Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive3

Sylvia Nasar and related articles
User: Mikeeverest1 (contribs) has been making defamatory edits to Sylvia Nasar, no sourcing except for reference to a discussion in a forum and insists on inserting a quote from a book review by her which apparently (to him) reveals anti-Chinese bias. He refuses to discuss his edits and apparently does not like using talk pages or edit summaries. He has already been cautioned (and reverted) by Charles Matthews to explain his edits User_talk:Mikeeverest1.

I had previously run across this same editor (based on similarity of user names) as User:Mikeeverest and User:MikeEverest. In all these edits, he clearly has an agenda and bias for including certain kinds of material.

The other current article besides the Nasar one that he seems to like to edit is Manifold Destiny, where he basically inserts the same content. In addition to BLP concerns, he likes to insert quotes that are arguably POV and represent only one side of a debate.

Based on his lack of response, I don't hold hope for any kind of fruitful discussion. I believe a clear message needs to be sent that this behavior is not to be tolerated. --C S (Talk) 07:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Britney Spears
Britney_Spears picture has been replaced with one of a man being lynched. Inappropriate, possibly liabelous.

on Jimmy Wales
Seems to be an edit war brewing at Jimmy Wales over whether to include criticism by Larry Sanger. I'm not involved so can't comment, but one editor is arguing that WP:BLP precludes mention of it. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 23:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be me and User:Margana. See Jimmy Wales section above. I am going to the mattresses on this one. Crockspot 23:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael E. DeBakey
I don't know who removed the Category Arab American on the article of Dr. Michael E. DeBakey. As a Lebanese American, wether he is Christian or Muslim, he is also Arab American. I've added the category again.


 * I've removed both the Lebanese and Arab categories from him. Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality requires an external source to clasify someone into an ethnic group.  You are not allowed to say "his parents are Lebanese, therefore he is a Lebanese-American".  And you're certainly not allowed to claim that he's an Arab-American without a source; Demographics of Lebanon says that "most" of the population of Lebanon is considered Arab, and even gives examples of some groups who don't consider themselves Arab. Ken Arromdee 02:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct, but nevertheless he is Lebanese American and nevertheless he is considered as an Arab. I think I will find the source, but it should be clear, that if he is the son of Lebanese parents, that he is a Lebanese American. This information doesn't need a source! Veritémaster 06:45, 16 October 2006 (MET)


 * Well, I have looked on the Homepage of the local Arab American Institute, where MD Michael DeBakey is shown as an Arab American. Thus, he is Arab American and Lebanese American! Here the link: . Veritémaster 07:00, 16 October 2006 (MET)

Al Gore III
Into a debate on whether the article can ever be expanded beyond a stub, or whether it should be merged, the following comment was inserted by an anon. While defamatory and unsourced, the comment is a personal opinion, and therefore probably privileged in the United States. Does this cross the line for deletion of talk page comments, or am I overreacting? Robert A.West (Talk) 17:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is defamation of a living person. It has nothing to do with making the article better. Delete it without a second thought. WAS 4.250 18:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would have deleted it from the article without hesitation, but wanted to make sure of my ground on the talk page. As it happened, someone else did it for me. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk pages are for discussion of the article, and they most emphatically are not free speech zones. Feel free to remove anything defamatory/attacking. FCYTravis 18:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about whether traffic citations and arrests not leading to conviction belong on this bio of a non-public living person. One user's proposition is that subject is NOT non-public, yet same user posts that he's only aware of the figure because of arrests. I'm not sure what's kosher, but seems like dark territory (and weak reasoning) to me. BusterD 20:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please check out the article. It's whole purpose seems to be an political attack on his dad, the more famous Al Gore.  I will vote for deletion, however the nomination process is beyond me.  I tried to delete a couple before and messed it up.  Steve Dufour 04:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Flame war continues even after consensus has been reached. One user using various abusives and pushing strong partisan POV, while winking slyly at discussion. BusterD 18:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * More to the point, this seems to be a continuing issue. Now that it's pretty certain that the article isn't deleted and there isn't consensus for a merge, it has moved to a discussion as to whether well-sourced information about his arrests, arguably a major reason for his notability beyond his heritage, belongs in the article.  My personal opinion is that this isn't a BLP issue at all, but more eyes to clear this up will only help and not hurt the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Badlydrawnjeff and I agree in every specific except for my view the arrest and birthdate material stay out as BLP vio, and Badlydrawnjeff's view it remains (if I've mischaracterized that view in any way, it's entirely unintentional). We agree as Wikipedians 100%. Badlydrawnjeff's behavior throughout this discussion has been exemplary, even though we disagree on the merits. Sunlight=disinfectant. BusterD 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And, I think that the problem is one of undue weight, because the marginally-notable-by-inheritance make good copy when the event is negative, while the majority of their life is apt to be hard, if not impossible, to verify. This is in marked contrast to the genuinely-notable, whose positive accomplishments (if any) are of some interest to reliable sources, and for whom a lack of positive copy creates a fair inference that there is not much positive to say.  In cases such as this one, the lack of positive copy can create an unfair inference, hence I question whether articles such as this one can be made NPOV, which I believe to be a BLP issue of some generality.  Robert A.West (Talk) 23:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm still of the opinion that this all belongs in the Al Gore article, if anywhere, since Gore III hasn't done anything particularly notable in and of himself. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please explain what the Bush twins have accomplished in and of themselves?--Getaway 15:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not as yet a great deal, but when I just looked in, the articles had no negative content whatsoever, so I am not sure of your point. Are you arguing to add negative information or for deletion as fluff pieces?  If you want to add an appropriate and measured reference, I suggest the Reader's Digest's formulation about Jenna: her partying antics provided endless fodder for gossip columnists in her college days.  Short, avoids undue weight, but communicates the information.  Perhaps a similar sentence in Al Gore III would do: a series of brushes with the law in his late teens and early twenties were well-publicized and caused his father substantial embarrassment.   We would need a source for the embarrassment, but I do not doubt that one exists.  Robert A.West (Talk) 23:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (response to Hit bull, win steak) My point exactly. If the arrests were mentioned briefly in the father's article, the undue weight would be reduced, because a reader would not expect a complete picture of the son's life, and there would be context.  Robert A.West (Talk) 00:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Should we do another AFD nom with a suggestion of merge and delete? --plange 00:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * An AFD is not needed, because the article can be merged and changed to a redirect, if that is the consensus, without administrator intervention. A good first step would be to put the material in Gore, Jr's article. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, cool :-) My vote is for the merge, if you're trying to gauge opinion. --plange 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We've had the discussion already, and there was no consensus for a merge. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So, it's too late to join in the discussion? --plange 02:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose not, but I'm not sure of the point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Article has stood five AfDs, so merging sort of violates the spirit of those FIVE decisions. IMHO, we need to solve the problem through some mediation, and deal with the two central issues so that consensus is apparent and BLP guides are upheld. BusterD 03:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Spooning, Wino (slang term) and WP:AFC

