AvB &divide; talk  11:46, 7 May 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;" | Timothy F. Ball – Resolved. – 09:57, 9 May 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;" |

Timothy F. Ball
KipHansen 17:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * - this is the BLP for climate change skeptic Tim Ball. He is currently suing an author and a newspaper for libel for their printing the same things posted in his Wiki Biography.  eg:  The question of his PhD.  There is a link to an image of his PhD transcript which expressly says that the field of study for his PhD was Climatology, yet his summary insists (see Talk page) that his PhD is in Geology.  This is one of the points of his libel suit.  The edit wars are just too deadly serious on this page for me to become involved.  I just want to point out that the potential for a libel suit against Wiki is high.


 * It seems to me that the points being disputed are really petty as well. The main facts that he is a PhD and a global-warming sceptic are agreed on by all.  Why do the minor things have to be mentioned at all? Steve Dufour 23:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Steve - they get mentioned because editors on one side of the "climate change controversy" feel the need to denigrate and/or minimize the qualifications, personalities, and personal ethics of "climate change skeptics" while editors on the other side of the issue wish to elevate to hero status the same persons. Thus, edit wars, and poor (and in this case), dangerous Wiki BLPs.


 * According to the libel suit (see 'Dispute over academic credentials' section) he is suing 'Johnson' (an individual) and the Calgary Herald for $325,000 over these types of issues. In short, the subject is litigatious, has a libel suit ongoing at this very moment over issues clearly repeated in his Wiki bio.  Checking the edit history shows that these issues and details appear to have been subject to many edit wars.


 * How does one (do we...) step in and get this sorted out enough to protect the Wiki project?
 * KipHansen 16:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be glad to step in. The situation is more than a little complicated -- for example Ball himself says his Ph.D. was in geography, yet the posted transcript says "the Field of Study was Climatology." Raymond Arritt 16:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I took a look at the article. Given the above-noted ambiguity over the subject of Ball's degree I thought it safest to just say "he received a Ph.D...." instead of giving the field; anyone who's interested can check out the linked reference. Also the bio is barely more than a recitation of a few statements and quotes, all well sourced.  I can't see where there's anything actionable (IANAL) but if there are specific items of concern let me know. Raymond Arritt 16:56, 28 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;" | Derek Smart – Resolved. – 09:57, 9 May 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;" |

Derek Smart
See Talk:Derek Smart - Mr Smart is upset enough at this page to be waving around legal threats. But, whatever his legal position may or may not be, he seems to warrant an article, and it's the right and encyclopedic thing to do to make very sure this page is written to the best of Wikipedia standards. Please go all BLP-feral on it - David Gerard 16:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reviewed. Reasonably well sourced, certainly compares favorably to version prior to arbcom. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Pascal Duquenne – Resolved. – 03:38, 11 May 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;" |

Pascal Duquenne


The information that Pascal Duquenne actually suffers from Down syndrome is repeatedly added to his biography page and my corrections are reverted, my question on the discussion page remains unanswered.

I explored the sources and found no trustworthy information that would prove this statement: from two sources one does not mention him at all and the second one, where he listed as a person with Down Syndrome, is just a compilation of the "readers' opinions", rather than any official page. Since it is not clearly proved by sources, I would avoid putting this information into the bio article. Alaudo 21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll readd it with some good sources (though perhaps not in English, I'll have to look further for that), as it is well-known and correct. See e.g. this from the first page of Google resultsFram 14:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that that link is a well known Belgium newspaper. In the second sentence of the leader it claims that: "[we had] An another happy meeting with with Pascal Duquenne, the boy with Down-syndrome who became well-known with the movie 'Le Huitième Jour'." Sander123 07:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been some edit warring over this. There is no good reason not to seek English language citations and to work toward consensus in a reasonable way, here and on Talk:Pascal Duquenne, rather than repeatedly adding questioned material with edit summaries such as "RV VANDALISM" and "I'm afraid it's only you who did not want to have reference in more language". — Athaenara 08:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Postscript: Compare Chris Burke (actor). — Athaenara 08:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Fram added the same material again, "discussing" via revert edit summaries rather than engaging in discussion on this noticeboard and on the article talk page. I'm really tired of reverting these guys when they won't even talk about it normally.


