Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive219

Brandon Davies
On, Ballin890 insists that should be removed from the article (note that this happened several times and you can look back through the history). He received several warnings, including a final warning and that was taken to AIV but referred back here. Ballin890 said in an edit summery that "Please keep that information out of Brandon Davies Wikipedia page. He has a family now and does not need to be remembered by a mistake he made when he was 19 years old. I understand it was in the media and still can b [edit summery cut off]", but when approached on his talk page he agreed to stop until it was settled, and at the time of this post hasn't gone back on that. Kharkiv07 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * At this time you can also see his contributions, as they're all related to the matter at hand. Kharkiv07 (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I reverted the first few deletions. The user never responded in the article talk page, his talk page, my talk page or even in an edit summary until on the verge of being blocked.  I feel like the information should be in the article.  It is brief and not overly sensational, it was heavily covered in the American press at the time that it happened - literally by all major national sports news outlets and many non-sport news outlets - see results for simple Google search for "Brandon Davies dismissal" here).  We keep much, much worse transgressions committed by public figures so long as they are properly sourced (note to my British friends - top-level college sports are covered at the same level in the US as top-level professional leagues in most countries).  Taking it out not only feels like censorship, but it doesn't answer the question as to why he missed half a season.  In addition to violating the 3RR, this editor has also now deleted all of the warnings on his talk page related to this and seems to be a COI case as well. Rikster2 (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Heads up, I just made a new edit to this controversial section of the article. My rationale is explained in the edit summary. I invite everyone's review and comments. Townlake (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edit mentioned "it references the SLTrib, which itself does not actually verify exactly what Davies did. " The SLTrib qualifies it's claim with "... The Salt Lake Tribune has learned." I don't see any reason to doubt that this major newspaper did not verify what it reported and should be considered slanderous. Its report from 2011 has become accepted as fact over time. For example, a 2014 article in the Los Angeles Times makes the same claim about Davies without qualification.. At the very least, this should be in the article attributed to the SLTrib. However, WP:NPOV advises: "Avoid stating facts as opinions."—Bagumba (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. The LA Times "article" you linked to is a guy-at-the-bar opinion column that isn't even pretending to be journalism, so let's leave that aside. Your wide acceptance argument is flawed -- literally all the sources I saw for "Brandon Davies" and "premarital sex" eventually trace back to that anonymously-sourced SLTrib article. It's an article which I don't believe Davies has ever challenged, but maybe that's because Davies' real transgression was worse than what was reported? If all he did was diddle his girlfriend, why would he have been so distraught? We simply don't know enough. That article notes that the school refused to provide the details of the honor code violation, and the kid never talked about the specific issue publicly to my knowledge, so all you have to go on are unnamed sources who might or might not have full information. The SLTrib and the numerous other media organizations that cited to it as though the unnamed sources were gospel are allowed to have low fact-checking standards, but Wikipedia does not have that luxury, especially for BLPs. Do you disagree? Townlake (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Given its prevalence in sources years later, and the fact that the report has never been challenged, I think you are arguing to be conservative and attribute the report to SLTrib per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? Another option is WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which advises to use "alleged".—Bagumba (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's out entirely. It's a prurient detail that is unnecessary to understand the subject of the article, we have no way of evaluating the veracity of the claim since it was made anonymously, the organizations that could verify the claim have refused to, and the accuracy of the claim is relevant to the reputation of a living person. I might feel differently if this was a crime, but come on man... this is just about a college dude possibly diddling his girlfriend. That is unremarkable, and it doesn't need to be mentioned in his encyclopedia biography. In fact, for an LDS/BYU kid, having this scarlet letter-type idle gossip attached to his bio is probably more harmful than it would be for a non-Mormon. Townlake (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On top of the above, the school releasing the details of Davies' violation would have been a clear violation of FERPA, which usually forbids public disclosure of student disciplinary records in the absence of criminal activity. No wonder the SLTrib's sources wanted to be anonymous, and no wonder neither the school nor Davies went on record to clarify what actually happened. The fact that America's TMZ-esque sports media ate up the sketchy SL Trib story without questioning it doesn't mean we should do the same thing. Townlake (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd use more caution if it was WP:RSBREAKING, but years have passed. I wouldn't have a problem with saying "alleged" and giving the added detail.  At any rate, if nobody else chimes in, at least we have agreement on leaving the undisputed part about violating the school's honor code.—Bagumba (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the premarital sex story is not disputed. Read this story on Davies' first interview after the incident when he was returning to BYU.  Personally, I think it can be in the story (adding "alleged" is fine if people feel more comfortable) with either the STL article or this one. The premarital sex angle is quite well known and a big part of the reason the story got coverage beyond sports press is because BYU's strong stance was so different from many schools'. Rikster2 (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Townlake was uncomfortable that nobody has ever confirmed this on the record, but so much in journalism is off the record. It's the ones that get widely circulated and unchallenged that become accepted as fact. We can always worry that there was some fringe conspiracy theory, but I think we should generally just gauge whether the sources are reliable.  I don't discount it simply because it is anonymous.  There's a lot of gossip out there in general, but most are not circulated by multiple sources like this one.  At worst, use "alleged", but unchallenged after many years, this seems as close to a fact as we ever get on things. Again, ""Avoid stating facts as opinions."—Bagumba (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Jihadi John
I just wanted to raise this issue for comment here as the title Jihadi John obviously makes reference to the real Beatle, John Lennon. Lennon, being born within the last 115 years still falls into the remit of WP:BLP. I have never heard of a family member of those killed by Emwazi themselves make any reference to him by the name "Jihadi John" and I certainly haven't heard any politician use the name. We are left in an interesting situation in which, for all I know, no primary source makes use of this designation and where it seems to be an spin or fabrication of secondary sources. I was wondering whether anything could be done about this. There is currently an RM proposing to move the title to Mohammed Emwazi here and an RM associated with The Beatles (terrorist cell) here.

I also have a supposition that, in developing the article a sequence such as the following may have happened. An editor may have heard of relevant topic in the news that could be added to the Jihadi John article. The editor then does an internet search on "topic Jihadi John". They then add another Jihadi John focussed reference to the article.

Even with the source material referenced, the article seems to disproportionately push the name "Jihadi John". For instance, when I added the replacement text "The masked militant in beheading videos" here so as to give a more faithful representation of source material, this change was instantly reverted. It makes no sense to me. GregKaye 16:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If the name were "Jihadi John Lennon" then that would be more problematic. "John" is a very common name, so there's obviously nothing wrong with using the term "Jihadi John" at Wikipedia.  The only issue is whether the name "Jihadi John" really needs to be explained as something more than alliteration.  I don't see a problem with briefly explaining that at Wikipedia, even though Ringo is understandably displeased.. Like Ringo, we do not control the facts.*Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)  *Except when it proves irresistible to enough editors and administrators.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's not "the only issue". The main issue is whether the article should be called "Jihadi John" or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a BLP issue with the title of that article. It may be preferable to change the title, but not for BLP reasons. The current title does not obviously refer to John Lennon.  Even if it did, bad people are named after good people all the time, such as John Wayne Gacy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think he's slightly different, as he was legally given that name by Mr and Mrs Gacey. (Although of course, his nickname may be considered offensive to certain circus workers and children's party entertainers). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, every case is slightly different. But fans of John Wayne are generally not thrilled to see the full name of their hero atop an article about a mass murderer.  What Hollywood PR person would want that?  Anyway, having opined, I'll kick back.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. The BLP policy says: "Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death."  So, the policy could apply here only to "Jihadi John" and not to John Lennon (whose middle name, incidentally, referred to the British Prime Minister).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

We are certainly grasping at straws here. WP:RECOGNIZABLE, Jihadi John is the most recognizable name for him. It might gain the annoyance of Beatles fans but that's not anything that remotely matters. Looking at the talk page this seems to be going into the realm of tendentious.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably also annoys some hardline jihadists, being associated with that hippy crap. But aside from all that, we probably mostly know Ali Hassan al-Majid as "Chemical Ali", too. But there he is. Personally, I'd rather "Jihadi John". Catchy. But I'm not Wikipedia. Not really, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no BLP issues because John Lennon is dead and has been known to be dead for quite some time. Which is the article vs which the redirect between Mohammed Emwazi and Jihadi John matters little but I personally prefer real names to nick names when they are known. Jbh (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of primary source for validation of revocation of medical license at William C. Rader
Is it appropriate to use a primary source to validate that someone's medical license has been revoked when we do not have third parties discussing it? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like a cut-and-dried case of WP:BLPPRIMARY to me. — Strongjam (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPRIMARY merely advises caution when using primary sources, and the stated policy on WP:PRIMARY is as follows:
 * "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
 * It is unequivocal that Rader had his license revoked for gross misconduct; there is no room for misinterpretation of this fact. One suggestion that I would make however, is to use a better primary source than the spreadsheet entry that was originally linked. The license revocation can also be confirmed by a secondary source. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually the revocation was for not following the standard of care and of being "unrepentant."  "Gross misconduct" is not found in the actual revocation decision.  In the case at hand, the reasoning is clear in the decision.  Collect (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Conclusion 10 of the document was "gross negligence". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Dick Cheney
Does
 * ''RS criticizing Cheney as a draft dodger[1], a “self-confessed draft dodger”.
 * Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war. 'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'[2]

fall under WP:BLP noting that "draft-dodger" is an accusation of a crime? ("Refusing to submit to the draft is considered a criminal offense in most countries where conscription is in effect.") I note that there is no source quoting Cheney as saying he was a "draft dodger" - the "self-confessed" source is "A Bush & Botox World" by Saul Landau; AK Press, 2007 - Political Science - 301 pages. That source appears to be " AK Press is a worker-managed independent publisher and book distributor that specialises in radical left and anarchist literature. It is collectively owned and operated." which fails WP:RS no matter who looks at it. Thus using a non-RS source to make a criminal charge about a living person I think might run afoul of policy here.

The editor of course posted


 *  You know that you are supposed to raise BLP claims at the BLP board after deleting text on the basis of a claimed violation of BLP. You need to start following that directive and stop making unilateral pronouncements on such matters.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As that editor is the one who always says WP:CRYBLP is his favourite essay :), I trust that his demand that I prove that making criminal charges about living persons is covered by this actual policy will be adequately noted. Collect (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the unreliable source for "self-confessed draft-dodger",Saul Landau: He was one of the leaders of the Institute for Policy Studies, whose anti-"militarist" conspiracy-theoretic rightwatch is being added to many BLPs. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear trigger warnings 11:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it falls under the BLP policy, but are you asking if the policy prevents the source from being used, the answer is no. Clearly though, editors should not be poring over sources just to glean nasty things to call BLP subjects. Is Cheney widely-known as someone who avoided the draft? If so, it may be worth mentioning in proper context and without sensationalistic labels.


 * You two really need to develop some level of mutual respect and stop belittling each other. This behavior is embarrassing to the project, and it's disruptive.- MrX 15:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Cheney is characterized as a "chicken-hawk", "draft dodger", "self-confessed draft dodger".
 * The other sources include one by academic historian Joseph R. Conlin, a “self-confessed draft dodger”.
 * I've simply asked Collect to follow what I believe is the correct procedure. I'm not alone in having doubts about the applicability of BLP here. The "accusation of a crime" angle has first been seen by me here, because Collect does not generally describe his claims of BLP violations in detail.
 * Please clarify how this violates BLP and how the sources could be used. Note that the text was not inserted in the article by me, and was used in reference to PNAC, with Cheney as a member.
 * The British MP making the statement against the war seems notable, as well as his characterizations, so is it a policy that "pejoratives" are not used in BLPs? In that case, simply paraphrase the sources and cite them?

-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:37, 15:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What encyclopedic content are you proposing that would depend on those sources? Just because something is not a BLP violation doesn't mean that it belongs in a biography.- MrX 15:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article in question isn't a biography, it's Project for the New American Century. The mention of Cheney is incidental to the point being made, which is that critics of the org. have criticized its members for being pro-war but avoiding service themselves. I don't love that section of the article myself but my two cents is that it's clearly marked as 1 persons opinion, is reliably sourced, and makes an accusation re Cheney that many other RS have made or noted. so I'm not sure where the BLP problem is. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP applies to all articles and all Wiki pages where living persons are being discussed.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger that - I didn't mean to suggest that the policy doesn't apply, was just trying to answer Mr. X's question about what the quote is being used for.Fyddlestix (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you mean Project for a New American Century? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, fixed it, thanks! Fyddlestix (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. Delete this whole correction (for posterity), if you want. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The quote from the British MP speaking for itself seems fine to me in the PNAC article. It addessed Cheney but also the illegitimate warmongering to invade Iraq. If it's not a BLP violation then it should be restored as far as I can tell. It is a criticism relevant to PNAC, first and foremost ("right-wing think tanks"), and Cheney as a prominent member of that organization that promoted the invasion of Iraq, and as the VP.
 * Here is a peer-reviewd source that notes both Newsweek and The Nation with respect to the "chickenhawks" characterization, and also mentions avoiding the draft.War Beyond the Battlefield, edited by David Grondin, Routledge, 2012
 * When I checked the Cheney BLP and noticed there wasn't anything there, and then checked the talk page to see the "Wikiganda" section, I decided to post the citations and quote there. I think you wording about "being criticized for avoiding the draft would be more appropriate for the BLP, but the quotes and more pejorative characterizations by mainstream sources seem appropriate to me on the PNAC article. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheney got five deferments, four for being a student, and then one for being a new father. Certainly that's worth mentioning in the Cheney article.  It would also make him a chicken hawk, provided he deliberately  went to school --- or reproduced --- to avoid the draft.  Therefore, if a reliable source asserts that those things were done for that purpose, then by all means include the chickenhawk accusation in Cheney's article; in contrast, unsupported accusations of being a "chickenhawk" are about as BLP-compliant as other unsupported accusations ("scumbag," "dumbass," et cetera).  If the "chickenhawk" accusation is included, then any defense by Cheney should perhaps be included too, for example if he ever defended himself by saying that Vietnam was an unjustified and poorly executed war whereas the ones that he started were marvels of good planning and good intentions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the link, I've just wiklinked to the correct article (even though the meaning is defined in the quote).-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 10:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverted, per WP:MOS, following recent warnings from and myself (noted on talk page of PNAC). LLAP, Dear ODear ODear trigger warnings 11:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