 * and - User:Rrm0100 is inserting libelous statements about living people into the articles Spooning and Wino (slang term). Probable sock User:24.128.73.134 is doing the same about the same person to Wino (slang term) and to WP:AFC (see diff). I've reverted the libel, but some admin will probably need to rollback the histories and block the editor. //Aaron 02:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Jamie Lee Curtis urban legends
Jamie Lee Curtis - There is a long-running (and sourceable) urban legend that Jamie Lee Curtis was born with some undescribed intersex status, but the talk page discussion has never been able to agree on whether to discuss the legend on the main page. On the one hand, it is a widely known urban legend, and I'm sure people come to wikipedia to see what evidence exists regarding it. On the other hand, it's a fairly nasty rumor, and there is no serious evidence that it's true. I've started a talk page discussion here and would appreciate any thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 13:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a really good example of where the line is between derogatory gossip that should be removed from talk pages and legitimate discussion of what sourced material to put or not to put in the article. According to the snopes source, it is only gossip. Wikipedia living person bios shouldn't contain mere gossip - either good or bad. WAS 4.250 15:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Larry Craig
Apparently, some radio show "outed" this Republican US Senator yesterday, and it is being inserted into his article that he is gay, based on left-wing blogs as sources. I don't have time to take care of this right now, but it needs immediate attention and monitoring. Blatant violation. Secondary sources need to be found before this should even be mentioned at all in the article. Crockspot 11:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Watch the categories on this one too. Other editors have been cleaning it up, but they missed three gay categories that I just removed. I'll try to keep an eye on this today, but my time is limited. Crockspot 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been reported in the mainstream media and I have properly sourced the incident and Craig's denial. Gamaliel 19:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you're a lot of help. Are you planning to sit on this article all day and revert the unsourced statements that anons have been adding every few minutes? Because, frankly, I'm fricking done with it. :( - Crockspot 19:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already put it on my watchlist. Gamaliel 19:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well good luck, Gamaliel, because if you think wild allegations that give no supporting evidence from bloggers, (irregardless of the fact that the subject issued a denial in a reliable source), is appropriate to add to the article of a US Senator, then you are opening a huge can of worms that is going to have your normal watchlist items buzzing like a hive of africanized bees. I don't think you are working in the best interest of Wikipedia here. Crockspot 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If the story is appropriate for the mainstream media, I don't see what interests are served by keeping it out of Wikipedia. I'm really tired of insinuations from people that by reporting information that professional journalists think is appropriate to cover that Wikipedia editors are somehow acting on some sort of agenda or against the interests of the encyclopedia. Having the full story properly sourced is in the best interests of the project: it makes the article complete and accurate and it provides a disinsentive for drive-by anons to add a half-assed version of the truth, or worse, an inaccurate one which includes him in inappropriate categories such as those you removed. Gamaliel 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a breaking news organization. The blogger has offered no evidence, and three days from now, the claims could be retracted or disproven. But the damage to the Senator will have already been done. That opens the door to any blogger making wild claims that happen to get picked up by a reporter fair game for insertion. But fuck it. It's all your baby now. I'm finished babysitting for today. Crockspot 20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right, we are not a breaking news organization, but like it or not, editors will continue to add brand new information and readers will come here to read our articles about people and incidents freshly in the news. So how do we deal with that?  Do we insure that the up to date information is as accurate and reliable as we can make it, or do we simply keep deleting it over and over again?  Gamaliel 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Let the dust settle. I'm out. - Crockspot 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's controversial, negative, trivial and in a Bio, delete it. This particular view, espoused by one person, not a crime but has only salacious attraction could be deleted on undue weight grounds. But regardless, tabloid items have no business in WP and should be deleted. --Tbeatty 21:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this really the kind of crap we need in an encyclopedia or do we let WP become unwitting dupes for poltiical election strategies? Here's the current entry in this bio: "In October 2006, gay rights activist Mike Rogers alleged in his blog and on the syndicated radio program The Ed Schultz Show that Craig had engaged in consensual homosexual relationships. Rogers has produced no evidence to support his claim and refused to identify the source of his information. However, he has said, "I have enough information and corroboration of my sources to protect myself." Craig's spokesman said the allegations "have no basis in fact" and "The senator says the story is completely ridiculous."

Is this really what Wikipedia is striving to become? A collection of blog quotes from political opponents? --Tbeatty 22:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Crockspot is right, we need to Let the dust settle on any article, esp. a BLP-- it doesn't hurt WP to wait until things have solidified. Just revert and kindly suggest Wikinews or current events portal. This goes for anything like this from the right or left side of the aisle. --plange 23:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. How do we merge the "dust settle" policy with the removal requirements of BLP? There are editors actively trying to expand that section by adding rebuttals and denials and rebuttals of denials ad nauseum. We should actively be removing this information UNTIL the dust settles and not waiting for the dust to settle for deletion.--Tbeatty 23:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We're outside the scope of BLP now that the item is properly sourced. Use the article talk page to discuss this issue with other editors. Gamaliel 23:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's see: Biography. Living. Person. How is it outside the scope? This is a BLP issue. It's an undue weight NPOV issue. It's a Wikipedia is NOT issue. Let the dust settle before this type of content is added. One persons allegation in a tiny tabloid newspaper does not an encyclopedic news item make. --Tbeatty 23:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, I'm not even going to respond to this patronizing and inaccurate post. Gamaliel 23:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and this type of thing is more appropriate at Wikinews or current events portal, where it will drop off if it turns out to be nothing, whereas, with an article on WP, it's risky to assume someone will come back to this article to clean it up/correct if it all turns out to be nothing. If it does settle down to the fact that he is, I'm sure someone will be sure to insert that. And just so no one thinks I'm POV-pushing, I'm not, I'm BLP-pushing. I happen to be a left-winger :-) --plange 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Current news has long been covered by the encyclopedia and the existence of Wikinews or the current events page have never prevented that. If there is no followup to this, I have already state on the article talk page - where this discussion should be going on - that I support removing the small mention of this issue.  Given the current interest and mainstream - not tabloid - news coverage, I think it should stay. Gamaliel 23:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * By consensus here, this is still a BLP issue, and also by consensus here, the information should come out until the dust has settled. Crockspot 13:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This is still a hot issue, currently being discussed on the talk page. So far no national news outlet has reported it as a news story, but editors are still insisting it should go in. I'm almost wishing it will get picked up by the NYT so I can stop arguing with them :-P --plange 22:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