 * My only involvement in this is as a neutral noticeboard volunteer who strives to implement policies and guidelines. Can some additional NPOV editors help out here?  — Athaenara 10:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the personal attack assuming that everyone who doesn't agree with you (which is, as of now, everyone apparently) is not a "NPOV" editor. This edit has been discussed on your talk page and via edit summaries (you haven't edited the talk page of the article either). There is no need to seek further consensus on a thing where one editor reverts against different other editors (2 named and 2 IP) and against policy (removal of well-sourced material). The consensus is clear from the page history. Anyway, I have now added to the talk page two English language sources whioch you could just as well have found with a simple Google search. IF you want to improve the page by replacing a good foreign language source with a good English language source, be my guest. I can't be bothered to do so when one person blindly reverts my addition anyway because he misinterprets policy and tries to dictate where discussion should take place. We are all volunteers here and none of us involved in this edit war have shown signs of having some POV in this. Discuss it on the article talk page or leave it alone please. Fram 10:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Two messages about Pascal Duquenne were left on my talk page yesterday, one from and one from. I removed them today, asking both users to post them where the WP:BLP discussion is: on this noticeboard. — Athaenara 11:01, 9 May 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;" | Kevin Potvin – Resolved. – 03:38, 11 May 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;" |

Kevin Potvin


Libelous material is posted and reposted to the entry about me, despite my repeated attempts to remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.131.134 (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC).


 * This is in reference to the article Kevin Potvin. I've attempted to fix any possible libelous material and asked Mr. Potvin to please stop editing the article and address any problems to the discussion page. sinblox (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to remove libelous material about me at this site over and over because it keeps getting reposted. For example, the sentence "it was revealed he wrote a column in 2002 in which he described his pleasure in watching the September 11, 2001 attacks" is inaccurate. n example of what critics of Wikipedia warned could happen: Someone self-serving could use Wikipedia to inflate his resume or otherwise mislead readers for personal gain", is inaccurate, I was not inflating a resume, i was not misleading anyone.

Potvin said that he had "substantial letters" in both magazines and he considered that work because it was work for him to write them.--you can obviously see where this person is coming from. I explained why "letters" are articles in peer review academic journals, and that these two magazine's letters sections are like those.

I have removed the libel material more than 12 times or so. I would like the page removed, I am the one who put it up in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.131.134 (talk • contribs). 04:58, April 18 2007 (UTC)


