Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive39

George Galloway
21stCenturyBuoy, who has only ever edited this article, is continually adding material suggesting that Galloway deliberately misled Parliament. The evidence he cites does not appear to establish this defamatory, and apparently libellous claim. RolandR (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have written a note to 21stCenturyBuoy directing the editor to various policy pages. The offending material was not in the article last time I checked. --Slp1 (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Robbi McMillen deletion
On various occasions has the management of artist Robbi McMillen contacted Wikipedia in order to have all metion of him removed from this website. As of yet, no such changes have been made. McMillen and his management demand that such pages be deleted, and that any pages about him must be removed until he is 18 years of age - we would not like this site, under reputation to cause any legal or moral damage, or damage to the artist's personal life. If confirmation is required, please email dan.casey'AT'robbimcmillen.com

'''All articles in all languages or containing mention of Robbi McMillen must be deleted. This is a request from his management and from his family. All pages, including those in Gaelic and his discography must be removed or a legal representative will contact Wikipedia. If you are in any doubt, please contact his management through his website.

Also, please note that Robbi's management are his family and a member of the family's legal team.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.166.73 (talk • contribs) 6 January 2008
 * Can somebody confirm this? After all it is an IP.  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN  play it cool.  19:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For confirmation, please feel free to email his management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.120.246 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

John McCain
User: is preventing me from making edits removing impertinent information. The article is infringing on a few rules and all my edits are being undone by him.

Rule: Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Instead, relevant sourced claims should be woven into the article.
 * The current article has information such as "He had his share of run-ins with the faculty and leadership; each year he was given over 100 demerits (for unshined shoes, formation faults, talking out of place, and the like)". Information about John McCain's demerits in school is not very important. John McCain's life is not defined for having unpolished shoes. This extra information is not important and should not be in an encyclopedia article.
 * Another example of trivia, "McCain has a history, beginning with his military career, of lucky charms and superstitions to gain fortune. While serving in Vietnam, he demanded that his parachute rigger clean his visor before each flight. On the 2000 campaign, he carried a lucky compass, feather, shoes, pen, penny and, at times, a rock. An incident when McCain misplaced his feather caused a brief panic in the campaign.[199] The night before the 2008 New Hampshire primary he slept on the same side of the bed in the same hotel room he had stayed in before his win there in 2000,[200] and after winning carried some of his talismans forward into the following Michigan primary while adding others.[201] His superstitions are extended to others; to those afraid of flying or experiencing a bumpy flight, he says, "You don't need to worry. I've crashed four fighter jets, and I'm not going to die in a plane crash. You're safe with me." Here, the reader learns about his various superstitions which are not necessary facts that need to be told. Although there are various citations, all this information adds nothing to who they are for an encyclopedia.
 * A third example is the amount of information on his grandparents and family. The end of the article has an entire paragraph on his sons and grandsons. The beggining of the article explains his parents and grandparents and their role in the Navy. All this information is not about Senator McCain but just extra trivia. One comparison to another article is George W. Bush's article. There are few mentions of his father who was also a president and did not go into detail with who George H. W. Bush did as a person.Yialanliu (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rule:NPOV
 * The current article is also not written in a neutral point of view. The goal of this article is trying to portray someone as a maverick. Every thing about McCain is his actions that differ from the norm. This characterizes McCain as someone who is not normal and leads to an impression that he is deranged which is against NPOV. All the trivia makes him look unique and is not pertinent to his fame. In the cultural and political image section, there are numberous reports about his missteps. The criticisms are blown out of proportion. Everyone makes mistakes but I believe there are over representations in this articles leading to bias. // Yialanliu (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rule: Brevity
 * This article is less like an encyclopedia article than like a biography. Wikipedia has a goal of maintaining articles to under 50kbs, preferably around 32kbs. However, currently, it's 150 kbs. The reason for this is the excessive details from various books. Although there are many books written about John McCain, it is not necessary to quote from all the books. If you look at George W. Bush's page, there are few quotes from books if at all. That is not to say no books have been written about Bush, but brevity is key to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a compilation of books but just a summary of who a person is.