- Will somebody please explain how WP:BLP allows for an article about a living person to have a full-blown section entitled "Unconfirmed Rumors"? This edit warring on this article is really starting to go too far. --Aaron 23:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The sources promulgating the rumors are reliable and prominent, and the fact of the rumors is notable, such that their inclusion, consistent with WP:V, is, IMHO, quite proper. Joe 05:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * All rumours have a source. It doesn't mean WP needs to repeat them.  When Wikipedia's standards are less than the Washington Posts or the New York times, we have a problem.  --Tbeatty 06:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that the fact of the rumors has become notable. Whilst we wouldn't include a section in John Seigenthaler, Sr. simply to effect that it was rumored that he was involved in the JFK and RFK assassinations, we would&mdash;quite properly, and as we do&mdash;note that the allegation itself was notable but that the sundry issues that resulted therefrom were.  The rumors are a source of controversy across notable media, and so we include them not as themselves notable but as the genesis of a notable controversy. Joe 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * IMHO, a rumor isn't notable until it's a news story reported on by CNN or NYT or CBS or some major national news outlet. That's not the case here. --plange 21:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you entirely about when we ought to deem a rumor notable, but I think several citations of commentary/reporting by major national news outlets to have been adduced; I may well be mistaken, so I'll review the several footnotes a bit more carefully. Joe 05:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Man, I can hear Crockspot's frustration at trying to uphold any sort of BLP standards on Wiki: he's been hard at it for a long time, doing a good and fair job, and IMO, it's a losing battle. I've concluded the policy has no teeth, and those of us who have put ourselves in the line of fire trying to uphold WP:BLP might as well stop trying, and let the Foundation deal with whatever fallout occurs from neglecting what was supposed to be a strong policy. For what it's worth to whomever is still willing to work on BLPs, I support the position taken here by Crockspot, TBeatty, Plange, Aaron, and others. Wiki should be more than Google or a blog or a tabloid, but that is what it's becoming. Every breaking rumor doesn't belong in an encyclopedic bio. Sandy (Talk) 21:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Bob Sagat
this biography contains a profanity laced quote that could easily be moved to the Half Baked movie page instead of being on the biography page. M8gen 19:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt this is a BLP issue unless the quote is inaccurate. Please use the article talk page to discuss the matter with other editors. Gamaliel 19:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Saget is famous for his raunchy routines. However, of more interest to some on this page may be the fact that the article is being hit with frequent vandalism. It'd help if more folks put it on their watchlists. -Will Beback 21:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * check M8gen 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann
New editor is intent on making the article into a mirror of his personal weblog to criticize and slander the subject, replete with links from his weblog. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll keep on eye on it. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 20:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article seems fair to me. Although the final paragraph on the poll numbers for next week's election seemed a bit out of place in an encyclopedia. :-)  Steve Dufour 05:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Wells (creationist)
He is noted as an advocate of Intelligent Design. Material has been added to his article to say that he is also an AIDS revisionist, seemingly to discredit him. A link to a letter was given as a cite, his name was not on the letter and even if it was it would not prove anything--he could have just signed it as a favor to someone. I removed the allegations and explained my reasons on the talk page. They were put back soon after and some personal remarks about me were made on the talk page. Steve Dufour 05:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that his name is on the letter. I missed it because he it was in the middle of a long list when I expected it to be at the end since it was mostly in alphabetical order.  I will not get involved any more but maybe someone could check it out and see if his notability as a AIDS revisionist has been established, as his notability for the other has. Steve Dufour 09:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)p.s. There are a couple of other, minor, points which were not supported by the webpages cited.  I'm not sure how strictly we should enforce the rule about uncited material in a living person's article.


 * Hmmm...Wells was between "Wawszkiewicz" and "Wenner" - how was that "out of alphabetical order"? "I'm not sure how strictly we should enforce the rule about uncited material in a living person's article" - well, we shouldn't enforce it when the information is clearly cited.  Guettarda 19:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the list:  His name is near the middle of the page and not near the other 3 people also named Wells.  The other two uncited points were about how his education and a trip to a creationist hearing were paid for, minor points as I said.  Steve Dufour 12:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "some personal remarks were made about me" (Steve Dufour) would that be "What are you talking about? His name is right at the bottom of the list: "Johathan C. Wells, Ph.D. (Fairfield, CA)" [4] I'm restoring your deletion, and please be more careful next time, looking at your history, you seem to delete quite a lot of relevent information"? or was there something else you were considering a "personal remark"? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This information was just added to the article:


 * "Wells dropped out of his undergraduate geology course"


 * I went ahead and removed that, which was uncited, and also this: "In 1964 Wells was conscripted into the US Army and served for two years. In 1967 he was recalled as a reservist, but refused, was court-marshalled and jailed for a year and a half."  which was semi-cited with a link to a pay for view New York Times article, which I admit I didn't feel like paying the four dollars to read.  On the discussion page I pointed out that there are many people named Johathan Wells and it is not certain that this is the same person, although it could be.


 * Overall I feel that there is little interest in this article's accuracy since Mr. Wells is an evolution revisionist and therefore a "bad guy" to most of us here. Steve Dufour 18:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I should partly take that back since there have been some changes and the article is much better now. Steve Dufour 22:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is still seriously biased against him. The 2nd sentence says he "denies the predominant scientific views" and then the 3rd says "considered pseudoscience". The latter is just gratuitous name-calling. The 2nd sentence is enough to make the point.

The sentence about scientists questioning his objectivity and motivation is also an unnecessary attack. The quote about his religion speaks for itself. The sentence suggests that there is some scientific reason to question his religion and motivation. Let the reader decide.

Then Wells is criticized for his "low level of output". This is silly for a WP bio page. Just describe his accomplishments and let the reader decide whether they are impressive or not.

Finally, the article claims that Wells contradicted himself in his 2005 Kansas testimony. This looks like just another cheap shot. I am not even sure what the contradiction is supposed to be. I think it is that he said he looked at the evidence for evolution, but not for the age of the Earth. He is quoted as saying that "the earth is probably four-and-a-half billion or so years old". I don't see what's wrong with this quote. He is not a geologist, and there is no contradiction. Roger 17:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We've been over this before. The earlier comments are not name-calling since something can (and often is) a dominant scientific view but is not pseudoscience; the sentence about scientists is again accurate so I don't see what the issue is. It doesn't seem to be any more of an attack than any other note of criticism. As to the final point- the relevant contradiction is his claim that he looked at the evidence for evolution which contradicts his claim in his book that he went into biology to "destroy Darwinism". JoshuaZ 21:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * JoshuaZ, your comments don't make any sense. The one about "dominant scientific view" appears to be missing a word or two. I agree that Wells denies some dominant scientific views. I don't agree that his views can be neutrally called pseudoscience. Wrong maybe, but not pseudoscience. The quote about destroying Darwinism is from an essay, not from his book, according to the article. But either way, the article says "Wells contradicted his earlier testimony", not that he contradicted some essay or book that he wrote years earlier. And what you say is a contradiction is not even a contradiction. If indeed his purpose was still to destroy Darwinism, then examining the evidence would seem like a good way to go about that. Wells might very well say, "I looked at the evidence for evolution so I could write books attacking Darwinism, in the hopes of eventually destroying it." (I don't know him; I am just guessing.) Roger 23:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I meant something can have the dominant scientific view disagree with it and still not be pseudoscience. In so far as that, it being pseudoscience is relevant. As to calling it pseudoscience, it is and we have sources that say so. If you have an issue with that you should be arguing about it on the intelligent design page, not on a separate biography. As to it not possibly being a contradiction, looking into it more it clearly is a contradiction, because in his testimony he says that "I became convinced that the Darwinian theory is false because it conflicts with the evidence" which is a clear contradiction. Thanks for pointing out the poor phrasing. I've rephrased it to make it more clear. JoshuaZ 23:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess that you are determined to do whatever quote-mining and name-calling you can do to make Wells look bad. Yes, I know that you have sources that engage in name-calling, but the Intelligent Design page is really the place for the pros and cons of ID.