 * I have updated the article based on your complaint above as well as the sources given in the article. I just saw you've also added a large critique on the article's talk page; I'll read it now and see how far we can accommodate you within the limitations of our principles, policies and guidelines. You can find full information on our rules using the links posted on your talk page. AvB &divide; talk  11:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * After reading your talk page contribution I did not find additional material in the article that could be adapted to your comments. I hope you can accept the current version of the article. If there are any specific items left in the article which you feel do not conform to our rules, especially WP:BLP, or are factually incorrect in your opinion, please post them here so that other editors can check them out. The most important aspect I'm asking you to consider is that everything in the article is (or should be) supported by what Wikipedia calls reliable sources (see WP:RS). AvB &divide; talk  12:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * An anon (probably Mr. Potvin) made this edit. I think it's OK but would like someone else to double check. Anon, could you please confirm or deny you're Kevin Potvin? Thanks, AvB &divide; talk  00:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be irrelevant whether Potvin made that edit or not (it's properly cited and verifiable). He's revealed his identity voluntarily in various places, but in the ocean of anonymous editors that is Wikipedia, there's absolutely no requirement to do so. It seems to me that a) Potvin is easily a notable person and therefore the article should not be deleted and b) extra care should be taken by other editors to ensure slanted views stay out of the article. Precedents in Vancouver show that once the initial controversy dies down, articles on central figures become boringly stable (see Erik Bornmann and Rachel Marsden, both of which elicited fierce opposition from the subject). I've only just looked at this article, and have watchlisted it, and will put a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vancouver. The general principle at work seems to be that the more people watching an article, the less likely it is that POV edits will get through, and are generally reverted within minutes.
 * As an aside, before so quickly concluding that Wikipedia is as unreliable as the critics say Kevin, compare the utter fabrication in that rag you write for dissing Wikipedia. According to the edit history for the Vancouver Courier article, it has never said what the Courier reported it said. Unlike Wikipedia, there's no easy way to check the veracity of the claims made by anonymous editors in the Courier, now is there? bobanny 17:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Whether or not Mr. Potvin made that edit is by and large irrelevant in terms of our rules, but it is quite relevant in terms of the correspondence we've had with him regarding this article (see its talk page and above). I hope Mr Potvin recognizes that we're trying to resolve such problems amicably without compromising our rules. I trust it's already clear to him that we've done all we can here and that deletion is out of the question. AvB &divide; talk  18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So what is the process here? It looks to me like any potentially libelous material has been purged, although some minor typos and formatting errors remain. I'd suggest unprotecting it, with the option of semi-protecting it if POV-warriors start at it again. Or are we waiting for clearance from lawyers or something? Expansion of the article would also be a step forward and make it less POV prone, since he's been a notable fixture in East Vancouver for years; the way it reads now makes it seem like the recent controversy is the sum of his notability. bobanny 22:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Doc_glasgow semiprotected the article after renewed edit-warring apparently between anti/pro-Potvin anons. Although this may not be linked with this report (regarding edits by Potvin) and technically the report could be closed, the situation is not stable so I think we'd better keep it here on the noticeboard for now. Hopefully more users will put the article on their watchlist. Expanding the article also sounds good - not really required per WP:BLP, but certainly an improvement and it may indeed make Mr. Potvin a (slightly) happier customer. You clearly know more about Potvin than most of us so please go ahead and improve away... Thanks, AvB &divide; talk  23:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * PS (1) lawyer: We're not waiting for legal green lights; as far as I know this is just between Mr. Potvin and Wikipedia editors. (2) sprotect: I think we'd better keep the semiprotection a bit longer in view of the many edit-warring IP addresses. AvB &divide; talk  23:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, except that it's fully protected, not semi-protected, so us plebians can't edit it. bobanny 00:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, just an FYI that I posted that there were WP:BLP issues with this article on WikiProject Vancouver, WikiProject Canada, and the Vancouver Courier talk page. That should get more of the grown-ups to watchlist it and minimize nastiness. bobanny 00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The full protection which was added April 25 UTC was changed to semi-protection on April 28 UTC. — Athaenara 00:53, 8 May 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 Rathwell – Inactive. – 03:38, 11 May 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 Rathwell
I don't understand why this is even an entry on wikipedia. The original article reads as though it is a vanity entry and appears in exactly the same words on several other websites including the subject's own. The subject has published many books - but all through his own on demand print company, The much revised entry is less contentious but I am still not of the opinion that this person warrants an entry. There is no independent confirmation in the entry of any of the awards that he claims to have been awarded etc. My own opinion is that this entry should be considered for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.92.249 (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Sheikh Adelabu – Inactive. – 04:17, 13 May 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;" |

Sheikh Adelabu


Hi all :) The above referenced article doesn't seem to claim anything controversial or alarming, but is always alarms me when living person bios are completely unsourced--there's not even an extenal link at the bottom of the page. I'm going to notify the page's creator once I find the right tag... I've tagged the page with --is there anything else I should do? THanks! Wysdom 02:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw wait a couple of days and then put a speedy deletion non-notable tag on it. --Gbleem 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a speedy delete tag to it. --Gbleem 10:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The db-bio tag (added by Mhking) was removed a half day later.  — Æ.   ✉  23:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The wikify and cleanup tags which were added in April have had little or no effect. The last three edits to the article were by user Johnjofe (userlinks above) on April 23. I added Category:BLP Check. — Athaenara 00:43, 8 May 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;" | Nina Bracewell-Smith – Inactive. – 04:17, 13 May 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;" |