An en passant quote "I had better things to do" is not being a "self-c0nfessed drat-dodger" by a mile. Accusing a person of being a "draft dodger" is, in fact, an accusation of a crime. "I had better things to do" is not an admission of a criminal act. Period. Collect (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You removed part of the quote, which was selectively incomplete to begin with. The rest of the quote should probably be removed until the dispute is settled.- MrX 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, no point in keeping a gutted quote. I'll remove it for now - but I must say I'm disappointed to see Collect editing it this way when he clearly does not have consensus to do so, either here or on the talk page, and knows full well that the edit will be controversial. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Where anything is a violation of WP:BLP (such as making a claim of criminal activity) the policy requires removal.  Following absolute policy is not "controversial" - it is violating policy which is "controversial."  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of what the policy is, that's not the issue here. The issue is that myself and several other editors think you're being over-zealous in your interpretation of BLP policy, and that the quote isn't a violation. I've repeatedly asked you explain in greater detail exactly which BLP policy the quote runs afoul of, and there has been considerable evidence presented both here and on the article talk page which suggests that the allegation is widely made/repeated in numerous reliable sources.  That it is not a violation of BLP policy. I'd urge you to read and engage with the arguments other people are making, instead of assuming that your personal interpretation of BLP policy gives you license to ignore and override the input of other editors. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To expand on this with a more specific point: I think you're off-base to suggest that calling someone a "draft dodger" is an accusation of crime - look the term up in dictionaries and you'll find that while some of them specify that "draft dodging" refers to illegal draft evasion, others have a much broader definition, which includes seeking deferments and other exemptions. The OED, for example, defines "draft dodger" simply as "a person who has avoided compulsory military service" - with no requirement that the tactic used to avoid the draft be illegal. As popularly/widely used, the word "draft dodger" does not necessarily refer to someone who broke the law, and you're over-reaching by calling this a "claim of criminal activity." Fyddlestix (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Disappointment is part of life, but it often stems from inflated expectations or misapprehensions---the latter being relevant here. Collect and all other editors are requested immediately remove any BLP-violations. Period.
 * Speaking of BLP violations, the Jew-labeling continues at PNAC-founder Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland---as an added payback, the names of their minor children are being added, once again. Anybody who cares about BLP should help out. (And this has been going on since 2008.) LLAP, Dear ODear ODear trigger warnings 15:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're assuming that the quote is/was an actual BLP violation. As far as I can tell, however, you and Collect are the only people who've tried to spin it that way. Plenty of other editors have expressed the opinion that there's nothing wrong with the quote. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the assertion that it is an "accusation of a crime" is not sustainable, because it is common parlance for avoiding the draft as well.
 * Deleting the material against consensus would seem to be problematic insofar as there has not been a determination here that it represents a BLP violation, which serves as the basis for the removal.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's a BLP violation to include accusations of "draft-dodging" or being a "chickenhawk" while excluding reliable sources that call such charges "ridiculous".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So you would support "ridiculous draft-dodging chickenhawk"? - MrX 20:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost. :(Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"Draft dodging" is, indeed, a criminal offense. Contentious claims, such as a person calling another person a criminal, do fall under WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Draft dodging" has, as far as I know, no legal definition. It's a colloquial term that covers everything from fleeing to Canada to gaming the system. As such, "draft dodging" does not necessarily imply a crime. And regardless of that, we are perfectly able to include reliably sourced notable accusations, as long as we don't adopt them in Wikipedia's voice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See . It most definitely has direct criminal implications.   In fact, were it not a crime, Carter's pardon would have been meaningless, indeed.   And we do not generally include allegations of crimes where no indictment or prosecution has been made at all, other than the few cases where the person died during commission of a crime.   See Clay v. United States inter alia. Collect (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't find anything relevant in either of your links. Yes, of course there are activities that are covered by the colloquial term "draft dodging" that the US considers criminal. But not all such activities are - arguably, your link to Ali is an example where "draft dodging" was found to be no crime. So is Cheney's case - apparently legal, but maybe morally iffy. Carter did not pardon all "draft dodgers", he "pardoned certain persons who, during the Vietnam War era, violated the Military Selective Service Act by draft-evasion acts or omissions committed between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973", a much more select group than "draft dodgers". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The opinion source said Cheney was a "self-confessed draft dodger" but no source has Cheney making that claim, therefore the "self-confessed" bit is clearly errant (the person making the claim quoted Cheney as saying he "had better things to do" which is not a claim that a person dodged the draft AFAICT. In point of fact, there is no indication Cheney did anything "morally iffy" either -  the charge is clearly politically made, and not made on the basis of fact.  .  It is clear, moreover, that calling a person a "draft dodger" was and is a "contentious claim".   Unless you feel that such a charge is not "contentious"?   Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your link to answers.com above - the first non-ad paragraph there is, to be generous, grammatically and orthographically challenged, and the site does not seem to be a reliable source at all. Could you explain what I should learn from this link? As for the rest: Where did those goal posts go? Are we still talking about the same thing? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Numerous sources cite Cheney's statement(s) in one form or another in relation to the allegation of "draft dodging", "avoiding the draft", etc. None of them accuses him of committing a crime in that regard, though.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose in this BLP of the language in any event - given that I at least view the language as quite contentious? Is there a specific actual purpose which you intend the language to have?    found that calling a person a "draft dodger" was defamatory per se.     saying "draft dodger" was "defamatory".  And so on.   I would have thought anyone who was alive during the 60s would have been well aware of the connotations of "draft dodger" though.   Collect (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have the feeling that you just throw some dragnet search terms into Google Books and post anything that at the first glance seems to support some kind of argument that is only loosely connected with the discussion at hand. Your second source deals with a different term with a similar meaning used in WW1, a very different situation. Your first source is at least more apropos, but it is more than a generation out of date. And it does not support your point - the page 368 snippet only found that calling someone a draft dodger was defamatory in a very particular situation, namely when made to a prospective business associate who was an ex-military man who had lost many friends in the military. The "per se" is not part of that context, but is in the apparently unrelated second column, at least in what Google shows me. The second snippet (page 371) makes no claim either way. And the third snippet, page 63, actually nearly verbatim repeats my argument - that the term is not defamatory per se, because it is ambiguous.
 * There is no prohibition against "contentious statements" anywhere, whether in a BLP or elsewhere, as long as they are reliably sourced and notable. I have no opinion (yet) on that aspect, but I do strongly object to what looks like an attempt to bypass the substantive discussion by making wrong and irrelevant assumptions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin and libelous descriptors

 * "American magician, juggler, comedian, musician, inventor, actor, and best-selling author" -- I don't see lawyer in that list. Not exactly an authority on libel, I'd say.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You do not need to be a lawyer to recognize libel, ultimately a jury of 9 non-lawyers decide when it is brought to a courtroom. I doubt that any of the editors that will decide this incident are lawyers either. Even if they are lawyers, I doubt they are libel lawyers. Even if they are libel lawyers, I doubt that they are libel lawyers representing the Wikimedia Foundation. This isn't a legal decision involving lawyers, it is about enforcing the Wikipedia rule: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous." Even the chatter on the talk page calling him a crank should be removed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I prefer to avoid the use of contentious labels in a BLP but in the rare instances they are included, such use should require RS with inline text attribution. Contentious labeling has been an ongoing debate at Griffin, giving rise to numerous debates.  The first RfC determined the use of the label conspiracy theorist in the first sentence of the lead to be fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV.  I don't understand why it wouldn't also be considered noncompliant throughout the article.  Far better terminology would be words like perceived conspiracy, or controversial topics or conspiratorial view.  I oppose the use of promotes conspiracy theories, or is a conspiracy theorist because they are pejorative terms.  The same applies to quackery and crank.  I also oppose using such contentious material as section titles.  As an involved editor at Griffin since 12/10/14, I'll wrap it up here to make room for input from new blood.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  02:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The words should never be used for a living person, you can always fish around till you find someone that uses libelous language and then provide a reference to that source, but that is still libelous. It is just repeating libel. You don't say someone is a quack or supporting quackery. You say they support alternative medicine which has not been found to be clinically efficacious. You use the language of an encyclopedia. In a few keystrokes I can find racial epithets in reliable sources describing the president of the United States, they are still libelous and unencyclopedic, even when coming from reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well stated,  Thank you.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  16:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

List_of_state_and_local_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States
A one-shot IP removed an item from the list. Another editor has restored it. Forgetting the IP's legal threat (for which he has been blocked), my question here is: If a guy is charged but charges are dismissed, is it a BLP violation to include it in the list? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is one of the perennial BLP questions. In the past the question has been rephrased as "did the incident have a lasting impact on the individual's career or life?" In this case I suppose that's applicable since he resigned from office. In any event, we should be following up and adding balancing information whenever possible. To me that entire article is a big violation of WP:NPF. Blue links already cover the "scandals" for each individual so we should not be documenting more of them when they involve people that don't merit a standalone article to begin with, especially given the subject matter. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like the main problem here is guilt by association. The people who did really scandalous stuff are mixed in with the people who were wrongly accused.  Wikipedia already has lists like List of wrongful convictions in the United States and List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes.  Imagine the uproar if we instead had List of wrongful convictions in the United States mixed with the rightful convictions or List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes mixed up with acquittals.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That list is a mess. So many BLP violations and some very ambiguous inclusion criteria. Some pretty POV narratives too. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert—and have never really given WP:BLP a thorough read—but it seems a list like that, which is prone to being outdated as we saw here, is more trouble than it's worth and might result in unintentional BLP violations simply by the passage of time. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 22 Adar 5775 04:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

IMO, WP:BLP requires that we avoid doing harm to living persons. This "list" seems specifically intended to "do harm" to living persons. In short, we should delete such "lists" whose sole aim is to connect persons with crimes, or imply that they are guilty of crimes, for which they were not convicted. (I grant an exception for people killed while committing violent crimes, but that is a small minority). Collect (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Symptomatic of wider problem
Many of the same issues apply to the following lists, and probably others:
 * List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States
 * List of federal political scandals in the United States
 * List of state and local political scandals in the United States
 * List of federal political sex scandals in the United States
 * List of international political sex scandals

Here are some parts of WP:BLP that seem relevant:

(1) "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Many of these entries are supported by only one reliable source.

(2) "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." Many of these entries characterize scandalous behavior as fact rather than allegation.

(3) "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Many of these entries involve accusations of criminal behavior for which there has been no conviction, and yet they are characterized as scandals and mixed in with incidents that have resulted in convictions.

(4) "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content." There is inherent guilt by association here, because acquitted people, and people who have merely been accused, are listed together with convicted people.

(5) "[B]iographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." It is not fair to list people here who have merely been accused, together with people who have been convicted.

(6) "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved." A list focusing exclusively upon scandals is inherently improperly weighted.

(7) "Categories regarding ... sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the ... orientation in question.... Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident [where] ... the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. These principles apply equally to lists...." Many of the people listed were not convicted, and many of the alleged incidents are indicative of orientation without any indication of self-identification.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

PNAC Bush List
Lists people who signed a letter which was created by people in PNAC as being "strongly associated with PNAC." I would note this is the very essence of "guilt by association" and SYNTH - asserting that anyone who has ever signed a letter from a group is now a "member" of such a group or "strongly associated" with the group. For a person to be "strongly associated with any group" requires more than "he signed a letter". Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * List of Members of the Administration of George W. Bush who are strongly associated with Project for the New American Century (since renamed to List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush)
 * Since you failed to notify any of the concerned parties I have done so. Jbh (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are no sources that clearly bring these people under the umbrella of PNAC and Bush, it may be a conjectural interpretation of a source(s). Lists need to have sources for the overall subject of the list that corresponds with the inclusion criteria. In its simplest form, that means that reliable sources have published such a list, or discussed the members of the list in the context of PNAC and Bush.- MrX 13:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Each of the connections, as far as I know/can tell, has been reliably sourced. Collect just refuses to accept/acknowledge those sources, and refuses to clearly explain where the "SYNTH" is, even when repeatedly and directly asked to do so, and after having it repeatedly explained to him that the table is not drawing unsourced conclusions or connections. See the links in my post below if you can stand to read through it all, but that's basically my understanding of the situation. This has been discussed many times over, Collect just stops engaging and starts a new discussion elsewhere whenever someone asks him to make a more specific argument or clearly explain where the "synth" is. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we really need to discuss this again? It's been discussed here already, as well as here and here and here at (great) length. There are sources that clearly indicate each of these individuals' connections to both PNAC and the Bush Administration, and there are other sources which clearly indicate that the Bush Admin and PNAC had many personal connections/shared many personnel in general terms (I can link some of them here, but they've already been cited and linked repeatedly in the discussions I just linked. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this the kind of source you are looking for? From [//books.google.ca/books?id=rfRLu58POU8C&pg=PA73&dq=%22Richard+Armitage%22,++PNAC&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QcQCVaP_JcimmAXVkYDgDg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=%22Richard%20Armitage%22%2C%20%20PNAC&f=false Gonzalez, George A. Energy and Empire SUNY Press pp.72ff]"Signers of [the PNAC Iraq letter] were placed within key foreign pilicy-making positions within the George W, Bush administration." The source goes on to list Donald Rumsfeld and ten of the seventeen other signers: Elliot Abrams, James Woolsey, Paula Dobriansky, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter W. Rodman, William Schneider, Jr, Robert B. Zoellick, Richard Armitage, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard perle and John Bolton. Later on the same page:"The most significant PNAC member in the Bush administration... was Vice President Dick Cheney" There are many similar things in RS but this seems pretty clear.Jbh (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Anybody writing about "member" of PNAC is not serious, even if it got published by a weak university press. PNAC is a contentious topic, and anybody who cares about the encyclopedia should be using only high quality sources, instead of knowingly citing junk to support their POV.
 * There is no point trying to edit such articles. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear trigger warnings 14:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The reliably published statements in peer-reviewed academic sources are highly valued in the content creation endeavor here per WP:RS. The people published in those books are, in fact, very serious people, and you are not in a position to say otherwise. Even if you were to find a mistake in their text, all you should do is point that out so that it's relevance can be collaboratively ascertained.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * {ec}} The State University of New York (SUNY) press "a weak university press" the mind boggles. Jbh (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, it's a peer reviewed, academic book. It is a "high quality source," and I think you should probably strike your allegation that any of us are "knowingly citing junk to support their POV." Fyddlestix (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Article seems to serve no purpose other than for left wing zealots to promote some sort of quasi conspiracy theory. I guess this harkens back to when Dick Cheney was considered to be Darth Vader by the childish and ignorant left so these must all be Imperial Storm Troopers or something. Only an adolescent mind would find this SYNTH violation and possible BLP violation to be even slightly enlightening.--MONGO 14:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, who exactly are these "left wing zealots" and "adolescent minds" that you speak of? And where, exactly, is this "sort of quasi conspiracy theory" you speak of? I see no such thing in this article or in the PNAC one. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It would suggest targets for more Jew-tagging and accusations of dual loyalty, which would boost the traffic for the WMF quarterly reports. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear trigger warnings 14:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strike the above comment. It is bigoted and unhelpful. Jbh (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is helpful to those who are concerned about anti-semitism on Wikipedia and who may wish to stop the harassment of Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland. Strange that editors with a history on those articles don't revert the BLP violations. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear trigger warnings 14:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The personal attacks/borderline incivility are off-topic here, and uncalled for. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The sig also needs to be condensed to a single line, per WP:SIGAPP. Tarc (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I pray that I never have an awkward linebreak.DearODear 16:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear on the nature of the BLP concern here. Is the existence of the list a BLP violation in your view? Or are there specific people whom you view as inappropriately included? If the latter, please specify so that your concern can be addressed constructively. MastCell Talk 17:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that we should ever label living persons as being members of any organization based on their signing a single letter which is said to be from that organization?   I do not care what the organization is -- but I rather feel it is not up to us to define anyone  as a "member" of anything without a strong source for that membership.   Perhaps some feel that we can label people as being members without a real source - but I do not agree with that interesting position. Collect (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So calling them 'Signers of PNAC Policy Letters' is OK with you? Jbh (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I can think of instances where it would be appropriate, and instances where it would not. That seems like a red herring, though, since it appears that in this case many of the list members are identified because reliable secondary sources associate them with PNAC. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but you didn't answer my question: do you object to the list as fundamentally incompatible with WP:BLP, or do you object to the inclusion of specific members on the basis of poor sourcing? MastCell Talk 18:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all -- the use of a list of signers of the statement of principles is already in the PNAC article - which would make this separate list utterly useless.  The idea of a "list of anyone possibly remotely connected" is improper - specifically people listed as possibly zero agreement with the group in the book clearly are not "members" in any sense at all.   Thirdly, connecting the large group with somehow being ones who caused the Iraq War by virtue of "being somehow connected with the Bush administration" is either SYNTH or simply taking the famed "dual loyalty conspiracy theory" to absurd lengths.  Vide adding persons who were on a committee about bioethics!   World Bank!  Defense Science Board! etc.    Under no circumstances should Wikipedia promote the famed "dual loyalty" slurs.   Using on any BLP (Scooter Libby BLP for example) such sources as " 32. Cf. Ron Kampeas, "Libby Jewish? Some Wonder How Neo-con’s Faith Impacts Leak Scandal", Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), November 2, 2005; rpt. in Ron Kampeas, "Did Libby's Jewishness Impact the CIA Leak Scandal?" Jerusalem Post, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), November 6, 2005; updated November 7, 2005; both accessed July 16, 2007.,  neoconservatism is an episode, an important and interesting one, in the intellectual and political history of Jewish America, and it is impudent to call anyone who mentions this a bigot. Schoenfeld suggests that only racist crackpots ever query the commitment of senior Washington officials, but it was Jack Straw, himself a descendant of Jewish immigrants, who said of Lewis Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff: "It's a toss-up whether Libby is working for the Israelis or the Americans on any given day.",  and the like are improper accusations of having Jewishness being the defining political characteristics of living persons.   Your mileage may clearly vary, of course.   And I do regard any edit which makes such associations to be violative of BLP, and I suggest that your view is not supported by WP:BLP policy.   To call a person a "member" of a group requires a strong source for such "membership".  Collect (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you lost me somewhere around the middle of your paragraph; these sorts of stream-of-consciousness posts can be impenetrable and incoherent to those of us who aren't heavily steeped in the dispute in question, particularly when unaccompanied by diffs. You seem very concerned with the potentially anti-Semitic implications of this list, but I am not seeing how membership (or non-membership) implies anything of the sort. If anti-Semitism is a key concern in this dispute, then it's a basic responsibility on your part to explain your concern more clearly and provide diffs so that it can be addressed. From what has been posted so far, I don't see the connection. I'm still lacking answers to my questions&mdash;you've now repeated several times that you find signatures on a letter to be insufficient evidence of membership, but it appears to me that inclusion in this article is instead based on reliable secondary sources, so your comment doesn't seem to have any relevance to the dispute at hand. If I'm missing something, please clarify, ideally concisely and with diffs. MastCell Talk 18:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I daresay it is fun to deride editors as "incoherent"  but it appears the others have no problem in understanding my posts.   Is there a reason why an administrator should feel compelled to reduce their standing in such a manner?
 * Was the problem the fact that I oppose promoting the "dual loyalty conspiracy theory" about the Iraq War?
 * "His conclusions are similar to theirs: Individuals in government, who always have Jewish surnames and Israeli connections, provided crucial intelligence on Iraq and were concerned not with the American republic but with Israel's security. Like his predecessors, Hostettler's claim of "dual loyalty" by prominent Jews repeats age-old slanders of Jewish disloyalty to their countries and outlandish notions of secret Jewish cabals pulling international strings. ...  Hostettler gets to the red meat of his thesis when he focuses on the neoconservatives, relying on names such as Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Shulsky, to convey the specter of a covert cabal that has intrigued to encourage the United States to go to war for the benefit of Israel.  ... Sadly, this is the conspiracy theory that keeps on ticking."
 * If such is proper on Wikipedia in Wikipedia's voice, tell me.     Collect (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I also have trouble understanding your posts/argument Collect. I have absolutely no idea why discussions of the Jewish lobby, "dual loyalty conspiracy theories" and links to the adl would have anything to do with the discussion we've been having about PNAC. I have a vague sense that it relates to some previous, wholly unrelated dispute between you and Ubikwit, but apart from the fact that both of you are also engaged in the current debate it seems completely off topic to me. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Me three, I know none of that was in the table I used to create the article and I know I have seen nothing like that added to the article. I suggest back up such claims with links/diffs to the article. Calling antisemitism without backing it up is not an acceptable debating tactic. Jbh (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources characterize these men as "PNAC members" based on statements on the website at the time, or by the fact that they signed their name to the official PNAC statement of principles and later documents. There's no sense at all in quibbling over this fact; all of these named individuals were considered members of this think tank.  The problem here is that the scope of the list is intentionally biased and of a singular point-of-view; asserting the group's undue influence on the Bush Jr. White House.  This is a particular bit of POV ugliness along the lines of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, and IMO should be deleted on those grounds. Tarc (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, the list was a lot less likely to be seen as POV or undue when it was actually part of the article on the Project for the New American Century (which has a discussion/citations covering how some academics have spoken out against the perception that PNAC was a big influence on the Bush admin's policies). I'm pretty sure that Collect's insistence that the table was SYNTH and refusal to listen to contrary arguments was what inspired the list article creator to spin it out. Personally, I'd rather see it back in the article, where it can be paired with a broader discussion of PNAC's influence (or non-influence) for proper balance. Given the large numbers of sources which draw the same link(s), though, I don't think the table it self could be construed as POV or biased: the simple fact is that many PNAC supporters did end up working for the Bush administration, and many reliable sources (including many scholarly monographs) make that connection. As long as the table is paired with an acknowledgement/discussion of the people who've said that the effect of these connections have been over-stated (which is already in the PNAC article) then I don't see how the table could be a problem. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And there is a reliable source specifying that they were not members ("In Ryan's book (Neoconservatism and the New American Century) she says that "The individuals who signed the PNAC statements and letters were not employees or members of the group, and supporters of PNAC's initiatives differed from case to case.")  -- having a writer assert a person was a member of the Communist Party USA in the 30s does not make a person a member of the CPUSA in the 30s.  And where a reliable source says "not member" I tend to accept that - since there is no sign that PNAC was in any way a membership group in any of its documents at all.   And saying "signing a single letter" made one a member of PNAC is a really poor idea.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's one source, Collect, and I'd like to point out that it was me (one of the 3-4 people you've been arguing with about this for weeks now) who brought it to your attention. As I said just now on the list article talk page, there are plenty of other reliable sources that use "members" instead. There's a discussion underway on the same talk page, about whether the word "members" should be dropped in favor of "supporters," with their specific type/level of support noted specifically. We're trying our best to meet you halfway here, but you can't pretend that there isn't a very large number of secondary sources which draw the same links between these individuals, PNAC, and the Bush admin. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, once neo-conservatism crashed and burned as all their Iraq predictions and assessments blew up in their face, I have no doubt that there was a lot of behavior analogous to rats and sinking ships, as these people sought to distance themselves. But affixing one's signature to a document written on PNAC letterhead is sufficient to call on a "member".  Again, the entire notion of the list itself is silly and pointy, but just being included therein is not a BLP violation. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Neoconservatism didn't crash and burn; it's still alive and well in the Obama adminstration.
 * You really shouldn't be trying to downplay this subject matter, including the 'letters', over and against a plurality of peer-reviewed academic sources, especially using colloquialisms like "crashed and burned".
 * The reliably published statements of scholars are what we include in articles, the opinions of Wikipedia editors matter only on Talk pages.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 20:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "List of people associated with..." is never a good idea, and it's a BLP problem in this case because it synthesizes a category and puts people in it without adequete support. ("He signed the letter! Here's the proof!") Moreover, the article is something of a POV fork of Project for the New American Century. Presenting it as a list removes it from context, which exacerbates the BLP problem. Tom Harrison Talk 20:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Lists can be problematic if there is no context, but in this instance I see no harm. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * After discussion here I would not object to merging it back into the article. I have no faith at all that the editor who opened this discussion will DROPTHESTICK and comply with consensus. This topic has been done to death as an editor noted above here, here, here, and here in all of these discussions consensus formed that there was no BLP or SYNTH as was asserting. I will cop to 's allegation of POINTYness but this was the lowest drama solution I could think of. Jbh (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Using multiple sources to imply a conclusion not found in any single source is SYNTH by definition.  And if it is improper in this "list" it remains improper in any article.  And your accusation that I will not abide by WP:BLP is abhorrent and improper.   Period. Collect (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What conclusion specifically has been made as a result of synthesis of multiple sources? Please point it out so it can be corrected.- MrX 01:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact is that it wasn't pointy. It was the next logical step after determining that the table might be UNDUE after determining that the SYNTH arguments against it had no basis in policy.
 * The List article as such eminently meets the criteria of notability, as demonstrated by a shelf full of peer-reviewed academic publications, and we haven't even tapped other sourcing streams.
 * Finally, if it is deemed that the word "associated" in the title is problematic, as per, the article should be moved again to
 * List of PNAC members that served in the administration of George W Bush.
 * -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we stick a pin in this, please?
, the fact that you say something is a BLP violation or SYNTH does not make it so, particularly when you seem unable to explain how the edit/item/table in question actually violates any policies or guidelines. You've been repeatedly asked to detail your exact problem with the table: I'm sure I could find more examples but frankly feel it would be a waste of my time to spend any more time trying to explain this to you. Note that one of the diffs by JBH above is from February 10 - this debate has been going on for over a month! JBH told you over a month ago that: "I am not saying that I am unwilling to be convinced of your position but just saying SYNTH over and over will not get us there. Thanks for helping me understand your position better." And yet in the weeks that have passed since then, you haven't been able to clearly explain why you think the table is SYNTH or a BLP violation, and we continue to have the same conversation over and over again. Most of the well-intentioned, perfectly polite queries I linked above have either gotten no reply or received spectacularly unhelpful responses like this one (scroll down, it's the second edit of the diff) and this one, among others. Now I have no personal issue with you and this is not intended as a personal attack, I simply think that it's high time you sit back, take a breath, and recognize that this issue is not as clear-cut or as obvious a case of SYNTH (or BLP violating) as you seem to think it is. From where I stand, your refusal to read & engage with what other people are telling/asking you has been extremely disruptive and not at all helpful. On several of the talk pages/noticeboards where this issue has been discussed, there was a clear consensus against you (or at best, a lack of consensus either way). When that happened, you stopped engaging only to reopen the debate in a new forum (sometimes, just a bit lower down on the same talk page) as if the previous conversation never happened, and acting as if this was an open-and-shut case of SYNTH/BLP/OR violation. The reality is that most of the people involved in these discussions are not convinced by that argument, and this issue has already been discussed and done to death elsewhere, weeks ago. Respectfully, I suggest that it might be time to let this particular issue go. I respect your enthusiasm for enforcing BLP policies and guidelines, but in this case as far as I can tell, you're actually misunderstanding or misreading the policy that you claim to be upholding. Perhaps it is time to recognize/accept that fact. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * by here and here, and here
 * by here
 * by and others here (make sure you scroll to the bottom there, to see where/how the conversation ends).
 * By myself here and here
 * By JBH again here and here
 * By here and here