 * Please spell out the contradiction, as I don't see it. Suppose that Rev. Moon persuaded Wells that Darwinism is evil, for reasons that are unknown to me. At that time Wells may or may not have looked at the evidence for and against evolution. Again, I don't know and it is not obvious from the article. Later, Wells say that he looked at the evidence, and came to some conclusions about it. So what's the problem? Wells wrote 2 books on the subject, so obviously he looked at the evidence and drew his own conclusions. Of all the Wells' quotes to pick on, I think that you look really silly attacking this one. Roger 01:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Vladimer Papava
...might need a helping hand. CV-style, hagiographic. Attempts to properly stub it are reverted. See also Talk:Vladimer Papava/Comments. Lupo 14:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the Living people category, that should get it a little more visibility. But why is there a comments subpage to the talk page? The comment there should be on the talk page. Seems pretty unnecessary to have a sub page to a vitrutlly empty talk page, especially since it is not linked. Moving comments to talk page and prodding sub page. Crockspot 15:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The template seemed to call for that subpage. Maybe the template should be changed? Lupo 10:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He seems to be running for public office. However I wonder how many potential voters in the Republic of Georgia will check out Wikipedia before they decide who to vote for.  Steve Dufour 05:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Important discussion
There is an important discussion taking place at Administrators' noticeboard that is relevant to the work we do here. - Crockspot 19:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)

 * - I have placed an "unbalanced" tag to the top of the article. It seems to the reader that the only reason this article is here on Wikipedia is to personally attack and discredit Rick Ross.  This is not the purpose of Wikipedia and most certainly against Biography Policy.  The article is also way too long for the notability of subject as compared to other Biography Articles.  As mentioned by an anonymous user on the discussion page, see Jonas Salk and Marie Curie, much smaller articles on much more notable individuals.  Some criticism content should be trimmed and/or removed, and some positive content should be added with proper sources and citations.  Other historical accounts can also be shortened to more concise versions, and the reader can then be referred to the main article in question, as similar to the current section on Rick Ross and the Legal Dispute with Landmark Education.  // Smeelgova 03:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence King, Paul A. Bonacci
I stubbed Lawrence King, dramatically cut Paul A. Bonacci, and added some references. See also Bohemian Grove. Tom Harrison Talk 15:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yaron Brook
last line is garbage.



I hope you don't mind that I correct the name. It seems Brook not Brooke. Which last line? You don't think it might be interesting who sponsored the event?

The above Brook caught my attention in a O'Reilly Factor video on the net. I wasn't aware it is pretty old by now. As I wasn't aware that he is used in a campaign by the LaRouche Youth movement. But that does not make his statements less frightening. Personally I would support the originally included transcript: Said it said. And I watched it twice. My problem is that the only transcript on the net comes from LaRouchie circles. I'd appreciate a comment or a helping hand. Are there any papers/circles/groups that work on the Biographies of living persons? Rules. Where could I find basics LeaNder 01:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Randy Richards
- I stumbled across this while doing PROD patrol. Subject has added prod to his own bio, complaining of his inability to deal with hostile edits. There was no BLP or WPBio template, so I quickly added WPBio living=yes to the talk page, and came here to report the matter. I'm not sure what the controversy is who (or who is right), and it may be a tempest in a teapot, but I thought it better to report it here, and let wiser and more experienced folks investigate, rather than simply letting the situation continue to devolve. Xtifr tälk 05:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction: I misread the prod; it was apparently not filed by Mr. Richards, who may not actually be directly involved. Nevertheless, the dispute probably bears investigation anyway.  Xtifr tälk 07:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Stupid Girls
- The article alleges that Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Richie have suffered from bulimia or some other eating disorder. I know Lohan has denied this, at least, so I'm wondering if such material should be considered defamatory and removed from the article. I've searched for external sources that say the video is meant to imply one or more of these people have an eating disorder, but so far, nothing. Extraordinary Machine 12:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Dane dickinson
- stumbled on this during prod patrol. Apparently non-notable NZ aviator, currently prodded, was blanked. When a bot reverted the blanking, an anonymous complaint appeared on the talk page that the article "contains several flagrant factual inaccuracies, these coupled with its satirical tone risk damaging reputation." While I don't see anything in the article that would lead to such a complaint, I think the complaint, coupled with the non-notable nature of the subject, easily justifies a quick removal as an attack page. (I've checked Google, and there is a NZ aviator named "Dane Dickinson", and none of the links I saw would support a claim of notability.)  Xtifr tälk 21:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, doesn't seem notable, the prod was almost 5 days ago already so I just deleted it rather than try to clean it up to meet WP:BLP.--Konst.ableTalk 12:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

John Faso
- Article alleges: [quote removed] I think the quote speaks for itself... the article needs to seriously be cleaned up. I'm even more surprised that this has not been caught, considering the man is a candidate in the gubernatorial race in New York. If this claim actually has some merit (which I highly doubt), I believe a citation is required? LithiumOnSundays 23:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)LithiumOnSundays


 * The material has already been removed from the article by another administrator, who has also blocked the IP address of the editor who posted the material. I have also removed your quotation of that material above. Gamaliel 23:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Negative nicknames
Was I right to remove this? It was restored with a statement that "there's no 'definitive' citation for this, but there are several reference to him as 'The Count' across the Internet". What kind of source should be required for a negative nickname to be included in an article? Is there any precedent? Thanks. -- SCZenz 05:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you were right. Needs reliable sources.--Konst.ableTalk 12:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But even if they exist, is it notable? For example, New York Times Op-Ed writer Maureen Dowd uses interesting nicknames for George W. Bush, but we don't include them in the President's article. -- SCZenz 18:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Kyle Hawkins
Please see this historical edit made by User:Itellthetruth at 14:29, 23 October 2006. Very obvious and serious slander was placed on page. User has been warned, but I felt this called for more action Stoneice02 01:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have blocked this user indefinitely. For these things you could just report it straight to WP:AIV.--Konst.ableTalk 12:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Roy Williams
This article was vandalized to make it seem that Roy Williams was from the university of michigan and born and raised in the state. his statistics are also incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.68.49.4 (talk • contribs)