Nina Bracewell-Smith
A slow-motion edit war has been in progress on this article over the subject's date of birth since September 2006, and not a single editor has cited a reliable source that gives this information in all of that time. I've removed the controversial information and placed a warning on the talk page (q.v.). Uncle G 13:03, 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. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Complaint from subject of BLP article – John Paulus article deleted. – 04:17, 13 May 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;" |

Complaint from subject of BLP article
"I am the person who the John Paulus Wikipedia page is the subject of. The sources sited and referenced are a series of gossip sites and blogs. Your information about me is replete with inaccurate information and information that it skewed in a calculated effort to promote propaganda and paint me in a negatively light. It's objectivity is in question when the authors are fans of one Clay Aiken who have massaged the facts to suit their malicious and nefarious agenda. I asked that the page about me be removed or that certain elements that are not sourced through legitimate media be removed. At issue is this alleged recant. This recant is false and was a sarcastic response taken literally and immediately fed to blog sites which are now being sourced as legitimate. I can be contacted through email at JohnPaulus@gmail.com You immediate attention is greatly appreciated. --JohnPaulus 03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)"

(from Editor_assistance/Requests) — Demong talk 05:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See also: Articles for deletion/John Paulus (2nd nomination). So far the consensus favors deleting the artice. -Will Beback · † · 09:30, 9 May 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;" | Shaquille O'Neal – Resolved. – 04:17, 13 May 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;" |

Shaquille O'Neal


Check his page, it is extremely offensive and inappropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.188.82 (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Specific objections would help us perform a thorough investigation. I've looked at the page and removed about four sentences of unsourced material, including personal information that wasn't salient in any case.  Jehochman (talk/contrib) 04:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | David Miscavige – Inactive. – 09:02, 13 May 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;" |

David Miscavige
This person is the president of the Church of Scientology, and as such an object of controversy. An accusation against him was added to the article based on the statements of a former church member posted to three anti-Scientology websites. The charges may be true but it doesn't seem to me that they can be stated as fact on WP. I have removed them twice and they were put back. Steve Dufour 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The information was from a sworn affidavit. The information should be reinserted back into the article, but with correct clear attribution given to the source of the statement.  Smee 05:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Isn't it the case that anyone can basically allege anything in an affidavit? I'm not sure we can regard such a document as a reliable source given the lack of any editorial controls or verification. A court judgment might be a different case, but an affidavit doesn't seem to me to be a very satisfactory source. -- ChrisO 06:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In a sworn affidavit, the person is under oath. Theoretically, they'd face the same penalties as lying to the court from the witness stand. AndroidCat 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That still does not give us the right to repeat the charges as if they were a fact. For all we know the person giving the testimony could be mentally unstable.  Steve Dufour 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, why not remove otherwise citable references for everyone? They might be be mentally unstable too! AndroidCat 20:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


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

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


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


 * Are you referring to these two edits? This information is properly attributed to the source, so your original report (unattributed statement of fact) does not apply.


 * I see no problem with these edits other than the fact-checking/editorial oversight/reliable source caveat by ChrisO above. This is in fact a WP:BLP concern that can only be resolved if a reliable secondary source for the statement is provided. From there we can turn to the primary source (the court document) to augment the information. Comments anyone? AvB ÷ talk  10:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If someone swore in a affidavit that George Bush was an alien from outer space should that be mentioned in his article? Steve Dufour 02:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, when it's attributed, it's a fact. In view of the lack of weight/relevance as apparent from reliable secondary sources, no, such a fact fact shouldn't go into the GB article. AvB ÷ talk  12:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In the article on David Miscavige, who is the president of the Church of Scientology, information on his brother and sisters has been added. I removed it twice only to have it quickly put back. To me it seems that knowing about his brother and sisters is not important for any understanding of him. On the other hand it seems like having them mentioned on WP could be a privacy problem for them if they don't want to get involved in the controversy about their brother. Thanks. Steve Dufour 13:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Brothers and sisters of a controversial person?