 * Indeed a good example of the need to WP:DROPTHESTICK -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article simply draws its own conclusions rather than using sources that actually state those conclusions. That's a textbook example of SYNTH. The article is just a POV pushing platform. I'd recommend Collect send it to Afd.--MONGO 03:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can explain what Collect has (in my opinion) been unable to: what exactly is they conclusion that is being drawn synthetically/through OR? Fyddlestix (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly you would care to point out the conclusions being drawn that are unsupported by sources? Specific, addressable examples please. Jbh (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How about the entire format? I was worrried when myself and others wrote Retreat of glaciers since 1850 that we might violate SYNTH because we were originally simply compiling a list but as it unfolded and we found dozens and dozens of peer reviewed and scholarly literature that allowed us to not draw our own conclusions we were able to make it a FA. This article is never going to be anything other than a piece of garbage in which the editors are trying to link together persons that whose involvement in PNAC is likely nearly zero. As our next President might say..."What difference does it make?" If Collect doesn't send this piece of crap to Afd I likely will.--MONGO 03:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Specific please. How is the format SYNTH. Right at the top of this discussion there is a source which defines the group and its significance - From [//books.google.ca/books?id=rfRLu58POU8C&pg=PA73&dq=%22Richard+Armitage%22,++PNAC&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QcQCVaP_JcimmAXVkYDgDg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=%22Richard%20Armitage%22%2C%20%20PNAC&f=false Gonzalez, George A. Energy and Empire SUNY Press pp.72ff]"Signers of [the PNAC Iraq letter] were placed within key foreign policy-making positions within the George W, Bush administration." following that is a list of those people. There are many such sources in the article. Several single sources all draw together the three elements needed to avoid SYNTH: 1 - The person was a "member" of PNAC. 2 - The person was a "member" of the G W Bush Administration. 3 - That the confluence of these two facts is notable and significant. By my understanding of SYNTH this is not SYNTH. What conclusions are being improperly drawn? None of these people have "nearly zero" involvement with PNAC. In particular they signed either the Statement of Principles, The 1998 Iraq Letter to Clinton or both and this is considered significant by multiple high quality RS . Please help me understand your position of how this is SYNTH. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the association with PNAC imputed by the requirements of signing a letter is SYNTH violation and it should be deleted. The letter is nearly 20 years old and regardless of who signed it then, I could not make out any points that separate the current U.S. foreign policy from the PNAC letter. It would not be a large leap to include President Obama as a PNAC policy supporter from the bullet points provided. It serves no purpose except as an attempt to disparage. It's certainly not useful for navigation as foreign policy has evolved since 9/11. --DHeyward (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The letter is not used to associate anyone with anything - multiple reliable secondary sources are. Your own interpretation of the letter is neither here nor there. Fyddlestix (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ummm.... Where did current foreign policy and Obama come from? And how is being part of PNAC disparaging? Would you please expand on those points just a little bit so your points can be better understood? Thank you. Jbh (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that others also agreed that the list and its implications are SYNTH, and saying "those who disagreed with me at the outset still disagree" means what? You have four saying "not SYNTH" while I have myself,, , ,   and from 2007 , ,  , ,  from  2015 , {u|DHeyward}},   (11 editors seeing the SYNTH issue). and have demurred on other related issues, but have not weighed in on the SYNTH direct violation. I would note that WP:BLP requires an actual affirmative consensus to insert material which has been questioned. I would note that we finally did remove the part about PNAC seeking to commit genocide with biological weapons, and the part abut the US actually standing down on 9/11 on behalf of PNAC, but the sources used for those claims are still used as sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The people from 2007 were discussing a table that is substantially different from the one under discussion now - their version seems to have been completely unsourced, whereas the current table has many. You also list people as "supporting" you who clearly do not actually support your position. You list Short Brigade Harvester Boris as "seeing the SYNTH issue," for example, but the only comment by that editor on this matter (that I can find) is here. Note that they do not say the table is SYNTH, simply that the citations need improving (and they have been substantially improved since that post).  Finally, you many want to check out WP:NOTAVOTE and What is consensus? to remind yourself that counting up "votes" (including people who haven't been active on wikipedia for several years!) is not the way to resolve disputes like this one. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also the bioweapons and 9/11 stuff is off-topic and not pertinent to the current dispute (I advocated removing those, remember?) Fyddlestix (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the synth objection? Synth means sources don't have these people as some reasonable paraphrase of members of the think-tank and the Bush administration, so the production of sources satisfies no-synth. Is the claim that those sources do not exist? Or is the claim that these sources exist but the "members" terminology needs to be better paraphrased to be more precise? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The table uses multiple sources to "connect" living persons to PNAC and separate sources to connect them to the Bush administration in the table at issue.   It is the precise equivalent of using a "person signed a single letter associated with CPUSA" and "they were in the FDR administration" to say "this Communist was part of the FDR administration." First - it is SYNTH to assert "signed a letter" = "was a member of" and second it is SYNTH to connect "signed a letter" with "member of the administration" where one uses two distinct sources for the claims made,  and third it is SYNTH to connect "signed a letter" with  "member of an administration" and fourth it is SYNTH to connect "signed a letter" with "influenced decisions to go to war" where that is the implication being made by the table.   shows the problem clearly.   And Ubikwit even strongly argued for the "genocide by biological weapon" material in the article, and the iterated use of Wikilinks to "chicken hawk" and other words within quotations   which he was told not to do by  before if I recall correctly, showing the POINTyness of all these edits. Collect (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW, Ubikwit thinks "lewrockwell.com" is a valid source for claims in BLPs.
 * ''David L. Atheide and Jennifer N. Grimes document that Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was the key player that instigated the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003. Their article is “War Programming: The Propaganda Project and the Iraq War”. It appears in The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005). I quote one long paragraph:
 * ''“The PNAC was very influential in changing U.S. foreign policy as well as promoting favorable news coverage about going to war with Iraq following the attacks of 9/11. The Iraq War was informed by these efforts and the resulting propaganda campaign to convince the American people that attacking Iraq was tantamount to attacking ‘terrorists’ and others who threatened the United States (Armstrong 2002). This organization was closely related to several other prominent think tanks, including the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), with its offices located on the fifth floor of the AEI’s Washington building.
 * ''Many members of the PNAC joined the Bush administration and became credible claims makers, who constructed the frames for shaping subsequent news reports. Among the members who signed many of the proclamations laying the foundation for a new American empire (Kagan and Kristol 2000; Bacevich 2002; Kagan 2003) were former and current governmental officials, including Elliot Abrams, William Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Steve Forbes, Donald Kagan, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. The PNAC emphasized changing American foreign policy to become a hegemon and police its international interests as a new kind of benevolent American empire (Bacevich 2002; Barber 2003; Kaplan 2003; Mann 2003; Johnson 2004).
 * ''This would include expanding the military, withdrawing from major treaties, as well as engaging in preemptive strikes against those who would threaten U.S. interests. Those messages, in turn, were carried by the mass media for months leading up to the invasion of Iraq.https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/michael-s-rozeff/the-pnac-conspiracy/
 * --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't., , , etc.       Collect (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess you didn't see the questions posed to you by other editors. What specific conclusion has been made, in this article, as a result of synthesis of multiple sources? Your claim that "it is SYNTH to assert "signed a letter" = "was a member of" and second it is SYNTH to connect "signed a letter" with "member of the administration" " is meritless because, for example, the Gonzales source unequivocally makes such a connection, so synthesis by us editors is not possible.- MrX 13:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have read your same position a number of times - but it does not multiply its value by being iterated. And tell us again how one gets from "signer of a letter" to "member" by the way -- with a strong reliable source?  See the problem?  Collect (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you agree that RS make the connection between think tank related people and administration related people? You just don't think "members" is a good paraphrase? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The sourcing is exactly as good as McCarthy's "sourcing" for calling people Communists.  The sources making the assertions (including Michael Meacher who is a 9/11 Conspiracy theorist) are of the same level as McCarthy used.   Making a "signer of a letter" (which is the standard McCarthy often used) into a "member" or "associated with" is still what it was over a half-century ago.  A neighbor of my aunt got caught then- and I keep the exact same standards I had then.    Do you find that level "good enough"? Collect (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (e/c):::::::I thought the connection was ascribing to the principles of the think tank. (Your aunt's story seems to be a your POV, which has nothing to do with the RS or encyclopedic coverage). Is this Gonzalez or the others not RS, is that what you are saying? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not my position; it's a question: what specific claim in the article is a result of SYNTH? Just pick one. You seem to want to discredit our sources based on your own views on what constitutes membership or association, but that's not how this project works. has even made it easy by adding quote from our source into the citations:
 * - MrX 13:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 13:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 13:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 13:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 13:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 13:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why I was pinged to this, but here's my reading of the situation. The article has ample sourcing for the pervasive influence of PNAC on the Bush administration as a general phenomenon, so the table is not advancing a novel position by existing. It's also summary to call a signatory to a PNAC letter "associated with" PNAC. To add "strongly" or call someone a member would need more sourcing. It has been said in this thread that sourcing exists, but its clearly "likely to be challenged" so needs a citation. I think a better title for the article (that renders moot the definition of member) would be "Political appointees associated with PNAC". Rhoark (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for chiming in - for those wondering, we're discussing renaming the table/article on its talk page right now (personally I'm in favor of "associated with"), but it's still under discussion. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A poster asserted that I was alone in finding that "member" requires a far better source that a conspiracy article at lewrockwell.com, and claims from 9/11 conspiracy theorists.   This table, by the way, started off with   (following was hatted by Mr. X as it is clear that the article was not just a "short table of a dozen people" at all - but contained extensive SYNTH of all flavours)
 * There are multiple peer-reviewed sources that use the term "PNAC members" precisely with respect to the relevant cntext here (i.e., the signatories of the PNAC Clinton letter, etc.), and here is yet another that I'll newly introduce here.US Foreign Policy and the Rogue State Doctrine By Alex Miles, Routledge -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ==Persons associated with the PNAC==


 * ===Project directors===

[as listed on the PNAC website:]


 * William Kristol, Co-founder and Chairman
 * Robert Kagan, Co-founder
 * Bruce P. Jackson


 * Mark Gerson
 * Randy Scheunemann


 * ===Project staff===


 * Ellen Bork, Deputy Director
 * Gary Schmitt, Senior Fellow
 * Thomas Donnelly, Senior Fellow
 * Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow


 * Mitch Jackson, Senior Fellow
 * Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director
 * Michael Goldfarb, Research Associate