Hal Turner
- article contains several unsourced assertions as well use of stormfront.org and other dubious sites as sources. I've placed a non-compliant tag on the article and voiced a few of my concerns on the talk page.// Ramsquire 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Help needed at the J. Phillipe Rushton aricle
2 editors named Ramdrake and JereKrischel dominate this article and have removed all encyclopedic content from this article and have used selective quotes to try to portray a qualified and objective academic as an incompetent racist. This type of libel goes against wikipedia's rules for biographies on living persons. Also, people researching Rushton do so to learn about the theories for which he is best known, not to read a list of selectively chosen quotes trashing the man. I find this article very biased, one sided, boring, and libelous. Now that the article is semi-protected against new users like me, I encourage anyone concerned with the rules of living persons articles to revert back to my version of the article. 205.211.50.10 02:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * JereKrischel has also done this at the Arthur Jensen article and attempted to make radical, unilateral deletions and changes at the Mismeasure of Man article. The Jensen additions are potentially libelous.  IMO JereKrischel seems to have a history of presenting one-sided viewpoints both in his deletions and additions to articles.


 * I would like to point out that: 1)A biography article is not the right place to explain in-depth the theories of that person. 2)The criticism in the article is in fact representative of the opinion people have of this researcher in scientific circles, mostly anthroplogy and psychology (as the subject is "race and intelligence"). The quotes are not selective, they are indeed representative. I would also like to remind the user not to "encourage anyone... to revert back... the article". This is an encouragement to edit warring, and contrary to the guidelines of Wikipedia.--Ramdrake 12:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that help is needed. The Rushton article is very biased. A certain editor(s) invested a huge amount of time surfing the web to find every anti-Rushton quote they could find and put it in the article. I come to wikipedia to get a comprehensive overview of the views for which an academic is known, and not a series of quotes trashing the man.  Most distubing is that certain editors have used very circumstancial evidence to imply that Rushton is a racist. Liketoread 18:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like his theories myself. However a biography is supposed to be about the person.  Since the real interest here seems to be in the theories there should be an article on them and this one reduced greatly with a link directing them to the other.  Just my opinon.  Steve Dufour 00:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Phyllis Schlafly
User:FeloniousMonk keeps adding these sentences to the Phyllis Schlafly bio page:


 * Early on, Schlafly was aquainted with the far right and male unreliability when the Depression threw her father into long-term unemployment and her mother, entering the labor market, was able to keep the family afloat, including maintaining Schlafly in an elite Catholic girls' school that stressed Christian anti-Communism (Ehrenreich 152-153).


 * Sheltered by her husband Fred Schlafly's ample income and assisted by a part-time housekeeper, the woman who would insist that "she had no intention of following in her mother's footsteps and becoming -- even voluntarily -- a career woman" (Ehrenreich 153) ironically developed a new career as a one-woman propagandist for the far-right, consequently making it more difficult for any women to forge a career in the paid labor force (Ehrenreich 153).

I have contested these sentences on the Talk page, and no one there is even defending the accuracy or appropriateness of the sentences. Instead, a couple of people have merely argued that I should not remove the sentences because of who I am, or because there is a citation to a source.

User:KillerChihuahua even placed a 24-hour block on me from even posting to the Talk page, because I complained that User:FeloniousMonk was repeatedly inserting the sentences without even commenting on the Talk page. Roger 17:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Roger has a strong conflict of interest here, being related to the subject. Moreover, he has been asked by several editors to explain what the problem with these sentences is. According to WP:BLP, "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source." So far, Roger has given none of the above, although we've asked him lots. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If I am blocked or barred because of a conflict, then why does my opinion make any difference? Why don't you go get an opinion from someone who does not have a conflict of interest? Roger 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because you have a conflict of interest doesn't mean you're wrong. It means you should avoid editing the article, but you should by all means explain why what the article says is wrong. Offer your reasoning on the talk page, and it can then be evaluated by those without a conflict of interest. I really don't know why you have not yet done so. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is only your opinion that I should not edit the page. WP policy says that I should edit the page to correct errors.
 * I was explaining my editing on the Talk page, until one of FeloniousMonk's buddies blocked me from doing that. As of today, no one has defended the content of FeloniousMonk's insertions. Not even FeloniousMonk. Roger 18:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, but it could be argued that citing a source is a defence of an insertion. Could you address the issue of why the source is inadequate? I think the issue of whether you should edit the page is largely a red herring. I do think you should avoid it, but the important question is whether or not the article currently says the right thing. &mdash; Matt Crypto 19:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I registered my views on the talk page, and see that no one has done anything about the problems at that article: having my head bitten off for enforcing BLPs is something I'm no longer interested in, but there is a problem with attribution in that article. Because a certain author says something doesn't make it fact, and all of those statements, at minimum, need to be attributed as one author's opinions, rather than stated as fact. Sandy (Talk) 18:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't block Schlafly for posting on the talk page; I blocked him for edit warring on the article after being told to read WP:AUTO and gain consensus on the talk page rather than revert war. He called another editor a "vandal" for reverting his whitewash of his mother's article, in addition to other incivilities. My block summary was Time out to consider attitude, note placed on talk page ane the note is this. Mis-characterizing my block as being for "complaining" is absurd. Schafely is well aware of why I blocked him. I concur there are some areas which could be improved in the article; Schlafly's block has nothing to do with those issues. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, User:KillerChihuahua is not telling the truth, as you can easily see by reading Talk:Phyllis Schlafly. He blocked me at 11:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC), AFTER I had posted two explanations on 21-Oct as to why I was not violating WP:AUTO. So he did not block me to get me to read WP:AUTO; I had already read it and explained myself. Furthermore, I had initiated a discussion on the Talk page in order to obtain a consensus. User:KillerChihuahua blocked me from even posting to the Talk page.
 * Yes, I know why User:KillerChihuahua blocked me. It is because he is User:FeloniousMonk's buddy, and has promised to do his dirty work for him. They have some personal issues with me.
 * If anyone should have been blocked, it should have been User:FeloniousMonk, because he was the one who repeatedly inserted false and derogatory statements into the article without address any of the comments on the Talk page. Yes, I do believe that User:FeloniousMonk is a Wikipedia vandal for reasons that I explained on Talk:Phyllis Schlafly.
 * Yes, I did revert User:FeloniousMonk's destructive edits several times, but only after establishing that no one was willing to defend those edits on the Talk page. Roger 18:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism, lies and bad faith isn't going to get us anywhere but a big flame war. We're much better off focusing on the article, specifically, do the sources cited actually support the sentences that are disputed by Roger, and are those sentences are written from the NPOV? I haven't seen a great deal of discussion about that from either side. &mdash; Matt Crypto 19:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Now User:FeloniousMonk has removed the POV tag [], saying that "There is no valid NPOV concern"! What he does not do is defend the accuracy or appropriateness of the disputed sentences. Roger 19:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That cuts two ways. Regardless of what FeloniousMonk does, it would be very helpful if you would explain exactly what you consider inaccurate or inappropriate in these sentences, and why, and then we can work to either modify or remove them. &mdash; Matt Crypto 20:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Matt, let me get your position straight. You know nothing about the subject matter, except that you have some personal issue with me and you don't want me editing the article. You think that FeloniousMonk's bias is so embarrassing that you have gone so far as to delete his only comment on the Talk page.[] And yet you support his edits to the article. You think that Ehrenreich is biased because the attributed text calls Phyllis Schlafly a "propagandist" and uses the word "ironically".[] And yet you continue to take the position that the rest of the disputed text should stand solely because (1) FeloniousMonk put it there; (2) it cites Ehrenreich and you usually favor leaving in any text that has a citation; and (3) you don't think that I should be allowed to edit it.
 * Have I summarized your position correctly? If not, please clarify. Roger 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, on the contrary, you have made numerous errors. Specifically, then: no, I don't have "some personal issue" with you. I think you, like anyone else, should avoid editing an article on your own mother because there exists a conflict of interest. No, I don't have an opinion about FeloniousMonk's bias, but I thought his comment was very unhelpful and not relevant to the matter at hand, so I removed it. No, I don't at present have any opinion about the merit of FeloniousMonk's edits to the article, other than agreeing with the NPOV issue pointed out on the talk page. Regarding (1), no, I don't think the identify of FeloniousMonk as the editor who put it there has much relevance; (2) no, I think it is poor practice to remove sourced statements without any explanation being given as to what the problem is; (3) no, as per Wikipedia guidelines, I think you should avoid editing the article, as there exists a conflict of interest as mentioned above. Instead, you should liberally make use of the talk page to point out problems. The fastest way to get such issues resolved is to state clearly and precisely what problems you see with statements and suggest ways they could be fixed. The slowest way is to remove sourced, negative statements about your own mother without explanation and simply assert their falsehood. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You you alternate between saying that I should "avoid" editing the article, and saying that I should not edit it at all. Which is it?
 * You claim that you have no personal issue with me, and that you have no opinion about the merits of my edits. And yet you oppose my edits. Why? Roger 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I recall, I have said that you "should avoid editing" the article, and I have asked you to refrain from editing the article. I don't believe that's inconsistent. I don't so much "oppose" your edits, but rather I've tried to argue two points: 1) you should avoid editing an article in which you have a conflict of interest -- use the talk page instead; and 2) when removing sourced statements, you should be willing to provide some explanation of what problem you see with them (particularly when asked repeatedly by more than one admin). I'm not your enemy, Roger. I suggest you spend your valuable time not grilling me, but commenting on what outstanding problems you see in Phyllis Schlafly. Why have you not done so? &mdash; Matt Crypto 20:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who thinks that Ehrenreich is a neutral and reliable source for the disputed sentences listed above? Is there anyone who thinks that the disputed sentences are accurate and appropriate for a biographical page? Is there anyone who is willing to defend those sentences on the Talk page? Roger 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Having never heard of Schlafly or Ehrenreich before now, can you please tell me why you think that Ehrenreich is unreliable? That will help us sort this out, thanks! --plange 20:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if you know nothing about Schlafly or Ehrenreich, it should be apparent that the disputed sentences are not neutral, use loaded terminology, and present opinion as fact. For example, consider the description of Schlafly as a "propagandist for the far-right", followed by the bizarre claim that she made it "more difficult for any women to forge a career". Are you just a little curious about how someone you've never heard of somehow made it difficult for women to get jobs? Just imagine if the biography of Hillary Clinton said that she was a propagandist for the far-left who has made it more difficult for any woman to be a housewife. Would you think that it was a NPOV statement that just needed a good footnote? Roger 01:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