 * I agree. I can't see why this unsourced information should be in there and have removed it. Sam Blacketer 15:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems like some of the other editors are determined to have them mentioned in the article. Two have been put back with citations.  Since they are cited I guess they will have to stay, but I still don't see what purpose there is in mentioning them. Steve Dufour 04:36, 11 May 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;" | Ted Nugent – Resolved. – 09:02, 13 May 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;" |

Ted Nugent

 * - There's been a complaint about this being a biased article. A quick read over it and the 'controversies' section, gives me cause for concern. Some sources are very poor. I've no time to do this properly but some bold editing and removals look like being in order. Can folk deal with this?--Docg 11:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


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


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


 * Wow, we were graced by a visit from the Motor City Madman himself? I am not worthy!!! ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed some BLP offending material from this, but the 'controversies section' needs a good cleanup. Sources need checked and probably a re-write to ensure this isn't just a trawl for everything that makes the guy look bad.--Docg 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not everyone thinks the material in the controversies section "makes the guy look bad." Nugent has had a reputation for three decades for sometimes outrageous plain speaking and the section itself is consistent with that aspect of this entertainer's persona.


 * As Snopes says, "He is not one to be shy about sharing his take on things with the media, and interviews with him make for highly entertaining reading." That said, not every individual item in the controversies section is accurate.  I corrected one of them a few minutes ago, and I will look for more.


 * Like all Wikipedia biographies of famous subjects, this article is often plagued by simple vandalism. That is unlikely to change as long as editing by unregistered anonymous users is allowed.  — Athaenara 09:41, 6 May 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;" | Gilad Atzmon – Inactive, perhaps resolved. – 09:02, 13 May 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;" |