 * ===Former directors and staff===


 * Daniel McKivergan, Deputy Director


 * ===Signatories to Statement of Principles===


 * Elliott Abrams
 * Gary Bauer
 * William J. Bennett
 * John Ellis "Jeb" Bush
 * Dick Cheney
 * Eliot A. Cohen
 * Midge Decter
 * Paula Dobriansky
 * Steve Forbes
 * Aaron Friedberg
 * Francis Fukuyama
 * Frank Gaffney
 * Fred C. Ikle


 * Donald Kagan
 * Zalmay Khalilzad
 * I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
 * Norman Podhoretz
 * J. Danforth Quayle
 * Peter W. Rodman
 * Stephen P. Rosen
 * Henry S. Rowen
 * Donald Rumsfeld
 * Vin Weber
 * George Weigel
 * Paul Wolfowitz


 * ===Signatories or contributors to other significant letters or reports ===


 * Elliott Abrams
 * Kenneth Adelman
 * Richard V. Allen
 * Richard L. Armitage
 * Gary Bauer
 * Jeffrey Bell
 * William J. Bennett
 * Jeffrey Bergner
 * John Bolton
 * Ellen Bork
 * Rudy Boschwitz
 * Linda Chavez
 * Eliot Cohen
 * Seth Cropsey
 * Midge Decter
 * Paula Dobriansky
 * Thomas Donnelly
 * Nicholas Eberstadt,
 * Hillel Fradkin
 * Aaron Friedberg
 * Francis Fukuyama
 * Frank Gaffney
 * Jeffrey Gedmin
 * Reuel Marc Gerecht
 * Charles Hill
 * Bruce P. Jackson
 * Eli S. Jacobs
 * Michael Joyce
 * Donald Kagan
 * Robert Kagan
 * Stephen Kantany
 * Zalmay Khalilzad


 * Jeane Kirkpatrick
 * Charles Krauthammer
 * William Kristol
 * John Lehman
 * I. Lewis Libby
 * Tod Lindberg
 * Rich Lowry
 * Clifford May
 * John McCain
 * Joshua Muravchik
 * Michael E. O'Hanlon
 * Martin Peretz
 * Richard Perle
 * Daniel Pipes
 * Norman Podhoretz
 * Peter W. Rodman
 * Stephen P. Rosen
 * Donald Rumsfeld
 * Randy Scheunemann
 * Gary Schmitt
 * William Schneider, Jr.
 * Richard H. Shultz
 * Henry Sokolski
 * Stephen J. Solarz
 * Vin Weber
 * Leon Wieseltier
 * Marshall Wittmann
 * Paul Wolfowitz
 * R. James Woolsey
 * Dov Zakheim
 * Robert B. Zoellick


 * ===Associations with Bush administration===

After the election of George W. Bush in 2000, some of PNAC's members or signatories were appointed to key positions within the President's administration:


 * Just so you can see where this started out.  This art is just the tip of the iceberg at this point per,  ,  ,  etc.  where an editor avers an intent to restore all the old information.  Collect (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So you are trying to say the article is a problem now because an associated article had problems in the past that have already been addressed? Wow... just wow... Jbh (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect, what does this have to do with the article we're discussing? The material you posted above has long since been removed from the article on PNAC, and was never in the article that we're discussing now. Try to stay on topic here. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

This article now at AfD
This article has been nominated for AfD. See Articles for deletion/List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush. Jbh (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert W. McChesney
Article was a truly stunning piece of self-promotion. I trimmed it per a report at COIN, and there is now edit warring going on, with (a new user, apparently with his own COI issues), restoring unsourced content. More eyes would be great, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Needed more depuffing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See also John Bellamy Foster for a similar BLP. Collect (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

William M. Plater
I don't know where to begin on this one, but it is violating WP:NOTHERE all over the place, created by a new but clearly experienced user with 4 total edits. Choor monster (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Spend some time patrolling new articles from new users and prepare to be nonplussed. I suggest trimming the promotional detail from the article and tossing out most of the primary sources. What should be left is a fairly short biography, if the subject is even notable.- MrX 01:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's nice advice, but I don't have much experience in puff-bio-trimming or related notability questions. Like I said, the editor who created it is clearly experienced.  The article is filled with references and all, and I'm both nonplussed but also paralyzed.  Choor monster (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Scott Bloch
This biography contains statements that appear to be somewhat more in the nature of a character defense than a factual recitation: See e.g., "The controversies surrounding Bloch stem from an attempt by those who disagreed with his policy and prosecutorial decisions to "criminalize political differences,".

Bloch was indeed a controversial figure, but it seems over the top to charge his critics with seeking to criminalize purely political differences when a federal district court imposed an actual criminal sentence and Bloch also pled guilty to contempt of Congress. See http://www.whistleblowers.org/storage/whistleblowers/documents/bloch%20plea%20agreement.pdf http://www.pogo.org/blog/2013/12/office-of-special-counsel-releases-report.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.50.153 (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is a real mess. At one end it can be argued that it is a WP:COATRACK and at the other end, it can be argued that many of the statements in his defense are self-serving, and made in Wikipedia's voice and without attribution. I have placed a POV tag to encourage a thorough cleanup. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

John MacBrien
A. The title of the article is wrong.

- it should be 'Joseph James MacBrien'

B. more info might be added too. (tons more)

- he was a member of the winning world one ton cup team in 1973 (yacht='Robin') - a decorated navy officer. served with RCN, and went on exchange to USN during Korea, received DFC - started 'Aurora Yachts Ltd'


 * contact for verification = torontobil (gmail) (son) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toronto bill (talk • contribs) 14:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Jon Paul Phillips
I'm requesting consensus on a biographical article re: an acceptable amount of positive critical blurbs for an actor. Aside from WP:LONGQUOTES, I haven't found an applicable guideline. My take is that for an article of this length, one is sufficient; if I'm mistaken I'll be happy to restore those sourced quotes I removed. Thanks, 32.216.128.131 (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alicia Vikander was offered to me as an example of what's acceptable in the way of sourced raves; I think it is especially egregious, a public relations agent's dream. So the broader question is whether a specific guideline applies to the inclusion of multiple cited reviews. 32.216.128.131 (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:OVERCITE.--ukexpat (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sarmila Bose
I have received an email saying that this article has a bias and should be looked into. Due to this, I am referring this to the community, so can you please review this page for BLP issues. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything wrong with the article, other than it needs more neutral biographical material to balance out the other stuff. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The sourcing in the final section isn't good: many of the links are dead, and the rest are to newspaper articles, so the implication that these are academic opinions seems unsupported. I'll do a light trim.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Michael Cecil, 8th Marquess of Exeter
According to Peerage.com, this man died in 2012.

http://www.thepeerage.com/p8550.htm#i85496 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.235.150 (talk • contribs)


 * Not when I read it - it does say "Last Edited=27 Feb 2012".--ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Article on Addie Walsh, soap opera writer. Her birth date is wrong.   Addie was born February 1, 1955.
Please change the birthdate of Addie Walsh to February, 1955 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.89.235 (talk • contribs)


 * Do you have a reliable source for that?--ukexpat (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Tim Von Swine & Kelly Shibari
has been inserting mention of an existing relationship between the two and cited this to a self-published porn gossip's blog post from 2011 and an interview from another self-published source from 2012. I have reverted him several times noting the fallacy of assuming that they're still in a relationship but also that the mention should not be cited to these sites. It's clear he doesn't understand how to identify a reliable source. Please keep an eye out on these articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have created several BLPs on Wikipedia, so I do know how to identify reliable sources, thank you. You seem to be the only person who doesn't believe these sources are reliable, and you have given little explanation why except for longwinded fancy ways of saying "because I said so" (not to mention ignoring the questions I brought up on the talk page). And speaking of the talk pages, where's the BLP noticeboard tag you were required to put on the top of them? (BTW, you can also stop with the attitude.)  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 21:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already pointed out why they're not reliable and yet you call it wiki-lawyering. Ponante, a porn gossip, publishes his own site which falls under WP:SELFPUBLISH and msbehaved.com is a wordpress blog whose author you cited to writes these kinds of articles which heavily relies on personal opinion under WP:NOTRELIABLE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Morbidthoughts is entirely correct, and states his arguments accurately, clearly and plainly. Erpert is entirely wrong, and arguing tendentiously, with personally directed innuendo in lieu of policy/guideline-based analysis. He is wasting editors' time for no evident legitimate purpose. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * HW, what part of WP:HOUND do you not understand? Go away.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 01:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * you'll need to take this on board no matter who is saying it to you: the sources you are trying to use do not meet WP:RS and are not suitable for use on biographies of living persons. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, actually, WP:HOUND clearly prohibits that kind of behavior. Now, the way you stated your objection was more cordial; the other two editors' approaches felt like character assassination (and if anyone noticed, I haven't touched the article since this thread was opened). SN: Pinging hasn't been working properly lately.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 17:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of redirect
I originally submitted this to the OTRs noticeboard since it was action taken by an OTRS administrator related to an OTRS request: see OTRS_noticeboard/Archive_3. My intent was to request a second opinion as described in Volunteer_Response_Team. Note that some of the history for the related article Bessora has been hidden which I believe is also related to the OTRS request.

I would like to request a second opinion on the removal of the redirect Sandrine Bessora Nan Nguema. Please see User_talk:Ronhjones/Archive_28. There was also some related text removed from the Bessora article by multiple users associated with the same IP address which I do not agree with but did not wish to get into a revert war. It is my belief that the source provided for the link between the name association with the redirect and the subject of the article was reliable. There are also other sources supporting the link between the two names including African Writing and the publication The Year's Work in Modern Language Studies of the Modern Humanities Research Association. It appears to me that this information is already out but I claim no expertise on the subject of whether or not there is a privacy issue with that content appearing in Wikipedia. --Big_iron (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For those who can see OTRS - ticket 2014020710013925 refers to the French version and ticket 2015012810010693 to the English version. Ron h jones (Talk) 20:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wainuiomata mākutu lifting
I'm the main author of Wainuiomata mākutu lifting, which makes culturally loaded claims about the death of a woman and the actions of living people. I am confident that when I wrote it, the content was based on the sources provided. Re-checking those sources in the light of another editors edits (which I'm not sure I agree with) has lead me to discover that almost none of the links work any more. http://www.stuff.co.nz typically keeps stories indefinitely, but appears not to have in this case. I am seeking advice on the best course of action. Are the links http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZHC/2009/1036.html (the Judges sentencing notes in the trial) and http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZCorC/2010/131.html (summary of the Coroners' decision) usable? Stuartyeates (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you tried the wayback machine? Stuff usually has physical newspaper equivalents of their articles, which you may be able to trace. I would think the links above are usable, it just depends what you are trying to use them for. AIR corn (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Fred Wilpon
In the personal section, it says Fred Wilpon's son Bruce is married to Kenshin Oshima's daughter. This is incorrect. He is not married to that person. He is married to Yuki Ikeda. . Please let me know how I can make that change permanent. Thank you.
 * Nothings every really permanent here, you just make the best case you can and hope it sticks. This does seem to suggest he is married to Oshima. Are you sure your link is the right Bruce Wilpon? Marriages change sometimes anyway so maybe they were both true at some point. Since the article is not about him that detail is minor so I would suggest not mentioning either, as it seems to do at the moment. AIR corn (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Nick Berry
To whom it may concern,

In the Nick Berry article, on the Filmography / TV section, the Dramarama links go to the article about the alternative rock band (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramarama) but they should go to the TV series (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramarama_%28TV_series%29).

1956Firebird (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Thanks for spotting and reporting this. AIR corn (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect title
I'm sorry if this is not the right way to bring up this issue, but the page Tathagata Satapathy is incorrectly titled. The correct title should be Tathagata Satpathy. I tried moving the page, but someone seems to have set-up a redirect instead and I'm not sure how to resolve that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keerikkadan91 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The page was moved with this edit claiming the spelling was incorrect. All the sources in the article use the other spelling so maybe it was a mistake. It needs an admin to move it so I will drop a request for you at WP:RM. AIR corn (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Tathagata Satapathy AIR corn (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Josh Matlow
The Josh Matlow page has had a significant amount of information removed by user Ookpik25. This user has suggested that the previous information was "completely biased", however the information was sourced though numerous Toronto publications. The user has added new information in place of what was there and does not address the points made in the formerly referenced articles.

I believe that the user was incorrect in deleting the previously sourced information, but reverting the change, just to have the user alter it again does not have any benefits. I wish to undo the March 17, 2015 changes - as it has removed truthful and sourced information - but some guidance would be appreciated... I am new here. Thank you. Aletheia V. (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell this version was changed to this version. A discussion looks to be started on the talk page here Talk:Josh Matlow. I will comment there. AIR corn (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Need someone to help with a BLP issue
I need someone fluent in Danish and English to help with a BLP issue that has been brought to my attention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Any reason for the secrecy as to which BLP it is? I don't speak Danish, but I'd be happy to take a look and deal with any issues that are apparent to an English speaker.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I read Danish, and my Swedish with potatoes filling my mouth is passable for several dialects. Dear0Dear 14:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Can hack through German material - I am sure Danish idioms would kill me for sure, and absolutely zero speaking ability other than a few words from a childhood friend who is an expert on Danish folklore, else I would assist. I am moderately conversant in English, though. Collect (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC).
 * I am fluent in English, if you can find someone that's also fluent in Danish I'd be happy to help out :)--5 albert square (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're still a member of the Danish Wikiproject and fluent in English aren't you? Is this something you'd be interested in?  Or do you know anyone who would be able to assist?--5 albert square (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For me, email will be best. There is also, I believe, an OTRS ticket.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've replied by mail. Favonian (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've also sent you an email regarding this :)--5 albert square (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Stephen A. Smith
The article about Stephen A. Smith has either been hacked, or it was intentionally written that way. I am not a member of Wikipedia, but the opening paragraph in particular reflects poorly on Wikipedia and is poorly written overall even without the profanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.246.187 (talk • contribs)
 * Vandalism reverted and perpetrator warned by cluebot. Also removed a controversial uncited statement in the lead. Thanks for reporting. AIR corn (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Steven Emerson - Part 3
is of the opinion that the material above is a violation of BLP, and claims that WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE applies here based on his argument that The claim is highly contentious, purely opinion, lacking veracity, decidedly non-neutral. I argue that this is not the case, and the opinions are significant enough to warrant inclusion, and that opinions need not to be neutral to be significant for inclusion: NPOV requires us to include such opinions.

This has been discussed extensively already at BLP/N:
 * Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive215
 * Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive216

While I appreciate the concern about "getting it right" in BLPs, I object the use of the BLP policy as a bludgeon used to exclude criticism from BLPs, when the criticism is supported by good quality sources, as this will violate NPOV -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no reason to repeatedly insert accusations of bigotry sourced to persons connected to an organization in protracted disputes with Steven Emerson. This is a highly contentious opinion sourced to less than a sentence which basically states "Islamophobe Steven Emerson" from a Google string search. Swap "Islamophobic" with "Anti-semite" or "racist" and you have the same BLP issue. Verifiability and veracity - not passing petty insults. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's entirely verifiable that Emerson has been criticised for some of his views, and the criticism has extended to the view that he has produced Islamophobic discourse. You appear not to like it, but it meets our policies quite readily.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * His views can be criticized but you do not go about calling someone a bigot on their biography without any merit and sourced to the personal enemies of the subject. This is why "misinformation expert" is fine, but not a bigot. You seem to be unable to reconcile the differences. Swap "Islamophobic" with "Anti-semite" - is it still appropriate? No. We do not go labeling or accusing people of being bigots when there is no evidence they are bigots. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's clarify something once and for all: Wikipedia (which I assume is what you mean when you use "we" above) is not calling anyone a bigot. What we are doing is reporting on criticism of Emerson as described in reliable sources. That is a big difference and a crucial distinction in this discussion. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You (CG) want "evidence", as if it had to be a fact. But haven't you also argued that being a "bigot" can only be a matter of someone's opinion?  You can't have it both ways.  What matters is whether it's a characterisation that is supported by reliable sources.  There's no question that the sources meet WP:RS.  (And no, it wouldn't be different if it was a characterisation of someone as an anti-Semite.)  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The text shown above is a fine example of a BLP-compliant, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV-compliant summary of what prominent views are held about Emerson. Many more sources agree with the evaluation, so the above text is arguably too weak, suggesting that only these two sources think Emerson is an Islamophobe. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are additional sources that can be used to expand the sentence to address your concern, and even Emerson himself refers to the Islamophobe criticism leveled against him, rebutting that  "[...] any criticism of Islam means you are an Islamophobe."