uh, being openly opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment is certainly not logically inconsistent with the statement, made it "more difficult for any women to forge a career." The comparison with Clinton is sophistry, in my opinion, and a more appropriate comparison would be saying that someone who was opposed to racially integrated schools made it more difficult for African-Americans to attend colleges. Moreover, Schlafly openly aligned herself with the far right/Barry Goldwater, etc., and I remember clearly that the New Yorker article by Kohlbert noted that Schlafly was not just a propagandist for the far-right, but an especially skilled and talented propagandist. Hence Ehrenreich's observation could have at least more than one citation. Last but not least, Barbara Ehrenreich is quite a notable writer/reliable source--her book Nickeled and Dimed was on the New York Times bestseller list for quite a while. It is true that she openly professes the opposite political views of Schlafly, but you need a reliable source/sources which refute that Schlafly was a propagandist for the far-right and that opposing the ERA didn't make it harder for women to seek and gain employment. It is merely your opinion that Ehrenreich says this *because* she is biased or that her comments are biased because they are critical--she's too good of a writer/notable figure to be dismissed as a cited source because she "sounds biased" to the son of the subject, and what she says is logically consistent with what Schlafly said about herself/what other people say about Schlafly. Cindery 02:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC).


 * Whether or not Ehrenreich is a good writer or a notable figure, there is no consensus that the ERA would have made it easier for women to forge careers. I think that about 20 states voted against ERA -- do you think that they were all trying to make it difficult for women to forge careers? Even if you think that, it is just an opinion that you will not find in any objective source.
 * Yes, Schlafly supported Goldwater, but that does not make her a "propagandist for the far-right". Not even the Goldwater WP page describes him as "far-right" or his supporters as being necessarily far-right. You may have the opinion that he is on the far-right, but that is only an opinion that a Goldwater detractor would have. A neutral biography could say that Schlafly supported Goldwater and opposed the ERA, and let the reader decide whether such views are good or bad. Roger 03:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

..no one is making the assessment that views are "good" or "bad"--only whether how they are stated is controversial or not, per published, reliable secondary sources--not our opinions. Since Ehrenreich's statements are not controversial to anyone but you so far, they are not controversial--you need a source that states Ehrenreich's comments are controversial because they are contradicted by. On the contrary, it seems that Ehrenreich's comments are not only not controversial, but are consistent with the subject's self-affiliation/self-description--the opposite of controversial. (Shlafly affiliated with the far-right, and opposed women working outside the home...) I assure you that if this is truly controversial, other people will make the same argument you are making/there would be sources to cite. Ehrenreich is a published, reliable secondary source that could only be countered by another published, reliable secondary source--not the unpublished opinion her son. Cindery 03:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If what you say were true, then there is no need to consult any secondary source. No one has to take my word for it either. Just find a quote where Schlafly identifies herself as "far-right" or where she opposed women working outside the home. Many of her writings are freely available online, so just use Google. Roger 06:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