Gilad Atzmon


Has been classified under the category antisemitism for being accused of antisemitism, a charge which he denies. The accusations are sourced but the inclusion in the category is dematory, and I've just had a 24 hour ban for a 3R vio for removing the category. The counter-argument offered is that the category includes groups and individuals notable for opposing antisemitism, however the reason for including Atzmon is that he's accused of antisemitism, a charge which he denies. In my view it would be like putting an accused paedophile in a paedophilia category. It's contentious and defamatory and Atzmon's alive, so surely BLP is applicable? And (without wanting to sound whingey) is it OK that I get a 24 hour ban (on my block log) for a good faith BLP revert?  Felix Felix talk 17:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is in the antisemitism category becuase it is relevant: The subject has written extensively about antisemitism, has unusual ideas about antisemitism, and has been accused of antisemitism by groups fighting antisemitism. Inclusion in the category does not imply he's an antisemite, and false invocation of WP:BLPis not a license to edit war. Isarig 03:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he's only written about antisemitism as in reply to accusations of antisemitism about him, he writes about anti-zionism. His inclusion in the category implies precisely that he's antisemitic, as there's no other reason to include him. WP:BLP specifically states that 3Rs does not apply when removing defamatory material. I and others (FYCTravis, Nishkid for example) disagree with you about the BLP issue-perhaps that should give you pause for thought.  Felix Felix talk 06:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's false. He's written about AS w/o any reference to accusations against him, see for example this. You have been blocked for a 3RR violation by an administrator who reviewed Nishkid 's analysis, and found it faulty. Perhaps that should give you pause for thought. Isarig 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is Atzmon in the antisemitism category? Is it the accusations of antisemitism? Or an essay he wrote? If it's the latter then it fails notability. Come on.I'm not terribly impressed by Jayjg's record of impartiality, and Nishkid and FYCTravis are admins too. What's the point of the 3R exemption for BLP if it's ignored? What are we to learn from this/ To keep BLP vios unless we get blocked? I think not.  Felix Felix talk 16:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He's in the antisemitism category because he is relevant - he has written extensively about antisemitism, he's been accused of antisemitism by notable people and organizations, and one can argue that his personal notability is due, at least in part, to this. What we are to learn from your block is not to raise bogus BLP claims, as a way to win edit wars. Nishkid is an admin, but you will note that he agreed with Jayjg after the latter overruled him, so you can stop invoking his name. (and as a side note, accusing admins of editing in an impartial way, as you have done above, is a sure way to earn yourself an even longer block. You might want to rethink that one). Isarig 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He hasn't 'written extensively about antisemitism' unless you count writing about the accusations of it, He certainly has been accused of antisemitism by many people and organisations, however his inclusion in the antisemitism category for that is defamatory. And as he contests it, and is alive-that's a BLP vio.  Felix Felix talk 16:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It gets tiresome when you ignore responses and just repeat your mantras. He has written extensively about AS, w/o any reference to accusations against him. I have given you one such example above - read it. That article predates accustations of AS against him, and is one (of many) reasons why he's been accused of AS. There is nothign defamatory in the inclusion in the category which clearly and explictly does not imply that those included are antisemites. This has been explained to you at length on the Talk page, repeated in the ratioanle for blocking you, and explaine dhere once again. Give it up. Isarig 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "It gets tiresome when you ignore responses and just repeat your mantras." Praise indeed, coming from the master of the form! I've read the essay, which was written in response to accusations of antisemitism; but even if it wasn't,it would fail notability-but of course, the reason that the article is included is because Atzmon has been accused of being an antisemite. Including the accusations, per se, is fine, as they are sourced accusations. The inclusion in the category is not, as it carries the value judgement that the accusations are correct.  Felix Felix talk 12:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again: There is nothing defamatory in the inclusion in the category which clearly and explictly does not imply that those included are antisemites. This has been explained to you at length on the Talk page, repeated in the rationale for blocking you, and explained here again and again. If including the accusations, per se, is fine, as they are sourced accusations then the inclusion in the category is fine, by definition. Isarig 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How can that be? The to and fro quotations in the article are accusations and denials of Atzmon's suppossed antisemitism. They're not about anti-semitism generally. And Atzmon's supposed antisemitism is contested, and (as I've said before) defamatory. It's not settled, and he is alive. So it falls under the aegis of WP:BLP. And should go.  Felix Felix talk 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your assertions are contradictory. The article discusses accusations of antisemitism; if it's not a violation of WP:BLP to have those discussions in the article, then it's certainly not a violation of WP:BLP to include it in the category of articles that discuss antisemitism. Very few articles discuss antisemitism generally; one or two at most. All others discuss some aspect of antisemitism, sometimes broad, sometimes narrow. This article is no different than others, it discusses some aspect of antisemitism, and therefore belongs in the category of articles that do so. Jayjg (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the problem, isn't it? The article details accusations of Atzmon being an antisemite. The category is for articles which discuss antisemitism. Atzmon's article doesn't-it doesn't even discuss Atzmon's antisemitism-because that is not established, in fact it is contested. So the article shouldn't be included on content grounds, but on top of that the fact that his article is in the category implies that the accusations have substance, as the inclusion in the category is one which requires a deliberate decision by an editor and is not the reporting of a source. Thus it's defamatory, unsourced and contested, Atzmon is alive and therefore it's a BLP vio, the removal of which I was rewarded with a block by you.  Felix Felix talk 20:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But the article does discuss antisemitism, through Atzmon's somewhat unique take on it, including his claim that no one can be an antisemite, becuase according to him, that term does not signify anything, and his claim that the notorious antisemitic forgery of The Protocols is actauuly an accurate description of the exisitng reality.  Isarig 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Category:Anti-Semitic_people was deleted over a month ago as a violation of WP:OCAT and WP:NPOV, so adding specific people to this category (Category:Antisemitism) is just doing an end-around of the aforementioned CfD. Despite Isarig's protests to the contrary, being put into this category certainly would reflect negatively upon the person. Tarc 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to this personal opinion of the category, but it is explictly denied by the category's definition that being added to this category means you are an antisemite. Isarig 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Deny all you like, but it is undeniable that the term "antisemite" is a slur. As such, all people should be removed from this category. Tarc 22:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This category is not "antisemite", but rather "antisemitism" - and is for articles that discuss antisemitism. The inclusion of people like Abe Foxman should have tipped you off. Please have a read at the category's description before posting misleading arguments. Isarig 22:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be an ass, please. I did read the category, and the fact that it has a "disclaimer" does not alter the fact that the term is a slur, and including people in it has the capacity for abuse as has been done with Gilad Atzmon, to label him an antisemite. Tarc 23:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are strongly urged to review WP:CIVIL. Another comment like that and I will report you. The category does not label people as antisemites. It is for articles discussing antisemitism, which this article does. Isarig 00:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You accusing others of being intentionally misleading isn't exactly proper conduct either, so beware of glass houses. Anyways, used in the manner that it is on this particular article, it is a slur, it is defamatory, and it should be removed per BLP violations.  Period. Tarc 14:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no special "mannner" in which it is used on this article. This article discusses antisemitism, so it belongs in the category. Period. Isarig 14:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that you're quite mistaken. Let's see how the category renaming proposal goes; if it passes then all is well, as some form of "Discussions of Antisemitism" name would remove this point of contention.  If not, then this will be taken further along the proper BLP channels. Tarc 14:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I believe I am 100% correct. I think we're done here. Isarig 14:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It has become rather tiresome to see people continue to pretend that the category is "Antisemites", rather than Antisemitism. Anyone who actually looks at Category:Antisemitism would see that it's not. Jayjg (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Equally tiresome are those that do not recognize a distinction without a difference. Tarc 11:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no distinction between "Antisemitism" - a category for articles that discuss some aspect of antisemitism and which includes such people as Abe Foxman and Eli Weisel, and "antisemites" - a category which includes people who are antismeites? If you do not understand the difference, you probably should not be editing wikipedia.  01:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isarig (talk • contribs)