 * -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Seeing as there are 3 conversation about this subject now, if the content being discussed at the prior 2 is the same as here, I suggest WP:CLOSE closing procedures be used after this one concludes. Let all 3 be collectively reviewed and a consensus be determined based on them, Lest we open a 4th one here in a few more weeks.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I actually agree with . Prior comments supported WP:BLP policy, and considered the addition in the lede to be noncompliant with NPOV:  and .  Also, WP is not a tabloid that needs to be updated each time a biased source says something derogatory about the subject.  Emerson's gaffe was actually included in a section of its own in the body of the article. How many BLP-N discussions must we undergo considering this is the 3rd, and beginning to look like WP:FORUMSHOPPING.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like forum shopping at all Atsme. What's clear from viewing some of the discussion elsewhere, some of you have interpreted a different consensus. So let who ever add what ever new, no one continue to repeat the same old, and then go seek an ADMIN Closure. They will determine the consensus based on what has been said.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan to me, . Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that this discussion is unrelated to the article's lede at this time. The dispute is about the validity of this material for it to be included in the article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Related? Unrelated? When your done go seek an official close is the relevant part of the above. If the other discussions about Steven Emerson are related point it out to the closer so they can take those views into account. If they aren't but since there seems to be some issue related to them seek to have them officially closed as well.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an expanded version, addressing concerns expressed by, as well as including Emerson's attempt at rebuttal in a Fox News oped, for balance. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes... I like the phrasing "responded to these and similar characterizations" as it gives the reader the correct sense that Emerson has a greater level of criticism than just one uninvolved scholarly book and one involved but respected scholar. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not really seeing much of an issue with this honestly, but I would like to view some some further comments, and well really get the meat and potatoes of the Issue that Chris has with this. Has this particularly already been discussed?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed extensively (follow the other discussions here at BLP/N, liked above). The issue ChrisGualtiery has with it, is summarized in his comment to my talk page The claim is highly contentious, purely opinion, lacking veracity, decidedly non-neutral and sourced to nothing more than half a sentence quip. There is no place for unsupported accusations of bigotry. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  14:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly that diff provides no context. The only bit of discussion I've actually looked at specifically was related o the lead and you have expressly stated that this material here relates in no way to the lead. There are probably a few things change, but in principal I don't not see an issue with mentioning these views if by prominent individuals. I do find myself questioning who in context to, "Emerson has been criticized for some of his views, characterizing him as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe in The Cambridge Companion to American Islam" because it doesn't seem Enrst is the person behind this point of view. It actually seems that we are attributing this opinion to Cambridge University thru their press. Probably not the best Idea. I wonder if the views can be attributed to the editors of it or specifically to someone the editors interviewed while writing the book. But really I'd like to hear I'd like to hear more from others to really get a view of this dispute to get a little more context.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that bigotry and/or hate speech doesn't belong in the lead. It is not the prevailing view, rather it is a biased minority view and should not be given WP:UNDUE. I'm not convinced that it improves the article and is actually reminiscent of tabloid journalism. The public's perception of how proponents of Islam feel about Emerson is obvious considering the COI and/or bias toward him and his line of work. Also, several important comments are missing from this discussion as a result of separating it into 3 parts. Where are the opposing views, including what and others stated in Parts 1 & 2? Atsme &#9775;  Consult  19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd absolutely agree that it would be inadvisable to put that in the lead like that at this time, but above Cwobeel has specifically stated that this conversation doesn't relate to the lead at this moment. As for the other parts, that is why I suggested that an official close be sought and related discussion all be closed as one. If there are any points contextually that you feel would help here please provide diffs and link them. Please though attempt to be brief.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If the discussion is not about inclusion in the lead, then most certainly include it in the body of the article. I have no problem with that at all.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  20:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is appropriate to wait for an admin to close this discussion "officially". Admins are not here to be arbitrators for content disputes (I don't see any mention of an admin role in WP:DR besides conduct disputes, neither I see that in WP:ADMIN). We should be able to handle the close by ourselves with the kind assistance of uninvolved editors. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be appropriate to do anything but follow the procedure at WP:CLOSE. Because you have already been unable to close yourself. I recommend a admin closure just to avoid any unneeded drama in relation to a non-admin closure. It can be a non-admin closure by an uninvolved editor that is prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale if asked. But regardless it does need to be formally closed and that is the whole point. And I know the perfect place to seek an uninvolved party to assist in the closure, WP:ANRFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. ANRFC is for cases in which there is no clear consensus. And as far as I can see from this discussion, there is consensus for inclusion, as consensus does not imply unanimity. So, in this case we don't need admin help. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the very wise suggestion of . The fact that policy supersedes consensus is paramount, therefore an admin who is well-versed in NPOV and BLP policy issues should close in an effort to avoid unnecessary drama as well as future disputes. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing
The Emerson biography should say that Emerson screwed up in his guess of who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. Why is that not in the biography? Many authors bring it up when they mention Emerson. Even Emerson acknowledges his mistake as a personal "albatross". Apparently, Atsme doesn't think it worthy of the biography, which is astonishing. It's a prominent part of his career which everybody including Emerson agrees upon. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just "his guess" - that should be clear because local police and the FBI also specifically considered Islamic terrorism. Reports surfaced almost immediately following and Emerson was one who agreed it had the hallmark. He made the statement, but he isn't the origin of the claim. The gaff itself has been used against Emerson and it is appropriate to include it - as well as the context surrounding it. Though in the big scheme of things - its sorta lame as "the biggest error" they refer to for him, but it is what it is. Political drama is like toilet writings for me - but I disagree with Atsme only because it is too prevalent to omit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This should have never been removed. This should be put back in as neutrally as possible.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it should have, and the reason follows. The misleading comment Binksternet made about me is not unlike the misleading comment he wants included in the Emerson BLP...both are misleading and factually incorrect.  Per my edit summary: removed poorly written paragraph stating that Emerson was "labeled an Islamophobe" based on incorrectly stated, unverifiable opinion. Emerson never mentioned Muslims.  BLP violation)  Binks, I'm curious - you removed an entire section I included in IPT (which is inextricably linked to Emerson and mirrors much of the same info) with the following summary: (→‎Boston Marathon Bombing:  delete section... this issue is of very little importance in the case. The videos posted by the two bombers were little seen. The IPT did nothing substantial here.) .  And now you think a 20 year old interview on CBS wherein he only suggested that the bombing had a Middle Eastern trait is important?  I think the Boston bombing is far more important because (1) it's recent, and (2) Emerson was doing his job which is what we're supposed to write about.  Now what could be the difference between the two that makes you think a 20 year old brief interview is so almighty important...let's see...could it be that with the Ok City bombing Emerson suggested a ME trait when it was actually homegrown terrorism, and with the Boston bombing it was Islamic terrorism and Emerson was correct?  Interesting angle on NPOV. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  23:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but that is not what we do in WP. We don't bring our own opinions, rather, we report what reliable sources say. Adding your own commentary to somehow dismiss or diminish the RSs provided, as you have done (see Talk:Steven_Emerson), is a violation of WP:SYNTH. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  23:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I did not bring my opinion in. I provided an inline citation for my source, and the source said precisely what I stated in the article (no copyvio) which is actually what we do on WP.  The SYNTH and POV is what was in the passage I modified to be policy compliant.  Do I need to include that whole ball of yarn here with inline text attribution for each phrase?  I hope not.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  01:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel doesn't understand the point you make Atsme. This is clear because his use of "reliable source" here translates to - the biased non-neutral assessment by a political think-tank which Emerson has been in conflict with for decade and that it uses a quote fragment and a lack of context to attack Emerson personally. I mean sure... the Wall Street Journal to the New York Post were going on about the Middle East trait, live coverage well-before Emerson was already hard pounding the WTC and Islamic terrorism angle. CNN identified four innocent Arab Americans in connection with the bombing.... Emerson also criticized CNN for this act... yet it is "Emerson the Islamophobe"? American Journalism Review is better source than Emerson's personal enemies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel blocked
So Cwobeel was just blocked for violating WP:NEWBLPBAN, which is a method I had never seen. ChrisGualtieri filed a case against Cwobeel at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, then HJ Mitchell read the case and blocked Cwobeel. The immediate complaint was that Cwobeel restored disputed text to the Emerson biography during this discussion here at BLPN, the text in question described as a BLP violation by ChrisGualierie and Atsme. My problem with the Arb case and the block stems from the persistent mischaracterization of the text as being a violation of BLP. The sources are scholarly ones, the highest quality sources we have. Yes, they characterize Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes as being the two most prominent voices of Islamophobia in the US. It doesn't particularly matter whether Emerson is happy with this assessment or not; the description accurately represents the opinion of these (and some other) scholars.

If we are to institute a rule disallowing any re-posting of BLPN disputed material (no matter how highly sourced the text or how misrepresented the complaint) then we will open ourselves up to those who would game the system: any I-don't-like-it text can be perpetually discussed at BLPN to keep it from being re-posted at a biography. That's a change I would not like to see. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Half a sentence quips from parties involved in a dispute with Emerson is not "scholarly" by any means - it is name calling. The real issue is repeatedly edit warring to reinsert the material which is at BLPN when there is no consensus to include the material is the problem. And you have done this yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your original research does not take the place of reliable sources, and Arbcom can not (nor do I believe they intended to) set a higher standard for BLPs than established by the community. What I see is editors tendentiously pushing their own POV by using BLP as club to keep legitimate criticism out of articles in violation WP:NPOV. I think this discussion needs to happen at ANI.- MrX 17:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue was restoring content removed under BLP, acknowledged by Cwobeel to be valid and then restored during the dispute. Citing Gale was me and the American Journalism Review was Atsme's source - and the information is not "original research". OR pertains to article content, not highlighting that Cwobeel's source was non-neutral, cherry-picked and unsupported name-calling. By this logic, it would be fine to include racist and bigoted "scholarly criticism" on Obama's page. Sorry bud, but BLP needs to have high standards. I've seen this same stuff directed at Al Sharpton calling him every vile nasty epithet you can think of, but yet we do not include such filth either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP requires good sources, not neutral sources. Cwobeel added well-sourced content here based on 3:1 support at BLP/N here. You ignored that consensus and reverted Cwobeel's edit here claiming "Remove per BLP Policy". BLP Policy requires good sourcing, the absence of which you have flatly failed to demonstrate. I've seen you do this repeatedly on this and other articles such as Shooting of Michael Brown. I would like to know why you haven't been sanctioned.- MrX 18:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd have thought it would be common sense for any established editor to know that you don't restore content removed on BLP grounds until and unless the discussion concludes in your favour, much less an editor who has previously been blocked for BLP violations. I have no comment on the content; whether or not it should be in the article and if so in what form is a matter for discussion on this board to resolve. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's going to be possible to address this one properly without evaluating the content. The question is whether there are reasonable grounds for disputing it on a BLP basis.  ChrisGualtieri and Atsme think so, and they've been arguing about it for months.  Multiple editors coming to it "cold", however, have reached a different conclusion and have added/restored the material (sometimes in revised form).  In that context, "content removed on BLP grounds" means something different, in contrast to a situation where someone sees a BLP violation and removes it the first time.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Evaluating the content is absolutely critical to understanding whether this was or was not a BLP concern. Otherwise any editor could block any negative text at all from a BLP, just by complaining about it here at BLPN. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Harry, at least look at the fact the Cwobeel's edit had 3:1 support and was well-sourced. There is a fundamental problem when a single editor can stonewall by simply crying BLP without showing that the cited sources fail our reliable source guidelines or that the content is not supported by the sources. Please see Consensus-building pitfalls and errors.- MrX 18:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So is a non-person? The content evaluate is separate, but the offending material should not be restored by the BLPN filing party while the dispute is ongoing at BLPN. You made a false dichromy argument because no one is saying negative material is a problem. It is name-calling that is the issue here, and name-calling is not encyclopedic or productive and its not in the Gale biography. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your issue seems to be with the fact that Emerson as been characterized as an Islamaphobe or a prominent producer of Islamophobic discourse, a fact which he acknowledges. Several editors clearly disagree with you that it's not encyclopedic.- MrX 19:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Adding contentious material to a BLP that is verifiable but false or that is unsupported by the cited RS is quite simply noncompliant with NPOV. Sources that mirror each others' bigotry may be RS for a particular claim, but in this case, one of the sources included only a parenthetical reference to Emerson in an unrelated chapter in a book containing fewer than three sentences about the guy.  Another source did not even include what was actually stated in the BLP.  Since NPOV is one of the 3 core content policies of WP:BLP, and the contentious material is clearly noncompliant with NPOV, how is that not a BLP violation?  Furthermore, Binksternet made 4 reverts in less than 24 hours: 21:22, March 6, 2015 21:46, March 6, 2015‎ 08:29, March 7, 2015‎ 09:14, March 7, 2015‎ which not only violates 3RR, it appears to have violated BLP DS.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  18:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear not to understand how WP:3RR works. Try to understand the notion of consecutive edits.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is a foundational policy, and sources are how we evaluate "truth". If you want to challenge content as being unsourced, then do so with diffs and a link to the source. Binksternet did not violate 3RR; concurrent edits don't count as reverts.- MrX 19:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Refer to the evaluation by above because Binksternet reverted the same material that caused Cwobeel to be blocked.  Edit warring is edit warring and when it involves contentious material about a BLP that is not properly sourced, it requires immediate attention. The revert happened so quickly it became a job in itself just to keep up.  I don't understand why the same action that applied to Cwobeel should not apply to Binksternet per BLP DS. There are substantive grounds for removal of that contentious material.  Furthermore, closure requires a close review based on the substantive argument, not a vote to see how many editors agree despite BLP policy. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  22:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Several editors restoring content is one of the signals of consensus. If only one editor supported this content and reverted without discussion, they should be sanctioned for edit warring. What instead seems to be happening is filibustering, original research, strained interpretations of policy and appeals to non-existent policies. Also, BLP/N discussions do not require formal closure.


 * Now a specific question for you: What exactly in the disputed content do you claim is not properly sourced? - MrX 22:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of brevity I've included a classic example of the NPOV issue at Emerson:
 * <--factually accurate information in a published transcript (pg 11) of the actual 1995 CBS interview with Emerson as indicated by an academic source. Another source I was going to cite (had I not been disrupted from editing) is a NY Times article:
 * <--example of the misinformation Binksternet insisted on keeping, and in doing so prevented me from completing the last segment of the paragraph. The reverted passage reflects an unsubstantiated bigoted opinion (and biased slur) that was expressed parenthetically (in passing mention).  COI - several authors of the cited book are paid proponents and/or teachers of Islamic studies at various universities.  The passing mention of Emerson in the book was clearly incidental.  The source demonstrates how Emerson's statement was taken out of context:    <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  01:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's heartening that you would try to figure out whether the scholars are correct or not in their negative assessment of Emerson, but frankly that is not our concern, and it smacks of original research. The scholars looked at Emerson's contribution to the issue and they determined that Emerson was expressing Islamophobic ideas. Let's not try to second-guess these scholars who we accept as experts in their fields. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Except WP:OR - does not apply to talk pages so pointing out that the quote is incomplete and inaccurate is acceptable. Wikipedia is not supposed to engage in conflicts and label people as bigots based on the quips of their political and ideological opponents. Not one case has been presented to show Emerson as an actual bigot. It is rhetoric and name-calling, all without merit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What is an "actual bigot"? Who is to judge what behavior deserves that label? Why, the reliable sources are to judge, and if we are concerned about BLP (we certainly are) then we must use the highest quality sources. Scholars are our highest sources. Let's not try and out-think the scholars in their areas of expertise. Binksternet (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mmmm? ABC, CBS, and NBC which had FBI sources on the day of stating this connection. Oliver Revell (not Emerson) stated that it was most likely a Middle East terrorist which appeared in the Baltimore Sun. Plenty of figures made this connection, the Wall Street Journal even ran a story featuring it. Emerson's award winning documentary was released several months prior and apparently he wasn't a "Islamophobe" for predicting such an attack and of such a style. Your use of the word "Scholar" as some unimpeachable standard is pretty telling that you have no experience in such research... I am also very confident you have not watched the tapes and while I do not have access to the Hillmann & Carr collection (containing the tape of Emerson) I have found many instances of the "Middle Eastern" aspect including Emerson condemning the identification of four innocent Arabs by the media shortly thereafter. So much for "bigotry", but keep sticking to your non-neutral sources and claiming it to be the gospel - I take the New York Times, American Journal Review and the FBI over those sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As soon as you publish your book about this issue, your opinion will be considered a reliable source on the matter of what the media was saying and how Emerson was viewed. Until then, a number of scholars have separately and collectively determined that Emerson espouses Islamophobic ideas. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You answered a different question than the one I asked. This section is about the material inserted by Cwobeel for which he was blocked for violating WP:BLP. So I ask again, what specific words, phrases or sentences in this edit do you assert is not properly sourced?- MrX 17:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Interested parties are invited to comment at the Arbitration request by Cwobeel to be unblocked. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolution attempt
Due to Binksternet's reinsertion and modification, it is not the same offending text that Cwobeel was edit warring. But we need to resolve this. Let's begin by finding some points of discussion to resolve the dispute. Let's break the section down:
 * Emerson has been criticized for espousing Islamophobic views...