...you are a new enough editor that you don't understand that if you object to a cited source, the onus is on you to supply a counter citation? Now would be a good time to keep a cool head and read the "five pillars" of Wikipedia before resuming your contributions. I reaize how confusing and frustrating this could all seem if you have not taken the time to read policies such as WP:V. We don't carry out debates here, we merely report on debates that exist among other people in the "real world." So if there's a debate, you can report on it via a reliable source, and we will appreciate your efforts. If you just feel personally upset about something you have read in an article, this is WP:NOT the place for it. Cindery 06:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I know the WP guidelines. I know how primary sources are to be preferred over secondary ones. I know how a few opinions from a polemical book are not to be treated as facts. I know how biography pages are not supposed to be just opportunities for enemies to post derogatory info. I know that we are supposed to remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately. FeloniousMonk and the others here are violating all the rules. Roger 21:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Roger, but you are clearly demonstrating a complete lack of basic understanding of WP policies and guidelines. You are: 1. carrying out the debate instead of reporting on it via a source 3. violating WP:CIVIL by referring to other editors as "enemies," and failing to WP:AGF ("assume good faith") by accusing them of violating all the rules, etc. You are doing what we call "exhausting the community's patience"--a number of your fellow editors have asked you over and over again now to focus on the issue, not on personally arguing your opinions without sources and/or making ad hominem arguments against fellow editors. Wikipedia will welcome you with open arms, if you could please make an effort to do research, cite sources, and stop making personal attacks/arguing your opinions. If you read WP:NOT, you would already know that "Wikipedia is not a battleground." Cindery 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"I know the WP guidelines. I know how primary sources are to be preferred over secondary ones". That is not a Wikipedia guideline at all; actually, the reverse is closer to the truth. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and so secondary sources are our usual fare; primary sources can be used, but they need to be used with caution. See WP:RS. &mdash; Matt Crypto 23:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Matt, you make a good point. A WP biographical article could reasonably be based on other published biographies, and those biographies would normally be considered secondary sources and good material for a WP biographical page.


 * Phyllis Schlafly's life story has been told many times by people who had access to primary sources. There are two full-length biographies, as well as numerous articles in reputable newspapers and magazines. There is no serious dispute about the basic facts.


 * But instead, we have a WP dispute over some bizarre name-calling that appears to be extracted from an adverse political book by Ehrenreich. Some of it is just weird, such as citing a "school that stressed Christian anti-Communism". There were no such schools. Other parts are obviously biased and antagonistic, such a "propagandist for the far-right".


 * I mention primary sources because Cindery's argument relied on what she claimed was the "subject's self-affiliation/self-description". There is really no need to debate or make any mistake about Phyllis Schlafly's self-affiliation and self-description because thousands of her writings, interviews, and quotes are freely available online. Cindery is mistaken.


 * If a someone wants a WP biographical page on Phyllis Schlafly to describe her views, then the proper way is to either quote her, or to quote some neutral reporter who has at least read what she has to say. It is not proper to just cherry-pick a couple of opinionated sentences from a political adversary who badmouths her, and then write it in WP as a fact. Roger 04:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be great, Roger, if you could find sources which contradict Ehrenreich, and cite them. Then perhaps her comments could be moved to controversy section, with the alternate source(s). You're still arguing your opinions. Wikipedia cannot publish your opinions. Since no alternate citations have been provided, Ehrenreich's comments do not appear to be controversial to anyone but you (and seem consistent with what another cited source--Kohlbert-- says, and with the subject's own stated political views.) You need to cite sources is my argument. It appears to me that you may just object to Ehrenreich--you claim that she "hates" your mother on the article talkpage. It doen't seem to be that she hates your mother, but that she has the opposite political views. If you can make the case via sources that someone besides you disagrees with Ehrenreich and the The New Yorker, then as I said, maybe Ehrenreich could be moved to "controversy." But a cited source like Ehrenreich cannot be removed--NPOV is not the elimination of viewpoints. Let me say this, hopefully for the last time: please do research, find sources, and cite sources to make your case. Cindery 06:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What, then, is the point of you saying that "it seems that Ehrenreich's comments are not only not controversial, but are consistent with the subject's self-affiliation/self-description--the opposite of controversial"? Did you cite some self-description and claim it's consistent with Ehrenreich?  (And if you did, does this claim of consistency involve enough interpretation to be original research?)
 * As for your comparison to someone who "made it more difficult for African-Americans to attend colleges", that absolutely does not belong if all you have to support it is that they opposed integrated schools. Wikipedia may not make the connection between opposing integration and making it harder for blacks to go to college, and Wikipedia may not make the connection between opposing the ERA and making it harder for women to work.
 * And if someone else makes one of those connections, we may not treat it as fact. Since it is sourced, you can include it, but since it's an opinion, not a fact, you can't treat it as a fact the same way that "Phyllis Schafly was born in 1924" is a fact.  You would have to describe it as a criticism and say something like "Noted author Ehrenreich criticizes Schafly's actions in the belief that they made it difficult for women to work." Ken Arromdee 19:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not here to write this article. I was just trying to correct some malicious edits. What we have here is a couple of disputed opinion statements that are presented as facts. They are justified because Ehrenreich supposedly calls Phyllis Schlafly a "propagandist for the far-right" in an adverse political book, and Cindery remembers reading a magazine article where Kohlbert used some similar name-calling. Is this correct? If not, please clarify. Roger 04:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Munson
Subject of the article is a Wikipedia editor, and continues to interfere not only in editing of article but in the Talk Page as well. Has a record of reverting edits that are properly cited and NPOV in effort to burnish his image. Leaves linkbait for his blog and website all over other pages and has gotten into edit wars over this. --Daniel 16:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's an edit war over the template, and I protected the article so tempers can cool and asked the editors to discuss their differences on talk. Gamaliel 18:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He doesn't seem to be very notable. His article says that he is an activist who has protested some things, has cofounded some organizations, has a blog, and was interviewed by the New York Times once.  Steve Dufour 04:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Reads like a good AFD or userfy page to me. Derex 21:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If I ever want to hire an anarchist I will certainly give Mr. Munson a call. :-)   Steve Dufour 15:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Joshua Clover
One person--using two anonymous IPS--is persistently adding self-aggrandizing, uncited, irrrelevant info about himself to the Joshua Clover article. He has ignored all invitations to discuss, read help page, and ignored all 3RR warnings, and WP:VAIN warnings. He has also started inserting patent nonsense/blatantly vandalizing the page. The anon's only contributions to Wikipedia are to make deliberately unhelpful edits to this entry. Cindery 15:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There should be a permanent block on the anon's IP range which prevent him from maliciously vandalizing the page. Mumblio 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why these edits meet VAIN? Adding info about his father is perfectly acceptable, it seems to me, and is standard practice in biographies. Am I missing something? --plange 20:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of bios without any mention of the subject's parents. in this case, the mother is mentioned because she has a wiki entry of her own. the father is not notable/has no such entry. Cindery 21:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There are plenty of bios that mention the parents and their occupation, who by themselves are not notable. It helps set the context for this person's life. Where does the subject come from? What could have influenced him/her? For example, being the son of a coal miner would be important to know about a subject, while the coal miner father would not be notable. I do it as a general rule for any bio I create. Children of the subject, I treat differently. I only mention them if they're notable. Also, this does not appear to be a BLP issue. --plange 21:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