Non-neutral edits by the three userIPs above are a BLP concern and seem also to be pertinent to this category controversy. — Athaenara 04:07, 10 May 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;" | Justin Berry – Resolved. – 09:02, 13 May 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;" |

Justin Berry

 * - Editors contending over different parts of this article, several rv's of unsourced negative information have been required. Article subject is an active editor on the article. // Ssbohio 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've communicated with the subject-editor a couple of times on-WP, but he hasn't responded. I'm now working with Ssbohio and others on this article. Some editors have professed POVs regarding the subject. The subject's actions are the center of a number of legal proceedings and a few journalism ethics issues. These matters make it more difficult to properly balance the article. Due to those factore I think it's best to err on the side of brevity. -Will Beback · † · 10:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Things seem to have calmed quite a bit. There has been a bit of IP vandalism, but nothing unusual.  --Ssbohio 15:17, 9 May 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;" | Scott Bloch – Inactive. – 09:02, 13 May 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;" |

Scott Bloch
Scott Bloch is currently at the center of a minor political event with regard to charges the President acted illegally. Google his name and you will see what I mean. Now read our article on him. Now note that a contributor named "Queerudite" has filled our article on him with queer issues. WAS 4.250 23:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The pseudonym chosen by the editor is no more relevant than your chosen pseudonym is. What is relevant is whether the editor is providing verifiable content supported by reliable sources.  Checking a selection of the sources cited, it appears that xe is.  Xe is providing content, sourced from articles in The Washington Post (where this person is the primary focus of the articles) amongst others, relating to the actions in public office taken by a public official, that includes such publicly recorded activities as testifying before the U.S. Senate and issuing statements of departmental policy.  Indeed, he hasn't provided any content that deals with the subject's private life at all.  Uncle G 14:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am concerned firstly with WP:COI issues in that Queerudite might be introducing bias or unbalanced coverage with regard to an issue he might have strong feeling about and secondly with possible future media coverage of Wikipedia's coverage of Scott Bloch given the increasing media profile of both wikipedia and the current Scott Bloch investigation into Bush's last presidential campaign. Balanced coverage is a BLP issue, but maybe this is more of a COI issue afterall. In any case, it is a concern. WAS 4.250 16:26, 28 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;" | Tom Monaghan – Being resolved elsewhere. – 09:02, 13 May 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;" |

Tom Monaghan

 * Template talk:Dominionism
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive236
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive236