Specifically, what "views" are Islamophobic? This requires clarification and none of the sources being used support a single example. Three different sources are saying he is an Islamophobe, but none provide any argument or example of said Islamophobia. I see verification that an accusation has been made, but this is an exceptional claim and requires exceptional sourcing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If the slightly different way I worded it is not a BLP violation, how is it that you insisted on Cwobeel getting blocked, when the solution was simply a bit of rewording? It seems to me that you could have suggested some rewording at the article's talk page and thereby saved the community's time along with their patience. Or you could have reworded it yourself instead of blanking good sources.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Emerson&diff=644120657&oldid=644115048][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Emerson&diff=649493838&oldid=649487777][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Emerson&diff=649844926&oldid=649679810][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Emerson&diff=649852407&oldid=649852389][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Emerson&diff=650294735&oldid=650253442] Not to mention striving to get an editor blocked for no good reason. Binksternet (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there is a core misunderstanding here. Cwobeel edit warred over the content, took it here, edit warred it in, month long protection, added it again, took it here, added it again after acknowledging the "restore part of BLP" and doing it during the dispute which has been requested to have a formal close. So I took it to AE to stop this and also asked for 1RR on the page. You reinserted it, but you did it once and while I and Atsme disagree, edit warring is not productive and its not a top-tier BLP issue. I even asked Atsme to let it stay because we need to more forward. If I undo the material you reinserted and modified - I'd be continuing to stall the situation. You weren't even warned of the AC/DS, but this has got to stop and be resolved. I don't think anyone wants this dispute to continue for another month so can we focus on the issue with the content now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Chris makes a good point. It shouldn't be enough to just report that some individual has called Emerson a name. If someone has, do they have reason for that position? Otherwise there would be undue weight it seems. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This demonstrates it is both notable and due for this "terrorism expert's" biography. It goes into extensive explanation but obviously you are not going to just present one "side". So, you all should move on and get with exactly how you present it in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no issue with including the 1995 "gaffe" material and everyone agrees that it needs to be include. Despite WP:BLPSELFPUB objects as it is "self-serving" by one user - Emerson's statements and other sources about this need to be given. The issue here is name-calling, specifically labeling Emerson as a bigot without identifying what specific views of his are "Islamophobic" or "fomenting Islamophobia" as previously claims. Verification of the name-calling is WP:UNDUE without at least a single argument as to why Emerson is Islamophobic in the eyes of his critics. That's the core issue we have been trying to resolve for weeks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources do talk about why they say what they say. Perhaps not to your satisfaction but that is another matter entirely.  "Islamaphobe" is not in the sources only an epithet, it is a critique of his expert approach, which the critics see as revealed by him.  They may be right, they may be wrong but in discussing the biography of a terrorism expert, you have to discuss the "albatross" around his neck, which leads to the "islamaphobe" critique. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So by the logic Obama it is acceptable to call a communist/radical/worst president in history because "critics state" and nothing more? You seem to think I am sympathetic to Emerson because I don't think allowing unexplained bigotry in retaliation for labeling their organization as being related to a terror organization - a fact backed by a federal judge's ruling in the case. By that logic you could call George Zimmerman a racist and a murderer because "critics say". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What? No. I don't think anything about you, except now I think you indulge in irrelevancies. I think the sources show there is a prominent critique of this terrorism expert. Your swerve to irrelevant Obama commentary notwithstanding, Emerson is not Obama, two very different biographies of two very different lives, which will have very different demands of subject matter.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's acceptable in one BLP, it is acceptable in all BLPs. We cannot pick and choose whose BLP we allow contentious material to be included. Please be specific in your argument to keep a contentious statement because if it applies here, it is likely to apply elsewhere - it's referred to as establishing a "precedent". <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  20:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, no one covers disparate lives the same -- only those who seek to indulge logical fallacies of a pretend parade of horribles would even attempt such reasoning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue about Obama, start a section about Obama. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This subsection title is Resolution attempt. Can we please stay on topic?  Thank you.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  20:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. That's why we would do well not to discuss Obama.  Agreed?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Chris correctly drew attention to an established precedent.  Attempts to dismiss the comparisons only serve to make it more relevant.  Established policies are just that - established policies which means they apply across the board and are not subject to POV.  If compliance with NPOV applies to one BLP, it applies to all BLPs.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  22:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No - there is no precedent, despite your logical fallacy -- we are dealing, here, with terrorism expert, Emerson, who has this sourcing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we are dealing with a BLP, and as such strict adherence to policy is required. Strict adherence to BLP policy includes the 3 core content policies, no exceptions.  Any attempt to individualize BLP is not NPOV.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  22:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And multiple editors note that all policies are met, the critique is verifiable and due. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be definitive. What passages are you referring to as having met the requirements for NPOV, and how did you determine the requirements were met? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  22:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr. X has a proposal he has asked you to comment upon already. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr. X asked a question that was already answered by . I see no reason to keep repeating the same thing over and over again.  This subsection is titled Resolution attempt, so if you have any suggestions for resolving the NPOV and RS issues, I'm interested. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well then you're done, here, if you have nothing left to say and others can just move on with the consensus version, which does not require unanimity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Potential edits in the Barack Obama article or the George Zimmerman article have zero effect on this article, and divert us from determining if there are reliability issues with the sources, or if the sources have been misrepresented, or if they represent a fringe viewpoint. Atsme, you have made several appeals to policy, but have been a bit evasive when pressed for specific examples. You also seem to rely on ChrisGualtieri's argument which has now been refuted by three editors as being logically fallacious.- MrX 00:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Logically fallacious is an opinion, not a substantive argument to restore material that was removed for noncompliance with BLP policy. The burden to restore such material rests with the editor who wants it restored, not with the editor who removed it. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  02:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That comment doesn't make sense. I was refuting ChrisGualtieri's argument because it was based on something bad that could happen to another, unrelated article. It's not logical and it's not grounded in policy. "Non-compliance with BLP" implies misrepresentation of sources, or unreliable sources, yet you have not substantiated this alleged "non-compliance" with anything more than generalizations about policy. Once again, what specifically violates WP:BLP and why? If you can't or won't answer that question, which I have now asked three times, then would you at least refrain from claiming that there is a BLP policy violation in the disputed content?- MrX 03:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * MrX - I'm sorry you could not comprehend the example and importance of NPOV I was highlighting. The name-calling is undue and is not conducive to a disinterested biography on the subject. I was comparing the fact that other biographies for which no end of such "criticism" exists - are kept clean of it because of NPOV and BLP. Would calling Emerson a bigot survive at a Featured Article Review? No, because it is name-calling. I gave a simple request - provide at least one example of an "Islamophobic view" expressed by Emerson so that it can be properly attributed. It only takes one example to make me agree that such a view can be stated, and so far no example has been given. So far there is none so I think that without clarification - the name-calling must be removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you find "bigot" in the Emerson article, I'd support it being removed. But I don't see it there...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The request "an "Islamophobic view" expressed by Emerson so that it can be properly attributed" makes no sense. Wikipedians attribute sources, Wikipedians don't attribute anything to Emerson (other than when needed, his own words), Wikipedia has no view with respect to Emerson.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * *Nomoskedasticity are you unaware that Islamophobia is a bigotry based on religion? This is like saying someone is the key proponent of antisemitic discourse. That is what these non-neutral and minority sources claim. Alanscottwalker, you don't understand the problem I am referring to - perhaps someone else can explain my points better to you, but for the sake of it - swap "Islamophobia" with racist. Emerson has been criticized for espousing racist views.... Is that acceptable without stating at least one example of a "racist view"? That is why I am asking for that one view before I change my position. I am not asking for much - if these sources are as high-quality it should be easy to make an example that is not WP:SYNTH. Namely something like "Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia for stating...." you fill in the blank. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the idea that Emerson has espoused racist views, extrapolated from the fact that a number of scholars have observed that he has espoused Islamophibic views. Accusations of racism can and should be discussed in a biography when they are appropriate, for instance at the David Duke article. Emerson and Islamophobia are connected by enough high-quality sources that we would be remiss not to mention them. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @ChrisGualtieri: I don't think I have comprehension problem. NPOV (a separate policy from BLP) is served by inclusion of significant points of view in proportion to their coverage in sources. AFAIK, no one here has called Emerson a bigot. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you, yet you keep bringing it up. I am on record as preferring not to label Emerson an Islamophobe, but it is necessary to mention that Emerson has been criticized for fomenting Islamophobia. In addition to the sources we already have, there are these:


 * To answer you specific demand "provide at least one example of an "Islamophobic view" expressed by Emerson" how about this:
 * I hope this helps.- MrX 15:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ChrisGualtieri might now be tempted to argue that these views do not actually display Islamophobia. I hope we can avoid that sort of WP:OR.  What matters is whether significant sources meeting WP:RS perceive Islamophobia in these and/or other statements by Emerson.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No... MrX has fulfilled my requirement, while they are not as strong I would have preferred he has certainly met my requirement. He certainly made that Birmingham gaffe - which was quickly corrected, but it still was a dumb thing to say. The 1995 one is more of a matter of context, but this recent one is definitely a major error for which no real excuse can be made. Nomo, you might want to look into WP:OR because it does not apply to talk pages or evaluating sources, it applies to content. Now... we need a way in which to resolve the accusations by using the example - I believe some occurred in direct connection to the Birmingham comments. That way we also remove the dramatic claim that Emerson is "clearly a complete idiot" from Cameron, who has made a serious mistake of this nature as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's great -- except that you've been aware of that example for many weeks now, so one naturally wonders what all the fuss has been about, over dozens of posts by you about the topic.... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * .... I am certain you do not understand my argument because of that comment. I could also do less without the bad-faith accusations, but the battleground atmosphere is not pleasant. Is there a direct non-SYNTH case of this or not? MrX has an example, but you can't use OR to claim a connection to something published prior to the gaffe - which those cases were. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok so if that is going to be added, we can add the following: and  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  17:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ChrisGualtieri, I'm not interested in using WP:OR for adding anything to the article; I thought I had made that clear. Atsme, the same response is needed for you -- and it's especially appalling that you want to use Breitbart.com as a source in this context.  Yeech... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok so if that is going to be added, we can add the following: and  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  17:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ChrisGualtieri, I'm not interested in using WP:OR for adding anything to the article; I thought I had made that clear. Atsme, the same response is needed for you -- and it's especially appalling that you want to use Breitbart.com as a source in this context.  Yeech... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

- Since Xenophrenic has resolved the issue, I'm announcing that these changes more than resolves the issue and is NPOV in my eyes. I don't support Breitbart - but that gaffe thing is different from the issue and beyond this BLPN notice. Atsme - do you have any issues with Xenophrenic's changes - or are we all in agreement that the now-current wording is acceptable? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Chris, if you're referring to the changes already implemented by Xenophrenic at Emerson, I am Ok with them. I will address the plurality issue about the CBS interview(s) on the TP.    <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Xenophrenic changes have addressed Chris' issues. His changes have mostly, if not completely, removed Atsme's Synth (improper editorializing, Undue weight, over all BLP violations, or what ever anyone wants to call this ). It would probably be a good time to ask the other BLPN contributors here if there are any issues of note brought up here that aren't addressed.If not we can just put this baby to bed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If an Admin is following this discussion, I ask that you please take some form of remedial action for the unwarranted PAs against me by Serialjoepsycho (^^see his comment above this one). His false allegations of my editing being overall BLP violations, SYNTH, UNDUE, editorializing, etc. are unwarranted, but this isn't the first time he has done so. A comparison of the two diffs will confirm my position:  My edit is here: Revision as of 16:37, March 6, 2015.  Xenophrenic's edit is here: Revision as of 12:40, March 9, 2015  In fact, I am still researching one of the sentences he attributed to Emerson to confirm it is factually accurate.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  03:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not a personal attack. Simply pointing out the truth, is not a personal attack. Synth pretty much sums it up, someone else called in improper editorializing on the Steven Emerson page. Parts of it were undue. You could even point out the fluff. Overall it was a BLP violation. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no personal attack Atsme. Also, I've had several person attacks lobbed at me, it is the tensions. De-escalate the situation and don't get upset about anything less than unfettered name calling. Now... I'd give it another 12 hours for objections to be raised and then I suggest for a formal admin close to finalize it. Since me and Atsme were "the opposition" in a sense and we agree on the material, I doubt any objection will be raised. I prefer a formal close despite a clear consensus - I don't want a "part 4". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just check back in 4 days and take it to ANRFC if someone else hasn't. That will be plenty of time to respond and one day before it archives.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I wonder how many times it is actually necessary to say that Tim McVeigh was behind the Oklahoma city bombing. Probably worth scrubbing the first mention of it. It's not very well written and detracts from the tone. Further thru it mentions, "Emerson has been referred to as an "Islamophobe"" but ot really doesn't mention by whom. This sourced to the 'Cambridge companion to American Islam'. If it's worth mentioning it would be worth mentioning who's views these are. This does seem to be opinion based and as such I do feel WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV would apply. Leaving these critics unnamed seems to benefit the following sentence where Emerson criticizes unnamed critics. This also detracts from the tone, though less than before.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources attributed. Still problematic though, In 1995 CBS interviews, prior to any knowledge the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building was perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh, Emerson said "Oklahoma City, I can tell you, is probably considered one of the largest centers of Islamic radical activity outside the Middle East", and that the bombing "was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible. This negatively effects the tone of the article. Originally added to the article it stood as fluff that seemed to defend Emerson, now it seems as if it was written to make him look incompetent. Neither of which seem to carry a dispassionate tone. Emerson's actions already make him look incompetent, he doesn't need our assistance. This part is unnecessary as the same paragraph later says,  In the introduction of the book, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, Juliane Hammer and Omid Safi referred to Emerson as an "Islamophobe" and "the discredited 'terrorism expert' who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh".-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, still problematic... but I don't want to be attacked for "stonewalling" and such. If Sloan stated the connection - completely independently of Emerson - and Sloan is an actual terrorist expert instead of a new person in the field (which Emerson was at the time) then there is very little wrong with acknowledging what the prevailing, albeit wrong view was. The way it reads is that Emerson was the source of the material - when it was leaks in the FBI and law enforcement, three different news networks and other experts. There is hours and hours of TV coverage on this stuff on April 19-20. To criticize Emerson and act as if he was alone responsible for the "fomenting Islamophobia" is dishonest. The stark difference in reality is the reason why I was strongly opposed to the inclusion of the accusations in the first place - they lacked substance and context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * re: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - Serialjoe, you say "This does seem to be opinion based and as such I do feel WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV would apply." I would be interested in hearing your rationale for that. WP:YESPOV ("Don't attribute fact as if it were opinion") is also likely to apply. If you are going the attributed-opinion route, then your job is not complete. Ernst's academic book describes Emerson as a "professional Islamophobe"; the previously noted Washington Post article conveys that Emerson has been described as such (without naming names); etc. I'm sure there are also "critics" who have used the description. The previous wording was probably an attempt to avoid a long list of "critic" names followed by a list of non-"critic" sources.
 * re: Mentioning that Emerson made his remarks before knowing about McVeigh in the first sentence - I agree that it is redundant, and support its removal, but not because "it was written to make him look incompetent". It still appears to mitigate his interview comments, but it is unsourced and unprovable.
 * re: Many saying the same thing at the same time. Chris is correct that Emerson wasn't the only person pushing a "Middle East terrorism" theory during the first 8 hours after the event, but there is no evidence (is there?) that Emerson was parroting Sloan or anyone else, rather than giving his independent assessment, or that Sloan had or hadn't first conferred with Emerson or others. (And just a note, the "fomenting Islamophobia" description is demonstrably not based on 1995, but rather his overall history, as far as I can tell from the sources.) Xenophrenic (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So "professional [Bigot]" is a fact? There is a different between citing name-calling as a fact and citing an accusation of bigotry as if it was true. Also note that these labels are less than half a sentence and Emerson is not discussed at any other point in the sources. 300 pages and only "Islamophobe Steven Emerson" is it? Seems undue, but since we've established this name-calling is suitable for inclusion, ATTRIBUTEPOV applies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the description of Emerson as a [insert "name-calling" indicating bigotry here] factual, you ask? Isn't that the question every editor here has been asking? I see that the description has been conveyed in sources deemed reliable for the assertion of fact, which is why I raised WP:YESPOV as just as likely to apply. I remind you that your "these labels are less than half a sentence" argument (formerly known as the "passing mention" argument) has already been refuted and buried, as it was discovered that those "half sentences" were also accompanied by citations indicating that people looked into the matter with a bit more thoroughness. Do you really wish to resurrect that line of argument yet again? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be a major BLP issue to point out certain connections here - I thought we were in agreement that the accusations exist and are trying to handle them appropriately within policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we are all in agreement that Emerson has been "accused" of Islamophobia, at the very minimum. I certainly haven't disagreed. There appeared to be no disagreement with the previous article wording that Emerson has been "referred to as" or "described as" ... as long as we don't say in Wikipedia's voice that he "is". However, once you start listing where he has been described as such (Cambridge book...) or by whom (Hammer, et al...) as if those were merely opinions, you are opening a very large can of worms. Once we start adding actual "critics" to that list of sources, do you know how large that paragraph will grow? Is that what we want? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You asked, "but there is no evidence (is there?)" Yes there is, and I already provided the sources, one of which included a timeline of events, others that included statements from Emerson confirming he based his information on what investigators and other reports were saying. In fact, that's what Emerson does - he gathers material, documents, testimony and various bits of information from the internet, videos, television, radio etc. and maintains an extensive data base. You also said, "I see that the description has been conveyed in sources deemed reliable for the assertion of fact...", and I strongly disagree. Consensus cannot magically turn a contentious opinion into a statement of fact in WP voice. A similar argument occurred on Griffin, and the closing admins supported BLP policy, and the fact that such contentious labeling is fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  17:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A "timeline" showing that other people made equally wrong speculation does not mean that Emerson's comments were in any way based on theirs. After the comments were made and quickly criticized, of course he claimed he based his comments on other people, but while he was making those comments - and even for a brief time afterward - he gave no indication he was only parroting other people. As for your strong disagreement to Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources for the assertion of fact, and consensus, everyone is welcome to their opinions. However, Wikipedia policy trumps editor opinion where BLP articles are concerned. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris, no reasonable person could accuse you of stonewalling, when it relates to my comments there is still something wrong. The section does mention that others said similar. Xenophrenic, can you show me a source that factually states he is an Islamophobe and that he is a discredited terrorism expert? That's a rhetorical question. The fact is both are value based opinions. His work has been been discredited but he still seems to be very active in his field. So YesPOV doesn't seem to meet any real scrutiny and attributePOV does. That would not be my job but our job. As you have found it you might be willing to fix that or be more specific so I or someone else can review this and fix it. Emerson did make his comments before they knew that McVeigh did it. What ever, mentioning McVeigh in the lead is excessively verbose, redundant, and should simply go. The article and sources indicate that others had made similar statements. I do think that meets the scrutiny of policy. As far as Sloan, yes I'd agree that lacking a source it doesn't seem all to important, and inclusion may very well border on synth or least it would be giving undue weight.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Serialjoepsycho, yes, I can provide sources which factually describe Emerson as discredited, to answer your rhetorical question. Perhaps you consider the question rhetorical because even Emerson concedes that he has been discredited and even "blacklisted", although he insists it was done unjustly? The objective description of someone as discredited or bigoted can certainly be factually asserted (David Irving serves as a handy example of both). The degree of bigotry or amount of damage to reputation are value based opinions and can be subjective, obviously — as are any changes in those descriptions over time. The fact that an avowed racist can run for office and still get votes, for example, or that FOX News seeks someone's opinion, do not negate factual descriptions.
 * Regarding "fixing" the text about Emerson being referred to as Islamophobic, I will do as you request and implement my fix by removing the "Cambridge book" and "Hammer, et al" attributions. Attributing the descriptions to just one book misleadingly implies they are the only source of those descriptions. If you would like to re-add your attribution, please do a more complete job by also attributing the description to the Ernst book linked at the top of this thread, and the reports by SPLC, and actual "critics" like CAIR, CAP, the 2 dozen sources listed on the article Talk page, etc. That's not my preferred method, of course, as it will produce a rather unwieldy and huge block of text, but I won't object to a complete listing. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No you can only provide me with opinions that he has been discredited. While I agree with these opinions, the sources only show that some of his work has been discredited or disproven. Fox News and others not only view him credibly but present him credibly. I'd love to see the source where Emerson concedes that he's been discredited. I see where he mentions that he was black listed. Do show the source. Sounds like synth. By the way I never said the Cambridge companion had to be attributed. Being the source the book is already attributed. I said the opinions have to be attributed. Ernst book is already attirbuted with inline citation but guess what he's also attributed to his opinion. I'll go ahead and undo your change and ignore your edit warring.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll "ignore my edit warring"? Huh? Rather than edit warring when I noticed the problem, I came here instead and voiced my concerns for discussion. You then suggested that since I found the problem, I might be willing to fix it — so that is what I did with a single edit. Please don't derail the discussion and try to drag it into the gutter by playing that kind of game, . Agreed?
 * Back to the matter at hand, we appear to have a misunderstanding. You are technically correct that descriptions, like "water is wet", "1, 3 and 5 are numbers", "the earth is round", "Emerson was discredited", can indeed be called "opinions". But for the purposes of this discussion, I was referring only to Wikipedia's policies regarding fact and opinion as asserted by cited sources. You called the information conveyed by the Cambridge Companion to American Islam opinion, and I replied that I would be interested in hearing your rationale as to why you think so. I'm still interested, in case you missed my query. You agree that "sources only show that some of his work has been discredited or disproven", which is the textbook definition of how a person's reputation becomes discredited.  He has referred to his wrong assertions and the resultant damage to his reputation as an albatross around his neck he has struggled to remove.
 * Is there a reason why, in your recent edit, you only "attributed" the descriptions to a single source? You don't see how that misleads the reader into thinking the description comes just from that source? (You mention that the Ernst book is already cited elsewhere in the article, but I don't see how that has anything to do with the paragraph we're working on. And by the way, that Ernst cite is wrong and attributes to him in the footnote a description made by a completely different person. But that is another matter.) Is there a reason why you deleted the Washington Post reference I added? Is there a reason why you moved the Gov't Research analysis source away from the Oklahoma Bombing comments it was inserted to support? Xenophrenic (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The page is now locked for another month. As much as I hate to say it, it is a BLP issue and the fact it had continued for so long was the reason I took the matter to AE in the first place. BLP violations are different from violations of BLP in a sense of material versus the actions. Serialjoepsycho has been citing BLP policy and making proper and reasonable assertions on a very sensitive BLP matter and I must thank him for handling it in such a fine way. It is still clear the content and wording does not have consensus... but progress is progress. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that Serialjoepsycho handled it well, and I also thank him. SMirC-thumbsup.svg <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  04:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Chris that the content and wording does not have consensus. (And it's locked for 2 months, not "another month".) Xenophrenic (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually Xenophrenic, I said since you found it you could fix it or, "be more specific so I or someone else can review this and fix it." You can put emphasis on the part where you do something fruitful but it doesn't erase the actual part where you were asked to provide more clarity so that your position could be reviewed and so that I or someone else could take action in regards to it. Text book definition? That could be argued one way or another. Honestly wouldn't likely be such an interesting conversation. So let's not bother with it because in the end there's this whole BLP policy. This detracts from the tone. That is not written responsibly, cautiously, or with a dispassionate tone. It's written specifically in wikipedia voice to attack Emerson. He has been discredited in the past in his field as a "Terrorism expert". He's also continued in that field since then and has been received as a credible source by mainstream media, government, law enforcement, and perhaps others. It's not wikipedia's place to endorse this opinion, only to record it. Yes there is a reason why there I attributed this to only one source, because there this was the only source used. No I don't think that misleads readers into thinking it comes from one source. I think this is the first time I've ever seen this particular argument. I find it ridiculous and unnecessary, but I see no problem with you adding other sources for this opinion and attributing them as well. In regards to Ernst, I was referring to the final paragraph of the section titled "reception" the only place I see specifically where Ernst is mentioned as a source (Not sure if that's in a foot note section of the book. Doesn't look like it. I don't have a full copy of the book but it does seem to be in a section of the book written by Juliane Hammer. Does anyone have a full copy of the book that can verify? The citation seems to be fine but the article attribution directly to Ernst may not be.) Your prior comments were rather verbose. I had assumed that you were discussing something in that article as opposed to something lacking from the article. I also in relation to that asked you to either fix it or be more specific so I or someone else can review this and fix it. If you would like to attribute Ernst or anyone else who stands as a reliable source that says that Emerson is an Islamophobe or discredited terrorism expert then please do. I don't find it necessary. I have no problem with anyone doing this however. The lock on the page is for two months but it can actually be unlocked before that. So lets get a consensus and move on. So is there anything that hasn't been addressed in some way and we should address the current Ernst attribution that is already contained in the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You asked that either I fix it,  or  have someone else fix it. When I followed your suggestion, you offensively mischaracterized my edit as "edit warring", and reverted it. Your revert also undid other noncontroversial article improvements without explanation. You still haven't answered when I asked why you deleted the Washington Post reference I added. You still haven't answered when I asked you why you moved the Gov't Research analysis source away from the Oklahoma Bombing comments it was inserted to support.