Regarding the claims of trivia, nothing I have included in this article is trivial. Every piece of material and every piece of detail goes towards describing the full character of the biographical subject. His family's naval heritage is a key aspect of his life, as a read of Faith of My Fathers and outside biographies readily reveals, and was of operational significance in terms of his educational struggles and his time as a POW. His Academy demerits are part and whole of a personality that continues to affect his political stances and behaviors today. His superstitions are frequently noted in the press and are part of depicting his full character. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the claims of POV, the 'missteps' in the article are all conceded by McCain himself, as the article makes clear. The "maverick" persona is one that is described by all biographies and newspapers profiles; you can hardly escape it. I don't know how Yialanliu gets a "deranged" depiction out of all this; most people reading this article would probably consider McCain heroic. If anything, I've short-changed criticisms of him. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the length, yes, the article's long. But he's had a long career; he's been a nationally visible figure since 1967. In writing this article, I haven't paid any attention to the George W. Bush article, so I can't comment on that, but this article does touch on the same elements and key episodes of his career that several biographies do as well as the multi-part Arizona Republic series that's frequently cited. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Having a career that spans 40 years is a major accomplishment. However, in comparison to Joseph Stalin, who's career have also been that length of time. But more importantly, even more globally visible, the leader of the Soviet Union for 30 years. One look would see that the page is around 50 kbs and stick to main facts about ther person's accomplishment. Stalin is not insignificant yet the reason for this is because the article keeps to major fact. It is well written but more importantly sticks to the point. Yialanliu (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? Joseph Stalin is currently 140Kb.  Wasted Time R (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't even know how I got the 50kbs. And I checked on chinese wikipedia and not even that is 50. So my bad. But my point remains the same. There are people that have had a greater impact in the world and have a more concise article. Yialanliu (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Loftus
An edit war is ongoing at Elizabeth Loftus. The dispute is over what details concerning academic articles published by Loftus should be included in the article. My position is that the articles are not pertinent to her biography, but I'm trying not to enter into the edit warring myself. -- Donald Albury 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite as dry as that report sounds. Albury above is an OTRS volunteer, and his attention was drawn to this bio. Loftus is a major figure in psychology, one of the eminences of that field. She investigates memory and suggestibility, and one of her most famous papers is a study of the lost in the mall technique. This is relatively central to her notability, as she is frequently therefore considered an expert from a legal point of view on the implantation of memories, or the unlikelihood of repressed memories. (And may or may not have called herself "the Oskar Schindler of the falsely accused".)
 * The section Donald Albury removed discussed a paper that appeared in a peer-reviewed psych journal attacking the structure of the experiment and the presentation of the results. By the standards of academic journals, I must say the language was startling. The critique was notable enough that Loftus felt the need to reply in a later article in the same journal.
 * I do suggest some input in that talkpage. It is far from a clear-cut situation. Relata refero (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, while Albury's removal may turn out correct, I don't know how he could possibly defend the statement that an academic's published articles are not pertinent to her biography. Relata refero (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was trying to avoid putting a slant on this notice. Anyway, the problem in my view is that an editor is quoting abstracts of her articles without any evidence of having actually read the articles in question. This editor made it clear early that his intention is to discredit her work. He reintroduce the text of the abstract for "Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse: Remembering and Repressing" after I removed links to a couple of blogs using the the text of that abstract to attack Loftus. And I will repeat, I do not think it is appropriate to quote from abstracts of her articles in the way that is being done. Discussion of her work and the significance of her work should come from third-party reliable sources. Trying to illustrate the significance of her work by selectively quoting from abstracts of her articles strikes me as being original research. -- Donald Albury 12:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's what you meant, then I am not sure I disagree with you completely. I would much rather third party RSes discuss work. However, I think abstracts are by and large less OR-y than quoting large parts of text, as abstracts are clearly set up as a summation of the main thrust of a paper. Sometime soon I will ask people at RS/N what they think.
 * I hadn't seen the version with blog links. That is, of course unacceptable. I don't see why the editor can't read the paper, its archived outside a subscriber wall and its very accessible in its language.
 * I hope you don't think I was in any way accusing you of a slant or even doing something incorrect. I don't think so at all, though I do think that there are good reasons that a major, if negative critique of a significant part of her work should perhaps be in the bio. Relata refero (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A critique from a reliable source would be very appropriate. It is the mostly selective quoting from abstracts to try to create a novel evaluation of her work that I object to. -- Donald Albury 23:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ramadan and Banu Qurayza
I don't know where to ask this, so I'm asking it here. On Talk:Banu Qurayza, Tariq Ramadan has been alleged of various things, e.g. "bigotry, antisemitism, and glorification of mass murder". While I'm grateful that this has stopped, there are still allegations that he is an "Islamist". This is quite a controversial allegation.

My question is: is it alright to make such statements about a living person on a talk page, especially if they are a bit off topic?

Avoiding harm seems to suggest that the answer is no.Bless sins (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The exact quote is "The Islamist is your Muslim brotherhood friend Tariq Ramadan and you know that." That also seems to be a bit of a personal attack to me, unless Bless Sins has self-identified as an Islamist/member of the Muslim Brotherhood. I don't think Ramadan is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood himself. I don't think he would consider it an insult though, as his grandfather founded it and his father was a prominent member. So, perhaps not a major BLP vio, though perhaps a personal attack. Relata refero (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I interpret that as saying that TR is in some sense BS's friend, not that BS is a member. DGG (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary source, or secondary source?
There are some articles that were deleted recently, were many of afd participants justified delete opinions based on their perception those articles violated BLP.

In particular they characterized "Summary of Evidence" memos that contained the allegations against these individuals as "primary sources" -- and thus noncompliant with BLP.

Since the afds were closed as delete I took a closer look at our definition of the difference between a primary and a secondary source.

These "Summary of Evidence" memos, are, as the name says, summaries. The authors compiled information from multiple documents, produced by multiple agencies.

To my way of thinking they constitute a canonical example of "secondary sources". I am considering requesting an undeletion review. First I thought I would ask for some opinions.

I already asked, over on primary source, or secondary source?

If you have thoughts on this, and time to offer them, it probably makes sense to offer them there. Thanks!

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes an "independent third party source"?
Related to the question above, I have also asked a related question, over on WP:RS/Noticeboard -- under the heading What constitutes an "independent third party source"?

Some of those who had a concern that those "Summary of Evidence" memos were "primary sources" also voiced a concern that they weren't from an "independent, third party source".

As with the question whether these memos are "primaary sources", or "secondary sources", I think it would be best if anyone here who has an opinion puts it over on WP:RS/Noticeboard, where it was first raised. So, briefly, it seems to me that the arguments to suppress the use of these sources, because they weren't "independent" are based on unsubstantiated "gut feelings". It seems to me these arguments aren't based on anything that complies with WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:VER.