 * I have removed him from Template:Dominionism where he was listed as a "Financier of Dominionism." I have not found sources to support such a statement. Tom Harrison Talk 02:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have again removed Monaghan from the list of 'Financier of Dominionism', and have blocked User:72.198.121.115 for re-adding it. Review and comment appreciated. Tom Harrison Talk 14:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a discussion on this topic here and I must say, I tend to agree with Tom harrison here. The main source seems to be this article in the Rolling Stone.  I cannot see how someone can take the information in Rolling Stone and conclude that it is providing a citation that Monaghan is a Dominionist.  This seems to be a leap.  However, I am not familiar with Dominionism or with Tom Monaghan and am only leaving my comment here because I reviewed a block.  --Yamla 15:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * FeloniousMonk found my block to be inappropriate and unblocked the anon. I'm posting on ANI for review and discussion. Tom Harrison Talk 16:10, 28 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;" | Bruce Hyman – Inactive. – 09:02, 13 May 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;" |

Bruce Hyman
→ See also: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive235

I have been watching the talk page for this person (a contentious subject due to an alleged misdemeanour of his, which he is in court for at the moment), and today some eight or nine entries were briefly on the talk page before being wiped. Now there is no trace of them in the history section even, so I cannot check up on what was written. Why has this happened? Is it usual to delete material even from the history section? Who authorises it? Why? Surely Wikipedia is not censored? Podder8 14:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I should add that there have been large-scale removals of material, both in the article and on the talk page, before today, but their traces are still in the history section. The entries made today have gone completely, with no trace.  What is going on? Podder8 14:52, 28 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;" | Stormfront (website) – Resolved. – 09:02, 13 May 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;" |

Stormfront (website)
I've removed a small bit of unsourced BLP stuff twice and have been reverted. Article also has some slight POV problems, but my main concern is the list of members which is not sourced. --- RockMFR 03:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your approach. These forums have long-term members and stable identities. In the case of notable people who frequent a website their identities are widely agreed-upon and can be sourced from user pages, etc. But we do need to keep a close watch because even sourced material may not be reliable or suitable. I've left a BLP0 template on the editor's page and will watch the article more closely. -Will Beback · † · 09:58, 1 May 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;" | Huseyincan Celil – Inactive. – 09:02, 13 May 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;" |

Huseyincan Celil
has been adding been adding inappropriate and possibly libelous information to the lead. His source is a third-hand reference, a partisan paper which quotes a partisan group claiming he was on Interpol's "Red List." I was thinking of blocking as per this, but I think it would be better to bring this up here first. Khoikhoi 03:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, contrary to Khoikhoi's statement here, the information was already present on the page. Khoikhoi on the article talkpage initially states that the info doesnt need to be mentioned in the introduction because it is already mentioned below. He then changes tactics, claiming it violates BLP when mentioned in the introduction but not when it is mentioned in the body of the article. I have now posted multiple sources from Human Rights Watch and the Uzbek government. KazakhPol 04:11, 29 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;" | Gary Bauer – Resolved. – 09:02, 13 May 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;" |

Gary Bauer
is repeatedly inserting misleading, inappropriate, unsourced and potentially libelous allegations of homosexuality to this article. (UTC)


 * I left a note on User talk:GearedBull. The material was unsourced and dodgy even if it had a source. I think GearedBull probably just reflexively reverted because the deletions were made by anons with no edit summaries. -Will Beback · † · 10:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an incredibly poor article, especially for a public figure of this level of prominence. *** Crotalus ***  07:36, 3 May 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 Shanklin – Inactive. – 09:02, 13 May 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 Shanklin

 * - Conservative satirist, long time Rush Limbaugh show performer. Brand new blurb added that appears to be trying to stir up a Don Imus style controversy.  Only sourcing appears to be a blog-site, so this appears to be a violation, at the least for sourcing.  Looking for an independant eye or two on this.  I'm a little close to this, being a long time Shanklin fan so I may be biased against negative information.  OTOH, this does sound like the kind of thing Shanklin would do, as his satire has always been fairly biting.  // TexasAndroid 15:24, 30 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;" | Richard Hell – Inactive. – 09:02, 13 May 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 Hell
Can someone BLP check this please and sort any issues out. Thanks in advance. – Steel 15:46, 30 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. 
 * }
 * }