 * As for more clarity on the issue, I can only repeat what I already said above - with even more verbosity - until you confirm there is no further confusion. Since there is disagreement as to whether our article can factually state in Wikipedia's voice that Emerson "is" an Islamophobe, or "is" a discredited expert, let's set that matter aside for later. We can certainly agree that Emerson has been (referred to/accused of/described as) such by other individuals, and that much can be stated in Wikipedia's voice as long as we don't present the descriptions as true or false. We agree so far? Reflecting that position, here is the previous sentence written in responsible, cautious and dispassionate tone (but still a little long, in my opinion):
 * Emerson has been referred to as an "Islamophobe" and, recalling his 1995 interviews, "the discredited 'terrorism expert' who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh". Source 1, Source 2
 * So instead of saying "Emerson is XXX & YYY", we say that people have merely "Referred to Emerson as XXX & YYY", as explicitly conveyed by the WaPo source, and demonstrated in the Cambridge source. But then you cited WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and suggested we name the source of the description, which gives us this sentence:
 * In the introduction of the book, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, Juliane Hammer and Omid Safi referred to Emerson as an "Islamophobe" and "the discredited 'terrorism expert' who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh". Single Source
 * While I understand the reasoning behind your suggestion, it appears you did not implement that guideline properly for several reasons. Go to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV; do you see where the first line tells you to See: WP:INTEXT for proper use of in-text attribution? If you'll look at the examples in that guideline, you'll see that your proposed sentence violates example #4 with clutter, and violates example #3 by misleading the reader into thinking that Cambridge source is the only one describing Emerson that way. It appears you are unaware of the sheer volume of sources conveying those descriptions. You say, "If you would like to attribute Ernst or anyone else who stands as a reliable source that says that Emerson is an Islamophobe or discredited terrorism expert then please do. I don't find it necessary. I have no problem with anyone doing this however." Seriously? Have you been following the several Talk page discussions and noticeboard discussions? Following your suggestion, the result would look something like this at first, and only get worse over time:
 * In the introduction of the book, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, Juliane Hammer and Omid Safi referred to Emerson as an "Islamophobe" and "the discredited 'terrorism expert' who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh". In January 2015, The Guardian newspaper reported that Emerson "has a reputation for making this sort of mistake". In the intro to the book Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance, Carl W. Ernst describes Emerson as a "professional Islamophobe". In Islam in Liberal Europe: Freedom, Equality, and Intolerance, Kai Hafez lists Emerson among the "Islamophobic opinion leaders". In (insert dozens of other reliable sources here) Emerson is described as...
 * You see where this will lead? Your suggestion to attribute the descriptions doesn't appear to produce a very encyclopedic paragraph (an "unwieldy and huge block of text" I called it, above). More succinct would be a sentence conveying simply that Emerson has been described as XXX and YYY. Let me know if my concerns are clear now; I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As you have found it you might be willing to fix that or be more specific so I or someone else can review this and fix it. You say that I asked you to fix it or have someone else fix it and yet that wasn't even remotely said. Instead I asked you to to fix it or be more specific so that I or some one else could review it and fix it. I did not ask you to find someone else to fix it. That I in the sentence stands for me, as in after you are more specific I can review what you are talking about and fix it. I did not tell you to go find others to fix it. I mentioned that someone other than I or you could fix it if you were more specific. Someone like Chris or Atsme above could for instance review it and fix it. Note that they aren't the only people that have been active here. And with the canvassing policy I would not ask you to go find someone else to do it. And there's no need for further verbosity, when I pointed out your comments were verbose, I said, "I had assumed that you were discussing something in that article as opposed to something lacking from the article." We can move on.


 * What I have followed in much of the discussion here, is that I don't feel you have actually followed the discussion. As with the above, you cherry pick parts of what is being said and ignore the actual meat and potatoes of the discussion, occasionally misrepresenting what is being said. In the final example you provide, of what the text would look like, you ignore where prior I had mentioned it's not necessary to use the title "The Cambridge Companion to American Islam" as it's already attributed in the citation.  But now that you have pointed out WP:INTEXT, following example 4, you would exclude "In the introduction of the book, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam,".  and the clutter is gone. As far as misleading the readers, I don't think it does that, how ever if you or anyone else has a reliable source and wishes to attribute others by all means do. I find this unnecessary myself. Reviewing your example,  In (insert dozens of other reliable sources here) Emerson is described as... I'd have to say that's just over the top and putting alot of weight behind a guideline. WP:GUIDES, Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. To read this example, According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening. and conclude that you must post a dozen or more sources is ludicrous. If it was actually the case that this made it seem as if they were the only ones that shared this opinion, it would be only necessary to list and attribute 1 or 2 more sources. But then reading the entire paragraph we are discussing and reading the entire article I can see no reasonable basis for this conclusion. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You say that I asked you to fix it or have someone else fix it and yet that wasn't even remotely said.
 * Yes, it was. Read what you wrote again. It's just above, in bold print. I think my paraphrase of what you said conveys everything necessary to establish my point. Given the choice of me or someone else, I chose me.
 * Instead I asked you to to fix it or be more specific so that I or some one else could review it and fix it.
 * Exactly. Me, or someone else; as I said.  I chose Me (that's the meat & potatoes of my comment, by the way) rather than leave it to someone else.
 * I did not ask you to find someone else to fix it.
 * Correct. You did not. But then, I didn't say you asked me to find someone else, either. But you sure killed that straw man dead. Cheers.
 * I mentioned that someone other than I or you could fix it if you were more specific.
 * No, you said "...be more specific so I or someone else can review this and fix it." It's still right there, just a few paragraphs up. And I did not chose that option, I chose the option before the word "or".
 * Someone like Chris or Atsme above could for instance review it and fix it.
 * I suppose so, but they didn't. Perhaps they will chime in now and propose a fix, now that the problem has been even further clarified.
 * Note that they aren't the only people that have been active here.
 * Um, duh? (I know such an obvious sentence doesn't require a response, but I didn't want you to think I haven't "actually followed" what you were saying, or "cherry picked" what I respond to.)
 * And with the canvassing policy I would not ask you to go find someone else to do it.
 * Following policy is a wise decision.
 * And there's no need for further verbosity, when I pointed out your comments were verbose, I said, "I had assumed that you were discussing something in that article as opposed to something lacking from the article."
 * I don't disagree with that at all. (But I also have no idea where you are going with that.)
 * We can move on.
 * Please!