My thanks, in advance, to anyone who cares to offer their thoughts on these two questions!

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Laming
Users have removed outdated media speculation however other users insist on keeping the speculation current in an attempt to further damage Laming's reputation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a BLP issue - all claims are factually referenced, and nothing on there disparages the subject (it's been carefully rewritten in the last 2 days to ensure Laming's own side of the story is given due attention). The matter was of considerable news value throughout 2007, and Wikipedia is not censored. Orderinchaos 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Applications for the Dead or Recently Deceased
I tried this on the BLP talk page but not a lot of activity occurs there so I will try here.

It looks like people are trying to use this for people that have died or recently died as seen in Talk:Heath Ledger. Since this specifically about the living some feedback on this would be appreciated. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the BLP template from the talk, It looks like many editors are watching over it now. If there is something else please reply with details. Benjiboi 02:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I also got some replies on the main BLP talk page and created Blpo to help articles in this situation. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Steyn and Niall Ferguson
An IP editor has been persistently inserting mounds of negative information into the biographies of Mark Steyn and Niall Ferguson, and edit-warring it in against a number of other editors. A quick read shows that at least some of it is sourced to blogs and personal websites. Based on the editing style and the continual promotion of Johann Hari I'm guessing it's. I've removed the material and semi-protected first and protected the second for now; if it is David r from meth productions and he logs in and continues to insert this material, I might have to full protect the first too. Alternatively, I could start blocking the editor, but I'm hoping that protection will calm things down for now. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that it justifies allegations sourced to blogs and the like, but man, that Steyn article pretty much is a total hagiography. I'll see if I can put together something more balanced, properly sources, and less reliant on paragraph after paragraph of Steyn quotes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Other than quickly looking through the material that raised BLP concerns from various editors, I haven't really read either article. My only concern here is BLP; if you think the articles can be improved in other ways, please do so. Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't read it very well, did you? Try a slightly slower look next time. A bad decision in the Ferguson case. I've commented on the talkpage. There were three critics mentioned - a tiny number, really, let me tell you, given how controversial this chap is among academics and popular commentators alike - and all criticism was sourced to major papers/reviews, and all of it was notable enough for Ferguson to respond personally. There was an over-reliance on quotes, but hardly the sort of giant BLP violation you seem to think it was.
 * I haven't looked at the other article, and I don't intend to, because I don't know much about the Canadian. I do know something about Ferguson. Relata refero (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Relata refero, I must again warn you to observe WP:CIVIL. I didn't read beyond the initial insult in your statement, perhaps you'd like to try again without the personal comments. Jayjg (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think that pointing out that you didn't read it very well is incivil, that is a problem. You did not read it very well, you have yourself admitted it, and its not incivil to point out that you shouldn't be conducting administrative actions without due diligence. Now that I have explained that the only one violating WP:CIVIL is the one who gets his back up at no provocation at all, let me repeat what I said: " A bad decision in the Ferguson case. I've commented on the talkpage. There were three critics mentioned - a tiny number, really, let me tell you, given how controversial this chap is among academics and popular commentators alike - and all criticism was sourced to major papers/reviews, and all of it was notable enough for Ferguson to respond personally. There was an over-reliance on quotes, but hardly the sort of giant BLP violation you seem to think it was. " In other words, you made an error. (Is pointing that out a similar violation of WP:CIVIL now?) Relata refero (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