...and if the father were say, a psycho, since the subject is a poet and not Paris Hilton, he would be entitled to a measure of privacy about that. this BLP issue has been dealt with by 3RR--the "anon" was blocked. if it continues, it will be addressed at WP:ANI. thank you for not escalating what is currently a non-issue, Cindery 21:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Erica Hardwick
I've stubbed this bio due to a posted complaint (presumably) from the subject. The article was apparently written largely by an ex-boyfriend of hers (Bill White (neo-Nazi)) with whom she has had legal disputes. I've left the online sources and the intro. -Will Beback 17:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't see any reason not to nominate Hardwick's article for deletion. How is she notable? Crabapplecove 21:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter Tatchell
The subject of this article has just contacted me to say that he would like some parts of the biography, which are earlier parts of his career where coverage is slight and vague, expanded and sourced. He is sending me information to help me make the changes; I don't think there is a conflict of interest here as the material will be neutrally reported. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 16:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

William Forsythe (actor)
This "biograpy" contains copyrighted and unsourced information. The author of this article, CyberGhostface has inserted a number of copyrighted pictures which he cites as being "low-resolution screenshots", when in fact they are not. These pictures are fully copyrighted, the copyright being held by Lions Gate Entertainment Corporation. The article contains unsourced information, and any edits and additions made to this article by wikipedians are reverted back to the original article by it's creator. It seems that CyberGhostface will not allow anyone to edit this article for any reason! -JimmyMack 17:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the photo in this article is 1.) A fair use picture and B.) Labeled properly with all credit given.--CyberGhostface 21:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Arundhati Roy
the very beginning of her biography mentions she lives in new dehli, and immediately after has the phrase "Raand hai saali." which translates to " "The bitch is a whore." definately something that should not be there.


 * Removed it. Added BLP warning to offenders talk page.--Tbeatty 06:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sean Hannity
There is a paragraph in the controversy section (Abner Louima para) that references Fair.org, but Fair.org references OnePeoplesProject.com and OnePeoplesProject.com apparently got the information from an opinion piece in the Philadelphia Telegraph. Is this an acceptable reference for a BLP? --PTR 15:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sophie Ellis-Bextor
This is just a heads-up. This may be the real Sophie Ellis-Bextor or it may not be. It is highly probable that it isn't. Uncle G 16:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Neil Bush
Seems to have become a location for defamatory soapbox speeches (and quotations of 3rd part soapbox speeches) about Bush "palling around" with "gangster" Boris Berezovsky.--67.101.68.216 17:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Naeim Giladi

 * User:Amoruso - was insisting on including a link to an open-thread on an obscure neo-Nazi website as evidence Naeim Giladi's popularity with neo-Nazis who he equates with anti-Zionists. Now he has settled on citing Henry Makow in a non-sequiter attachment to disparage Naeim Giladi in another way. Can you please do something? His POV pushing via the insistence on including this libellous, non-sequiter material is getting very tiresome. Tiamut 22:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * weird WP:POV claim by Tiamut who blanked out WP:RS sources from the article. Stormfront (website) is quoted in the wikipedia articles after many debates as the most prominent neo-nazi web-site in the world. After also pointing out this to Tiamut, it seems he's acting in bad faith in claiming it's "obscure". As for the second source, when you google Naeim Giladi one of the first and most cited sites is Makow  a professor who has a prominent web-site regarding the conflict  and therefore relevant. Amoruso 23:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I quote from WP:BLP as I did to Amoruso in explaining my last revert, "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Stormfront is not a reliable source per WP:RS, and the link Amoruso gave to an open thread on that site that posted Giladi's article. On the basis on that citation he proceeded to claim that Giladi was popular among neo-Nazis and changed the section heading where he included this information from "Relevance to the Arab-Israeli conflict" to "Use by anti-Zionists", thus equating anti-Zionism with neo-Nazism. Now, the heading is entitled simply "Controversy". Amoruso has of a few hours ago desisted from trying to include the Stormfront link and info, and instead chosen to repeatedly attempt to include a sentence completely unrelated to Giladi himself from an article by Henry Makow that conveys Makow's controversial views on Hamas. This citation, material and inclusion at this point in the article is non-sequiter, irrelevant, defamatory (by associating Giladi tendentiously with neo-Nazis and then, unrelated conspiracy theories) and clearly an an attempt at POV pushing. Amoruso's approach to this article from the outset has consistently been to reject the plausibility of Giladi's claims and attempt to demonize and/or undermine his legitimacy through his POV edits. Note too, that he has repeatedly overwritten a perfectly valid and illustrative citation from Jews Against Zionism that was aimed to provide relevant information and evidence of Giladi's popularity among anti-Zionist Jews with his edits. Tiamut 00:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tiamut's description is faulty and does not accurately represent anything. "claim that Giladi was popular among neo-Nazis" is a false accusation by Tiamut. A featured article in the prominent web-site means his ARTICLE is a regularly quoted, not him. It has in fact nothing to do with WP:BLP. Henry Makow discusses Giladi's article DIRECTLY like explained. It again has nothing to do with WP:BLP - in fact, it's Tiamut who wants to make the page about the ISSUE and not the person, as the article really doesn't deal with the person at all but with his book/article. Finally, his last accusation trying to analyse my motives are a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The last "note" of his is also factually wrong, it was simply a double link both dealt with Jews. Amoruso 00:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That Naeim Giladi's article was posted by a user at an open-thread on a neo-Nazi website certainly does not constitute a "featured article" nor has Amoruso provided evidence of his being "regularly quoted" at such sites. As I have pointed out in the past, the article posted at the open-thread did not garner even one comment of feedback. Further, using extremist websites to defame a person through guilt by association is deeply frowned upon in WP:BLP, a fact that Amoruso is failing to acknowledge. I made no personal attack on Amoruso and have faithfully described his actions as I see them which is not a violation of WP:AGF or WP:NPA. Finally, the quote from Makow, while in an article in which he mentions Giladi, is not related to Giladi's book, article or any of the arguments he has made; i.e. it is totally irrelevant. Tiamut 00:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Naeim_Giladi" Tiamut 10:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reverted (again) this article per WP:BLP.
 * A closely analogous mirror position arises at Norman Finkelstein - the most revolting accusations have been made at his mother (not in the article itself, but picked up on and thrown around by other Zionists). My attempts to prove the falsehood of these slurs with a short but elegantly valuable inclusion to the article has been reverted - apparently it's alright to leave these claims out there and wrong to name (and reference the exact words of) the perpetrators.
 * PalestineRemembered 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore III, part 2
In response to the Al Gore III kerfuffle discussed above, the editors have agreed to a request for comments here regarding whether Gore's police record belongs in the Al Gore III article. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks, TheronJ 15:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)