 * What I have followed in much of the discussion here, is that I don't feel you have actually followed the discussion. As with the above, you cherry pick parts of what is being said and ignore the actual meat and potatoes of the discussion, occasionally misrepresenting what is being said.
 * ...and you smell bad, wear funny clothes and have a third nipple. (See? We can both say silly, unsubstantiated stuff. Can we get back to article improvement now?)
 * you ignore where prior I had mentioned it's not necessary to use the title "The Cambridge Companion to American Islam" as it's already attributed in the citation.
 * No, I didn't ignore that. You ignored that and used the unnecessary title.
 * you would exclude "In the introduction of the book, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam,". and the clutter is gone.
 * That is a brilliant idea; wish I'd thought of that. Oh, wait, I did. Then you put the clutter back.
 * As far as misleading the readers, I don't think it does that...
 * I would ask you why not, but I predict I'd get only silence from you. I asked you to explain why you deleted my Washington Post reference. Silence. I asked you why you moved the Gov't Research analysis source away from the Oklahoma Bombing comments it was inserted to support. Silence. You called the information conveyed by the Cambridge Companion to American Islam opinion, and I replied that I would be interested in hearing your rationale as to why you think so. Silence.
 * ...how ever if you or anyone else has a reliable source and wishes to attribute others by all means do.
 * You are sticking to the "attribute others" plan? Okay, this is reliably sourced:
 * In the introduction of the book, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, Juliane Hammer and Omid Safi referred to Emerson as an "Islamophobe" and "the discredited 'terrorism expert' who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh". In January 2015, The Guardian newspaper reported that Emerson "has a reputation for making this sort of mistake". In the intro to the book Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance, Carl W. Ernst describes Emerson as a "professional Islamophobe". In Islam in Liberal Europe: Freedom, Equality, and Intolerance, Kai Hafez lists Emerson among the "Islamophobic opinion leaders".
 * That is not the best solution, however. More succinct would be a sentence conveying simply that Emerson has been described as XXX and YYY. Let me know if you agree.
 * To read this example, (example #3) and conclude that you must post a dozen or more sources is ludicrous.
 * I agree, which is why I expressed surprise that you would apparently draw that conclusion and suggest "please do" add more attributions. The easiest solution to avoid making the "example #3" violation is to simply say that Emerson has been described as XXX and YYY, and cite a couple of the best reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Completely WP:UNDUE - mind you that the article already calls Emerson "clearly a complete idiot" from someone with a history of making similar errors. No part of this is disinterest and I am done with all the bad faith accusations and desire to over-represent some tangential negative material and make it the bulk of a person's biography. Sorry, but - I'll wait until the battleground atmosphere is gone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Chris, may I ask you to specify which of the above proposals you feel is WP:UNDUE? When having our article convey that Emerson has been described as "Islamophobic" and "discredited" (which he has to a significant enough degree that it warrants coverage in our article), what would you suggest? My preference (and I believe Wikipedia's preference) would be to succinctly and simply convey that "he has been described as XXX and YYY, because of ZZZ reasons or comments", along with Emerson's explanations or rebuttals. However, another editor appears to prefer that we also convey (read: attribute) the sources, which are numerous and span the range from scholarly academic sources and top-tier news organizations to the lower-end watchdog groups, politicians, Muslim groups, rights advocates, etc. Perhaps you have a third option to suggest? The present wording in the page-protected version of the "Voiced concerns" paragraph violates WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV by misleadingly attributing the negative descriptions to just one source. (The only attempted argument I've heard in support of keeping the misleading attribution is, paraphrased as I understand it: "If the reader reads the entire article, they will eventually see that more than one source describes Emerson that way", which begs the question, "Then why use the misleading attribution in that sentence if it is more thoroughly and accurately attributed elsewhere in the article?")
 * I share your concern about the hyperbolic wording presently in the article (the "idiot" and "stupid" remarks from high-profile individuals). That is unencyclopedic content which will no doubt be replaced eventually by NPOV-compliant wording describing the remarks he made and the criticism it generated - without the shock-value quotes. There are many other obvious problems; why is there a 'controversies' section in a BLP? That's a no-no which will just become a collection pool of negative information. (The Boston & Birmingham paragraphs should be under the 'Voiced concerns' anyway.) Even the 'Reception' section is odd for an article about a person, rather than a film or a book. Why is Emerson described as Islamophobic in one section, an Islamophobe in another section, and his IPT organization described as advancing Islamophobic conspiracy theories in a third section, with different (or missing) explanation/rebuttal information in each? There are more problems as well, but I stray. I'm with you in hoping the battleground atmosphere goes away, but we're likely to have a long wait as long as editors are more concerned with other editors (nitpicking at what they say, reverting their edits wholesale, casting aspersions at them, etc.) instead of collaborative article improvement. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah Chris, I think this you have a great idea. Xenophoric, as to your question of why do I feel it's not misleading, I actually answered that. Again, reading the paragraph we are discussing and reading the entire article, I find it unlikely. You are also misrepresenting that diff. I gave the position that mentioning the book was unnecessary. Personal opinion. No policy or guideline rationale, pretty much like you did. Such a rationale did not come until two or 3 days ago, after the revert. And this policy rationale only effects your position on cluttering. Your edit summary to the change I reverted indicated that you did it per BLP discussion. The talk here before that change doesn't indicate a clear consensus for your change. Your change wasn't attributed to removal of the cluttering. This battleground behavior is old and tiring. I'm not really interested in taking part in that any further. If you have a policy basis for changes that present some clear rationale and you would like to discuss them then please share them, otherwise for me it would seem this conversation is over.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll respond for Xenophoric. Hi, Serialjoepsycho, and thank you for answering one of the five questions I've asked you recently; it's a start. Unfortunately, I've already seen the response you just gave about the misleading attribution, and I even said this about it above: (The only attempted argument I've heard in support of keeping the misleading attribution is, paraphrased as I understand it: "If the reader reads the entire article, they will eventually see that more than one source describes Emerson that way", which begs the question, "Then why use the misleading attribution in that sentence if it is more thoroughly and accurately attributed elsewhere in the article?") So your repetition of the same thing doesn't advance the discussion. Of course you are welcome to your opinion that the misleading sentence is not misleading, but since Wikipedia policy gives that type of misleading sentence wording as an actual example of what not to do, we should follow policy over your personal opinion. I don't see in your comment any suggestion of how that can be improved. As for me "misrepresenting a diff", I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific about which diff. The diff of me removing the attribution misleadingly (according to this BLPN discussion) indicating only a single source, and the associated clutter? Or the diff of you re-inserting the misleading attribution and unnecessary clutter? Some other diff from another editor? One comment of yours which gives me great hope and relief: This battleground behavior is old and tiring. I'm not really interested in taking part in that any further. You asked me to share proposed changes, so I'll cut & paste one of the many from above: My preference (and I believe Wikipedia's preference) would be to succinctly and simply convey that "he has been described as XXX and YYY, because of ZZZ reasons or comments", along with Emerson's explanations or rebuttals. Please let me know your thoughts on that format in general, and if acceptable we can fill in the specific text & citations. (Or not; there is no requirement that you participate at any article — but would hate to lose your familiarity with the subject matter.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You'll respond for you? Ok. That's answering again for the second time. The lead, have you read it? Some of Emerson's statements have been criticized for inaccuracies related to Muslims in the U.S. and Europe. You can pick thru the article and find other things in the article. But really what we have here is you arguing for the simple sake of argument. I already mention that even though I find it unnecessary, "I see no problem with you adding other sources for this opinion and attributing them as well". What I would like to do (and I believe it's wikipedia's preference under wp:attributepov) is present biased statements of opinion with attribution. Though of course that should be obvious. Beyond that I would like to make other changes as necessary based off policy, guidelines, and common sense. What I'd rather not do is spend days arguing with someone for the simple sake of argument about a subject I despise. wp:attributepov is a policy, wp:intext is a guideline. Wikipedia has no hard and fast rules. Policy trumps guidelines. Further this being a blp, that puts further weight on following the npov policy. Again, I do not see this attribution as misleading, 2 named individuals share this view. If you would like to, again as I've said, add and attribute a few more sources. But then this battle ground, your battleground. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll respond for you?
 * No, I said I'd respond for "Xenophoric" (which I assumed might be a mangling of my user name, but one never knows for sure, hence my caution).
 * That's answering again for the second time.
 * Yeah, I know and acknowledged that when I said above: So your repetition of the same thing doesn't advance the discussion. Since I'm already aware, perhaps you are clarifying that for Xenophoric?
 * The lead, have you read it?
 * You mean that poorly worded sentence specifically about (and cited to) his most recent "Birmingham" comment on Fox News? Yes, I saw it. A rather odd sentence for the lead which I assume will be fixed to be a proper summary once the article body content is cleaned up. What about it?
 * You can pick thru the article and find other things in the article.
 * Um, yeah... and? Is this going somewhere? Because I thought we were discussing how we were going to handle the descriptions of Emerson as Islamophobic and discredited. Are you implying that the sentence in the lead summarizes those descriptions of Emerson in some way? It doesn't (nor do any of the reference citations appended to it). What, specifically, would I find of relevance in the article after picking through it? Let's get into the nuts & bolts of this so that we can resolve it, please.  The generalizations are not productive.
 * But really what we have here is you arguing for the simple sake of argument.
 * Oh great, now you have resorted to being nasty again. Or perhaps you are projecting. Just so you are clear, I argue to present the reasoning behind whatever conclusions I am advancing. Granted, you are making the process feel like chipping at a granite block with an icepick, but I'm still hopeful more progress can be made.
 * What I'd rather not do is spend days arguing with someone for the simple sake of argument about a subject I despise.
 * You say that now, and I'd like to believe you, but as I look at the immediately preceding exchanges between us, I'm left suspecting you will just resume again after reading this.
 * wp:attributepov is a policy, wp:intext is a guideline. Wikipedia has no hard and fast rules. Policy trumps guidelines.
 * If you are going with that as an argument in this discussion, I think you are going to end up very disappointed. First, to clarify what we are talking about: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is the policy which instructs us to see the WP:INTEXT guideline; it doesn't "trump" it, or in any way disagree or contradict it. (But that gave me a good chuckle, thanks.)
 * I already mention that even though I find it unnecessary, "I see no problem with you adding other sources for this opinion and attributing them as well". What I would like to do (and I believe it's wikipedia's preference under wp:attributepov) is present biased statements of opinion with attribution ... 2 named individuals share this view. If you would like to, again as I've said, add and attribute a few more sources.
 * Yes; you did say that. Since policy dictates that we convey proper weight and prevalence of a viewpoint, attributing the viewpoint to just a single source edited by two individuals is problematic. You say you see no problem with adding more attributions, so may I assume you would have no objections to rewording this text thusly? (With proper cites added, of course.)
 * In the introduction of the book, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, Juliane Hammer and Omid Safi referred to Emerson as an "Islamophobe" and "the discredited 'terrorism expert' who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh". In January 2015, The Guardian newspaper reported that Emerson "has a reputation for making this sort of mistake". Former Fox News producer Joe Muto explained that Emerson was on Bill O'Reilly's shortlist of guests too risky and extreme to appear on the show, but for some hosts and producers "at a network that traffics in outrage and over-the-top, factually questionable claims, Emerson is an irresistible guest." In the intro to the book Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance, Carl W. Ernst describes Emerson as a "professional Islamophobe". In Islam in Liberal Europe: Freedom, Equality, and Intolerance, Kai Hafez lists Emerson among the "Islamophobic opinion leaders".
 * Even if you see no problem with that paragraph, wouldn't you agree that a more encyclopedic format would be: to succinctly and simply convey that "he has been described as XXX and YYY, because of ZZZ reasons or comments", along with Emerson's explanations or rebuttals? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So it doesn't look like there's anything else. Seems ready for a close.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh? Then would you do the honors of summarizing whatever "resolution" we've reached so that we can ask for a determination and close by an uninvolved admin? That would go a long way toward staving off another repeat (5th?) discussion over similar issues. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No I won't. The closer doesn't need a summary argument in my opinion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%! But then, I didn't ask you for another argument. Since you indicated you felt this was "ready for a close", I figured you would be the best candidate to summarize what "resolution" (see the header title above) we have reached. I'd wager other editors would be interested in your summary as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You should perhaps go back read this whole thing. I'm not marking this as resolved, I'm not determining the "resolution" or rather consensus, I'm leaving that to the closer, the uninvolved closer. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why should I go back and re-read "this whole thing"? Has something been recently added that I might have missed? Then simply point it out, if you would. I do see now why you balk at my request that you summarize the resolution: there isn't a resolution, as evidenced by the renewed discussion over the very same issue at the Emerson Talk page. An uninvolved closer could not mark this as resolved either way. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This should have been an open and shut case. Are there reliable sources saying he is an islamophobe? Yes. So it should be in the article. I understand biographies of living person shouldn't have fringe stuff but this isn't fringe. Plenty of mainstream, reliable sources back it up. And people are being banned for this? Shame. Popish Plot (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Existence of reliable sourcing doesn't appear to be at issue. The newer disagreement asserts that all those reliable sources must be "biased", for as yet unclarified reasons. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:BIASED:  reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. We need to close this discussion, all I see is filibustering. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

willy moon
the word "cunt" is used heaps of times in the personal life section...

Willy Moon


 * I removed all but the first instance and tried to rephrase the section in more neutral language. I suspect in 200 years some social science PhD Robot will write a thesis on this sad era of decadence... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Even though there is a source for the negative content, I don't believe that just having a reliable source is always a sufficient reason for including such content about a living person. It needs to be a notable part of his personal life (such as the other text in the "Personal life" section about his marriage) to be included in his biography.  But in this case, I think instead it is just celebrity gossip, so I removed it (but it has been added back in).  I'm disappointed to see that other editors are edit warring to reinclude this potentially BLP-violating content before any consensus to include it has been established here.  Gnome de plume (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The text is nonsense and it should be removed. A public figure melted down during a traffic incident, and Wikipedia is used to tell the world and poke the celebrity. If anyone cares, they can wait for a few months then add a report to the article on any long-term effects of the he-said-a-bad-word incident. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah it should. The open letter was the only interesting part of it. The section has been watered down so much it is no longer worthwhile. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 12:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow! "Popdust.com" is not used as a reliable source for a contentious claim in a BLP! That site also has important and solid news on "Azealia Banks Is Stunning In Pussylicious ‘Playboy’ Shoot—See The Photos!", "In Bed With Lainne—Maggie Talks Sex, Self Doubt, Confidence And BJs",  "Patrick Schwarzenegger—I Did NOT Cheat On Miley Cyrus In Cabo!",  "Was Gigi Hadid Snorting Cocaine At Miami Event?" etc. Wonderful source, IMO. Will someone tell the cunt aficionados that "Pop Dust" is possibly not quite the normal level of sourcing required? Collect (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok its not a reliable source. However those article titles are only marginably trashier than those found on NZ newspaper sites we usually use. Also wasn't really a contentious claim. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 12:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First - is the use of the word "of encyclopedic value" for someone fifty years from now?  Second - how in heck can anyone think "Pop Dust" could ever be remotely acceptable as a source for anything at all in any BLP?   The RS given uses the asterisks - thus we are bound to do no more.  And I seriously doubt this tempête dans un verre d'eau is worth the paper we use on it. Collect (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur with the above; since the reliable source bleeps the word out, the Wikipedia article should, too. Epic Genius (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * re 50 years : probably more than the rest of the article. This guy isn't famous for music - he's famous for the media shitstorms that surround him. But anyway I deleted the offending passage because it made no sense without the surrounding context. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 06:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Trim, trim and trim. A personal life section for anyway no matter how much they have enraged a small island nation should not have five sentances for a traffic tantrum and one for a wedding. Hell I agree with Johnuniq that it should just be removed entirely. AIR corn (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the tantrum is currently out of the article (and long may it stay so). But if anyone seriously considers restoring it, they should describe it as it is described in the newspaper's voice, not how either side reports it. In this article it is described as "Willy Moon swore at a woman in a crowded bakery". No more need be said about the exact language - this is an encyclopaedia, not a creative writing exercise, and "show, don't tell" does not appear to be the rule here - and any reader still curious as to which particular Naughty Word was involved can follow the link to the newspaper article. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

findmypast.co.uk
I've noticed a number of birth dates being cited to findmypast.co.uk, which is a copy of public records for births and deaths. I can see the point of using this to cite dates for long deceased people, but for living people I'm dead against it as it violates WP:BLPPRIMARY. I take the view that if a notable person doesn't want their DOB publicised, we should respect that. What do others think? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like the site also has copies of newspapers so I guess it depends on what findmypast source is used. AIR corn (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Joel Osteen
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has added and readded Category:Prosperity theologians to the page Joel Osteen. Since Osteen has specifically denied being a prosperity theologian, which is explained in the article, he should not be placed in that category per WP:CAT/R. Norton has suggested that it's fine because it's not an autobiography, but I don't think that's relevant. We should not expect people to file an OTRS just to have something like that addressed, that is an unrealistic and bureaucratic expectation. Norton has suggested I bring the issue here. As an added note, the entire category seems very problematic, since "prosperity theologian" is a contentious and controversial label which is often used in a disparaging manner. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * He doesn't like the term prosperity theology which Wikipedia describes as "a Christian religious doctrine that financial blessing is the will of God for Christians, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to Christian ministries will increase one's material wealth." There are half a dozen references using the term to describe his writings and preachings as just that in the article. We have to decide whether we are his biographers or his press agents. This is not an autobiography and the term is not a pejorative or libelous. It exactly describes his writing and preachings even if the term is not one he would use to describe himself. If he finds it pejorative he can file and OTRS and it can be evaluated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We've got a split discussion going on. I'm copy/pasting my response from Talk:Joel Osteen:
 * Look, I'm not defending Osteen, but I really disagree that it's not pejorative. I think it has some very serious negative connotations, which is exactly why he has spent so much time denying it. Regardless, it's a religious issue, and he's said he isn't one, I think that's a BLP issue. Categories just don't have any room for context or nuance, so adding him to one is making a value judgment about his religious position that he himself denies. Explain it, expand it, whatever, but blanket categorization seems like a mistake. Grayfell (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, expecting him to file an OTRS is unrealistic and bureaucratic. We should not ask people to go through such a process to fix something they've already gone on record about. Grayfell (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:CAT/R requires him to self identify and as he himself says: "I get grouped into the prosperity gospel and I never think it's fair, but it's just what it is." It is like disliking being called a US Congressman and being grouped with people that have to resign for misusing funds or soliciting sex in a men's bathroom in an airport. WP:CAT/R says we can't pick a religion for someone by guessing, but he is an ordained minister, so it is not a guess. This isn't a religion like Islam or Christian or Buddhist, but a philosophy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's a useful comparison. People take oaths to become Congressmen. By requirement, one must at some point strongly self-identify as a Congressmen. As far as I know, Osteen has never said he was a prosperity theologian. Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whether the subject likes the characterization or not - are there reliable sources that call him that? If so then the category is fine, otherwise it's not. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This 60 Minutes clip says "Osteen preaches his own version of what is known as the 'prosperity gospel' ...", which is the only use of the term there. Other than that, most serious profiles have mentioned that he is associated with prosperity theology, but with qualifiers, or otherwise avoiding specifics. For example, this interview asks a question that starts "Some of your critics say that your so-called prosperity Gospel isn't in keeping with the traditional Christian message ..." Other than that, opinion pieces or similar from detractors (of which there are many) often give him that label. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Disagree. For information used in the article this is fine as it can be presented in context. When it comes to categories context is not provided. AIR corn (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Remove. WP:CAT/R is [retty clear in this case. AIR corn (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are the quotes about him and the cover story in Time magazine:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_) (talk • contribs)


 * While I have to agree that he looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, eats like a duck, flies like a duck, tastes great with pancakes and bean paste, gets shot at by hunters after misdirection from wascuwy wabbits, is referred to as a duck by amateur birdwatchers, hockey fans, professional ornithologists, veterinarians; -- and even quacks on occasion... he has yet to explicitly quack the words "I am a prosperity theologian, I agree with and advocate prosperity theology, and I disagree with its opposing ideas," which is unfortunately the requirement, not other people pointing out that a duck is a duck. We can probably, however, say in the body of the article (and maybe even the lede) that almost everyone but him regards him as a prosperity theologian. We just can't place him in that category.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * After looking over the discussion and sources I'd say that the category does not apply here, because it provides no context and cannot be qualified in any way. Categories are absolute - either the subject is X or not, but they brook no ambiguity, and in this case there is some ambiguity if the subject specifically rejects the label. That the material about prosperity preaching belongs in the article is not contestable, the problem is the category. If the catg was called "Ministers considered by some people to be prosperity preachers" or whatever then that would be OK, but that's not how we categorize subjects. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd say it doesn't apply. Some sources may choose to apply the term because of what they interpret to be "prosperity gospel", but if he has explicitly come out time and again and said he isn't a proponent of it, there is reasonable doubt. In the case of a BLP, the benefit of the doubt should go to leaving it out. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari
Controversies section contains allegations of lothario behaviours and other remarks. Does it violate the policy? --George Ho (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the only source used is the daily mail I would say yes. AIR corn (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What about the Kashmir issue? --George Ho (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources seem reliable and it looks like it is worth mentioning. Maybe incorporate it into politics instead of its own section. The last sentence seems minor though, maybe not needed. AIR corn (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Nigel Thrift
The recent addition of paragraph 4 on the controversies section on this page appears to go beyond facts and into opinion. I would be grateful if a wiki editor/volunteer could look at it and act as they think appropriate within the spirit of Wikipedia as it is not appropriate for me to do so as someone linked to the individual concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter J Dunn (talk • contribs) 11:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sourced only to YouTube, which is clearly not acceptable here. Removed and watchlisted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)