British National Party
There is an insistence on including the term Fascism in the info box. This is a term frequently used against the party by critics and it is sourced. However, the term is not discussed in the main text (where it certainly should be), and there is no statement that the Party promotes itself under this term, so there would be divergence of viewpoints by different analysts as to its applicability. Used in the infobox without any wider context, it stands as a definitive editorial statement which reflects on any individuals in the Party and particularly those mentioned by name in the article. I believe this contravenes the need for caution mandated by WP:BLP, and have pointed that out on the talk page to no avail. The sources provided are authors, not an official body. The BNP are not a prescribed party, but hold local government office. This should not be taken in any way as a reflection of my own views on the Party. Tyrenius (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "critics" is inherently misleading. A scholar who upon analysis of the BNP's policies and suchlike should not instantly be labelled a "critic" if he draws the conclusion that the party have a fascist ideology. Regardless of subject, that would mean any scholar who attributes a supposedly positive label would be a "supporter" or similar, whereas any scholar who attirubes a supposedly negative label would be a "critic", which is ridiculous. I (and others) have previously asked for discussion on the term in the main body of the article, see here. How the BNP views and promotes itself is an extreme minority fringe view. One Night In Hackney  303  03:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment that you link to is an endorsement of the point that this term should be examined in the article, but not stated in the infobox. Tyrenius (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How exactly do you work that out? Where does it say that? And regardless, that's simply to prove that it's been agreed it needs to be addressed in the article, and if you read the rest of the talk page you'll see the clear consensus. Admin says..... One Night In Hackney  303  04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That edit by User:The Anome shows that NPOV is not served by the recent state of the info box. Why was that changed? Tyrenius (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Update. Recent edit, which may do the trick. Tyrenius (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not that recent, just seems like the disclaimer got lost over the last couple of days. One Night In Hackney  303  05:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think BLP applies to political organisation by dint of not being biography of living persons - it only intersects where living persons are mentioned in the political party's write-up. As far as it goes, I supprot "Fascism" being in the info box and in the article, and I am prepared to go along with "Denied by BNP", but would ask for a BNP citation to that end.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. Of course BLP doesn't apply to political organisations. The problem with this article all along has been that certain editors (and it must be said, many of them admitted members or supporters of the BNP) have refused to allow any mention that the BNP is fascist. They have used all sorts of spurious arguments, including that it used to be but isn't now. (Variously, since 2000, or 2002, or 2003 or some other year.) No reliable evidence has been adduced to support this claim, though funnily enough they do not address the point that by implication they are saying the BNP was fascist, even though others deny that as well! I do not need academic references to know that the BNP is fascist, but nevertheless found citations to add to the infobox. Anyone who says that the article does not properly address the fact that the BNP is fascist is absolutely right, BUT it took considerable effort merely to have the citations included - hence the ridiculous qualifier "denied by the BNP". To get coverage in the article itself is going to be a big task and I am an editor, not a writer. Somewhere in there it should say that the BNP denies it's fascist (just as in an article on a murder we would say that the convicted offender pleaded not guilty) or even that some reliable sources do not concur (though none have been produced, and I have searched fruitlessly for them myself). However, being a fascist or a member of a fascist group is not a criminal offence. The BNP is not illegal. BLP serves to protect named individuals from malicious slander; calling someone a murderer with no reliable evidence is such; calling an organisation fascist with reliable evidence is not. Incidentally, with another editor I have been working on a replacement for the introduction following discussion on the BNP talk page - see User:Emeraude/temp for various drafts. Emeraude (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Medved
On the Medved page, he is listed as a "self identifying homosexual". This is false and slanderous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.224.17 (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverted: thanks for your help.--Slp1 (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Phil Ford
This edit is sourced to a mainstream sports columnist, which might satisfy reliability but might still be of concern per WP:NPF. I'd appreciate it if someone would take a look. alanyst /talk/ 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agrred. I've re-removed and added a note of explanation to talk thread. Benjiboi 02:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Material has been re-added, could someone look to see if it seems problematic? It sure doesn't seem relevant to me. Benjiboi 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting another look at this. I've had past conflict with the editor who is re-adding the material so I think he might take it the wrong way if I were directly involved in fixing the BLP issues. Is there anyone who can help with this? alanyst /talk/ 17:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Katja Shchekina
There is no reliable biographical evidence available to substantiate the claim that she is in fact of Somali heritage. The only information widely reported is her home country(Russia)and city of birth (Perm). This wikipedia entry seems to be the only evidence people are able to refer to as evidence of any Somali heritage. The claim of Somali heritage has no verifiable basis, aside from claims based on a mystery interview that has never been provided.
 * Maybe its in Russian. Remove it if there are no references provided. If one is provided in Russian, bring it here and someone will translate it. If none is provided, remove her from the list of Somalis as well. Relata refero (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a tag, as the articles has zero references, and removed all referernces to somlia as unreferenced  Jons63 (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good call. She definitely does not look half-Somali, as is claimed on some blogs. This Russian source (actually, the text about her is in English, search for "somali"), claims that she once said her father, who left her when she was three, was half-Yemeni and half-Somali. Now that would be easier to believe (note that it is not a reputable source, by the way, that it does not mention an "interview" and that I found only two blogs in Russian claiming Somali heritage, none about a mystery interview), if not for the fact that many inhabitants of the former Soviet Union and Eastern block (like Ricardo Franchini, who is actually Ryszard Kozina) have in the recent past claimed that their unknown or absent father was a foreigner, usually Spanish, Italian, Greek or if nothing else works, Turkish or Arab. In fact, most of these fathers were probably from the Asian republics (Kirgizia, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan): Soviet gastarbeiter brought in for some important construction work - needed because of the male shortage in Eastern Europe. If Katya Shchokina (yes, that is how her name should be Romanized) was really fathered by a non-Soviet foreigner, why do none of the Russian news articles about her, mention that? (for instance). These models are a nuisance for a serious encyclopaedia. Most of what our articles mention is taken from "their personal web pages", usually in the hands of a fan and therefore based on hearsay. The birth place of Élise Crombez should obviously be quoted as Moeskroen (since she is Flemish, quoted "Moeskroen" herself as her birth place and Mouscron is a "commune à facilités"), but neither French speakers nor Flemish nationalists can leave that alone. This Shchokina's birth place is not certain either. I found one source from Perm claiming she was born in Kudymkar, a place where the immense majority of the population are Russified Finns! Shall we call her Yemeni-Somali-Russo-Finnish? I think we had better remove that thingy about her heritage... (and change the Cyrillic version of her name too!).--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nadia Abu El Haj
Hi, I'm concerned about the repeated insertion of unsubstantiated claims that Abu El Haj slandered an archaeologist on both this page and the page for facts on the ground. This text is inserted in a separate section on both pages, but the source of the claim seems to be a separate writer and whose accusations are not supported by the person supposedly being slandered by Abu El Haj. The inclusion on Wikipedia of potentially false claims that Abu El Haj slandered another academic could ITSELF be considered as slander, and so it is potentially libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.68.32 (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looked at the talkpage. A long description of the controversy and the tenure decision, and then this particular accusation, which neither fits in with the rest of the discussion nor seems to be really very notable. Removed it and asked for justification on the talkpage for its notability. Relata refero (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hollyoaks actresses articles


All are blpdisputed, please look into this. Thanks, Solumeiras (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Err, you added them. With no details as to what is disputed. Two of them are short of sources, but there's no other dispute that I can see. Relata refero (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It does need investigation, since I'm not really much of a BLP editor... --Solumeiras (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you think is disputed, deragotory info in those article? Jons63 (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The articles need cleanup, I'm no expert in this field, so am trying to see if anyone else is able to fix it. --Solumeiras (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at the articles and can only see one article that has anything contentious in it, which I have removed. I've removed the BLPdispute templates and added cleanup tags to the articles that need them. In future if you see anything controversial that is not sourced, remove it straight away, as stated in the WP:BLP. --RicDod (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Susan Polk

 * - I received an e-mail from an editor concerned about BLP violations in this article and went to investigate, finding it does seem to have a history of biased contribution without adequate citation. I spent some time sourcing everything inline and attempting to neutralize the language, but it was immediately again altered to include unsourced negative allegations about the individual. I've left a warning at the IP of the most recent changer (whose edits in the past have included unsourced references to speculation of incest between the subject and her son), but this behavior has involved multiple editors (seems to be mainly IP). I'd be grateful for extra eyes to watch for unreferenced or poorly referenced controversial material. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like you did a good job cleaning it up and sourcing most of it. I'll watchlist it, but if there are continued problems with IP's reintroducing BLP violations, you could semiprotect it or ask me to do so. MastCell Talk 19:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Scott Atkins
Resolved.
 * - Partial explanation posted at the AfD. Appears to be a real person (although there's a scant amount of reliable sources identifying him). Page is highly negative, identifying him as a con man and describing various frauds and scams he supposedly ran. User has communicated with me by email, verified his lack of third-party sources, and just said he's got "physical evidence" that he's taking to newspapers. Article raises many significant BLP concerns; I want a few extra eyeballs on it. // Gromlakh (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Michele Sinclair
created the page Michele Sinclair several days ago. I ran across it when it was slapped with a copyvio tag, as the text was a direct copy of what was on romancewiki, and also of text that appeared on various other websites. I cleaned up the article to rely only on the one source I could find about the subject and deleted the information on future works, and left a message on the talk page of the user to explain why I did that along with a link to WP:COI. Said user reverted my changes, so I reverted them back, and then today a random IP added back in the same romancewiki/copyrighted nonsense, deleting what was there. I suspect the IP and the user are the same, but I also am pretty sure it is the subject of the article, so I am not sure what to do about this. Even if she owns the copyright to the text, the information she keeps adding to the articleis not encyclopedic. I could have a checkuser run and get her blocked for repeatedly adding copyrighted text, but I'm not sure that's the best way to go with the subject of the article. For now, I've got the page watchlisted and will revert the copyvio when I see it. Advice on what else (if anything) to do would be very welcome!! Karanacs (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. That's a tricky one. Many wikis release material under GFDL, just as Wikipedia does, in which case the only thing that needs to be done to satisfy copyright is provide a direct link to the source. I couldn't find any information on copyright anywhere on RomanceWiki, so I logged in and edited a page to see what kind of copyright advisement they offer. It's pretty skimpy; definitely no mention of GFDL. I have left messages at the talk page of the IP and the editor backing up your copyright advisement with specific steps to follow if they want to copy from this source. These two (this one?) have been explicitly warned, and if they persist without following outlined procedures, blocking may be the only option. Meanwhile, if the IP and/or the creator add questionable content, you might want to consider filing a notice at WP:COIN. I see other autobiographies there from time to time, and they ought to be able to help follow up on that one. (Also of potential use in that situation, COI2.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bill Dawes

 * seems unworthy of inclusion. Article could be planted by the subject, his agent, management/PR rep, colleague, friend or "fan." Delete the article? // Lfo01 (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to make that determination. If reliable independent sources can't be found about him, you can take this to WP:AFD and let community consensus decide if the article should be deleted. Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Taking a quick look I doubt it would be deleted, they seem to have a number of film credits, even if minor those tend to add up. Ben jiboi 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt Gonzalez
I removed both a "criticism" section that contained one unsourced criticism, as well as vague complaints that were not sourced to any actual critics but was basically original research. As well, I removed a seriously gratuitous red-baiting section under the heading "Ideology" which does not discuss Gonzalez' ideology at all, but simply was put in for sensationalism and well-poisoning. User Griot has been serially reverting attempted fixes on this a number of other Green Party related pages, offering false claims I've reliable sourcing and equally and demonstrably false claims of consensus in previous discussions. He often reverts contra numerous editors and admits a long standing personal grudge against Ralph Nader. I'd appreciate a look at the Matt Gonzalez page and its talk page. I am resisting being provoked by this editor.Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed some problem items and added context to address some of the other concerns, formatted refs and cleaned up the talk page. There does seem to be strong POV-pushing. If it persists re-post here for support. Ben jiboi 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway disappearance
I'd like to request some extra eyeballs at Natalee Holloway disappearance, a page I just moved from Natalee Holloway. Thanks. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverted. Please do not move pages without first discussing the move. It is especially inappropriate to move a page, then ask for help here. Numerous prior discussions have occurred, and never has a consensus to move the page developed. - auburn pilot   talk  03:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This simply reinforces my request for more eyeballs. This is not a biography and violates WP:BLP as indicated in my edity summary: (moved Talk:Natalee Holloway to Talk:Natalee Holloway disappearance -- This is definitely not a biography. If you don't agree, please ask at WP:BLPN or discuss at WT:BLP. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact) Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natalee_Holloway&diff=prev&oldid=188303744
 * If anything is inappropriate, it is reverting without discussion at BLPN. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Try the article talk page, and do not move pages without discussion. - auburn pilot   talk  03:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please try the policy talk page, and do not violate WP:BLP. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A policy page is not the appropriate place to discuss a page move. We have article talk pages and things such as Requested moves for that. Again, feel free to comment on the talk page. - auburn pilot   talk  03:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How is this a biography? What are your arguments that trump WP:BLP? Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk:Natalee Holloway. - auburn pilot   talk  03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to request some extra eyeballs at Natalee Holloway disappearance, a page I just moved from Natalee Holloway. It is not a biography, and it has been returned to Natalee Holloway in violation of WP:BLP. AuburnPilot, please let this request stay at the bottom of this section so that others will check it instead of suspecting the usual drama. This is core WP:BLP. What do you have to lose? If I'm wrong, others will inform me. You have not provided me with a single argument in a whole string of edits. Thank you. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since for some unknown reason, you refuse to comment on the article's talk page, I'll make one comment here. Your arguement is contradictory, as the section of BLP that you reference states we should not have biographies on people who are notable for one event. You even state, the article is not a biography. 1+1=2, and if it is not a biography, it is not in violation of that section. That section never mentions article titles anywhere within its text. The name of the article is not a BLP violation, but is a topic for discussion that is appropriate for the article talk page. - auburn pilot   talk  03:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And for examples of what I'm talking about, see Category:Murdered American children. There are dozens of articles within that category and all over Wikipedia, where the article resides at the name of the person who is the subject of whatever action the article discusses (whether it be a murder, kidnapping, or disappearance). - auburn pilot   talk  03:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's two different considerations here (at least until and unless they're merged): WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BIO1E. The differences between the two are subtle, but substantial. In terms of BLP intervention, WP:ONEEVENT is the one that would seem to matter. It does not say that articles cannot be created about people noted for one event, but only that a separate article is unlikely to be warranted. I interpret the BLP guideline to indicate that where a person is not low profile, an article about him or her is not problematic with regards to BLP; sometimes a person's connection with a single event itself raises his or her profile. Take, for example, Sirhan Sirhan, Fusako Sano & Erica Roe. This is in contrast with individuals who remain low profile in spite of their connection with an incident, such as the various victims (including survivors) of serial rapist murderers John Duffy and David Mulcahy. An article about their first survivor, mentioned by name in the parent article, would be inappropriate. I don't believe Natalee Holloway is low profile, and hence I don't believe that the article about her is problematic with regards to BLP, which is intended to protect individuals from invasions of privacy and Wikipedia from allegations of defamation. I am inclined to agree with you that per notability guidelines the page should be moved, but I also agree with User:AuburnPilot that the first place to discuss that is the talk page of the article. I don't believe this is a BLP concern. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BIO1E are reasons why articles such as Joran van der Sloot, Deepak Kalpoe, and Satish Kalpoe have all been merged with and/or redirected to Natalee Holloway. They are notable only due to their connection to this one case, and do not warrant biographies of their own. Hopefully Mira Gambolputty will take the discussion regarding the article title to the article's talk page. - auburn pilot   talk  15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no time for this, that's why I asked others to have a look. Casting Natalee as "well known" in WP:BLP terms contradicts the very "Well known public figures" policy language, qv. Whatever happened to the likes of Uncle G? This is exactly why these rules exist. And this is exactly the type of problem handled by this board very often in the past. If Natalee is well-known for other reasons than the disappearance, it should be easy to write a real biography. This isn't it. As a newbie I studied the rules and precedents on this board before filing a request myself and I suspect that I'm not being taken seriously because I'm a newbie. By the way, this was not the only BLP problem with the article why I requested some more eyeballs. Someone might want to remove the rumor supposedly leaked from De Vries' website which has been reinserted into the article after I had removed it. VKMAG is not a reliable source at all and the accusation regarding Joran (however much everybody seems to think he did it) is currently another BLP violation.


 * I think the existence of WP (its content) may well change the course of history. However, if this is how WP is being built, please don't count on me to help. I'm a professional editor and have others things I can do more efficiently than defending the encyclopedia's rules against other editors. Bye. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody is disregarding your comments because you are a "newbie". I have no idea how long you've been editing, as I haven't checked your contribs. The mistake you've made is ignoring the article's talk page, and again bringing up an issue best addressed on the article's talk page. There are several editors who have extensive knowledge of the case and its article. If you have concerns, they are best addressed (surprisingly) on the article's talk page. - auburn pilot   talk  16:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Mira Gambolputty and a few other accounts controlled by the same person(s) seem to have retired. Ben jiboi 16:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Tatchell

 * - Peter Tatchell is a longtime LGBT campaigner whose bio is now being compromised in regards to apparently to his human rights efforts in Africa. Dubious statements and sources both in lede and text suggest POV pushing but I would prefer someone else take a look as I have previous contributed and would like a fresh set of eyes to help ensure objectivity. // Benjiboi 03:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Long quote in lead removed. If it is reinstated, please revert and then start a conversation on the talkpage, where there has been no discussion at all. Relata refero (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Raoul Lowery

 * - adding unsourced, defamatory content to article. Anastrophe (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Austin Weird

 * - User insisted on including what appeared to be a section of poorly sourced original research about "Famous Austin eccentrics", former section title of "Austin Weirdos". After I removed the section as not being sourced well enough per WP:BLP, it was replaced with an edit summary stating that it's all found in an old Chronicle story in the Austin History Center stacks . I doubt this, but have no way to verify myself. Onorem♠Dil 21:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the entire section and left a note on the editor's talk page. Disparaging remarks about non-notable people will require consensus for notability and inclusion as well as exceptional sourcing. Ben <u style="text-decoration:none;font:90% cursive;color:#090">jiboi  03:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

James McConvill

 * IP users (or one user with variable IPs) have repeatedly removed well-sourced material about a controversy in which McConvill was involved (see Drew Fraser). I've been reverting it, but don't want to violate WP:3RR or WP:BLP. Could someone take a look at this, please?JQ (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to be covered by WP:ONEEVENT and the article should therefore be deleted. A separate article on the controversy may be necessary but from what I can see it would not be notable enough.  --RicDod (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway
I have suggested per the category living persons that she be removed from that category since she is listed under the disappeared persons category. There was BLP concerns about monitoring this article that was discussed. I was told to take it up with the "BLP patrolers" who ever they might be. Can this category please be removed. There seems to be plenty of eyes watching this article to help avoid any BLP issues as well as all other policy and guideline disputes. Thank you. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that just because someone is missing, that means that they are not living. I believe she is dead, but until she is declared dead by a reliable source, we need to continue to assume she is alive for the purposes of her article.  Now, since she is alive, the category living persons is appropriate along with the category missing persons. Jons63 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But that category, disappeared persons, syas not to include those people in the living category? How do you reconcile that?--24.250.59.250 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was wrong, you are correct. I removed the article from the Living person Category with a very descriptive edit summary.  I will watch and see what happens.  Jons63 (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Article by obituary
I'm sure this isn't the proper noticeboard, but I'm also not sure which one would be. There is an editor who is on an article creation spree using obituaries as the starting point. Recent examples include Jennifer Davidson, Beto Carrero, Lovie Yancey, Shell Kepler, Bernie Boston, Andrey Kurennoy and so forth. Many other examples can be found here. Some of these articles have nothing more than the obit as a source (and some of his other articles don't have any sources at all). This seems to be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia is not a memorial if not it's absolute letter. Any thoughts? Pairadox (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My first thought. They are dead.  This noticeboard is for the living ;)  Ok ok I'm being snarky.  Perhaps one thing would be to the great Google check to see if these people are actually... anybodies?  If they are, then I'd suggest other editors will be along to expand the articles, maybe even yourself!  Probably you want to go to the Talk page of Notability to seek input.  Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, I aknowledged this wasn't the correct board; give me some credit for that, at least. :P Thanks for the pointer to a better location. Pairadox (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * On the general point, I think an obituary from a good newspaper can be the best source for biographies on people about whom we should have articles. Every week I read obits about notable people with interesting lives. Being lazy I've rarely done anything about it (or have been glad to see an article already existed). I think the distinction should be made between obits written by the editorial staff (the NY Times is famous for theirs) and paid obits submitted by survivors ("He was a loving husband..."). In small newspapers this distinction may not be clear, or the fact-checking may be inadequate or nonexistent. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes Will but you wouldn't even need to elicit V policy, N would be enough to scuttle articles on non-entities.Wjhonson (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * N? NPOV? Notability? WP:BIO says that a single significant profile may be sufficient to establish notability. An obit may be that profile. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, this shows me that I'm probably just being too sensitive to the "morbid" factor of combing obits to create articles. Thanks for the feedback. Pairadox (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Brian Crozier (guitarist)
This article has been the frequent target of a lot of nonsense editing. I reverted the trash to a mini-stub, but none of what's there is sourced, and the nonsense editing continues. The article needs a lot of eyes due to the repeated vandalism. If there were still a BJAODN, the crap that was in the article would fit, though it would obviously fail BLP. Corvus cornix talk  22:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've watchlisted it and also dropped a modified uw-unsor1 at the talk page of the last IP to edit to supplement your note by explaining sourcing requirements. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

James Loney (peace activist)
He is a pacifist who was kidnapped in Iraq, and supposedly rescued by a commando operation (although in all probability, ransom was paid.) He stated that he would rather have died than been rescued by violence. Rightwing commentators made a lot of noise about how ungrateful he was for that, and how awful he was to refuse to co-operate with the Iraqi investigation because he believed it was corrupt and anyway he wouldn't co-operate with a death penalty case, etc. That POV keeps creeping in as objective fact to his biography. And just in general there are a lot of uncited statements including controversial quotes. For some reason the other 3 kidnap victims don't attract the same vitriol. Anyway, keep an eye out. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 11:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Myrna Williams (politician)
- There are three statements towards the end of the article:


 * Two days before the 2006 general election, Chris Giunchigliani her opponent who won the election, accused Myrna of being part of Operation G-Sting.
 * Williams was the only commissioner in office in 2006 who served alongside Erin Kenny, Dario Herrera, Mary Kincaid-Chauncey and Lance Malone who were charged and convicted in the case.
 * All four were indicted in 2003 of accepting cash bribes from then strip club owner Michael Galardi in what was called in some quarters Operation G-Sting. This relationship may have been one of the reasons she was not reelected in 2006 outside of the fact that she had been ineffectual and unresponsive to her constituants' needs.

The second statement seems to have a reliable source and is not too controversial. However the first and third statements seem controversial and have the source of americanmafia.com which does not seem a sufficiently reliable source to back up these allegations. I do not want to change this myself as I have being involved in removing a PROD tag and commenting on an AFD for a related article. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Coren
Can someone take a look at the article. I just got this message. I will email him to see if he has a specific complaint. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I never heard of Coren before, but these 9 edits by User:LagunaBeachCA look like a further trash-job on top of the trash-job the article already is. --CliffC (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It also appears that an Verizon IP is interested in the article here. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In general the article is badly written. I removed one bit of OR but don't feel like doing more right now. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Any attempts to moderate the language in this article are getting reversed very quickly. Most recently by User:TanganyikaCo.. There's not much point in even trying to re-write it. BlearySpecs (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seemingly gratuitous insults in Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns
''This question is now the subject of an active RFC at Talk:Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns. Because this conversation is referenced there, I am not collapsing it. Please add further commentary there.''

One of the numerous compilations of criticisms of Nader's campaigns in this article, in a paragraph listing criticisms by Eric Alterman, concludes with this sentence He has called Nader "Bush's Useful Idiot," myopic, and a deluded megalomaniac.

Does this article need every byte of hostile verbiage ever tossed at Nader, or can we draw a line at gratuitous and malicious insults like the above that don't seem to add much to the subject or Wikipedia, other than a peek into Alterman's mindset.Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would remind this editor that first, this article is not biographical. It's about Ralph Nader's role in different presidential campaigns from 1972 to 2004. Second, these quotes come from very reputable third-party sources. They are strident. They are not gratuitous (since journalist Eric Alterman made them in a thoughtful manner) and they are not malicious (I'm certain The Nation and MSNBC, where they appear, would not tolerate malisciousness on their pages). Moreover, the quotes appear in this article in context. Feedler (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would also like to remind everyone of this quote from WP:BLP


 * Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".


 * This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.


 * I am not saying that the material does not belong. We do though, need to be just as careful on this article as we are on Ralph Nader's biographical article about ensuring the material is properly sourced and weighted. Jons63 (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Feedler Boodlesthecat that the material reflects undue weight. Reporting that critics felt his candidacy unbalanced the election seems appropriate; slurs against the candidate's character ("a deluded megalomaniac"?) are neither necessary nor helpful in representing that controversy and seem problematic to the article with regards to BLP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is Feedler who is arguing for the inclusions of the slurs, and has been reverting them back into the article; this is why I brought the issue here). Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Feedler emerged during the early 2007 edit wars around the use of the Atlantic Monthly quote in the lead of the Ralph Nader article and is in agreement with User:Griot on this and related matters. Often emerges during Ralph Nader-related disputes. FYI, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out my name use error. I do recognize what the players are up to, though I copied & pasted the name incorrectly. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For context, here is the full quote:
 * On 26 October 2000, Eric Alterman wrote in The Nation, "Nader has been campaigning aggressively in Florida, Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. If Gore loses even a few of those states, then Hello, President Bush. And if Bush does win, then Goodbye to so much of what Nader and his followers profess to cherish. After the election, Alterman said Nader was partially to blame for the election of George W. Bush because of vote splitting. He has called Nader "Bush's Useful Idiot," myopic, and a deluded megalomaniac.

I include the full quote here because the short snippet quoted above needs to be viewed in context. Alterman criticized Nader prior to the election; the other quotes are followup to his analyses of Nader's campaigns. Feedler (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that it's put succinctly enough without the entire last sentence. This is not a matter of softening criticism, but presenting information neutrally. Alterman's opinion of Nader's influence of the outcome of the election seems very important. His opinion of Nader's character and/or intelligence doesn't, really, and, again, seems quite weighty. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the quote is quite okay. We're dealing with a presidential candidate here who better have a tough hide. Griot (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Subjective judgment regarding width or endurance of Ralph Nader's skin aside, the content does not fit with WP:BLP. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As the IP indicates, the thickness of the candidate's hide isn't really the issue. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't a privacy issue so the quoted passage from WP:BLP is inapplicable. According to WP:NPOV, we report facts about opinions.  One fact about Nader's campaigns was that they generated intense animosity toward Nader among many progressives.  Alterman isn't being quoted as a reputable source to establish the fact that Nader is a megalomaniac.  The point is to acquaint the reader with the effect that Nader's campaign had on many people's opinions about him.  It's better to quote Alterman by name than to say "many critics were very hostile toward Nader" -- a statement that's true but that uses weasel words.  Whether this particular quotation is the best one to use is open to discussion, but the intensity of the opposition to Nader shouldn't be whitewashed. JamesMLane t c 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The section regarding criticism in BLP does not relate to privacy, but to the necessity that BLPs be written in a neutral, non-partisan manner. I agree that intensity of opposition to Nader should not be whitewashed; nevertheless I do believe that quoting this one critic's assertions that Nader is an idiotic, delusional megalomanic violates that section BLP. Giving undue weight to his opinion implies that he represents a majority view. I do believe it would be better to say "Many critics were very hostile toward Nader" if that were followed by "with Alterman saying blahblah and Otherreputableperson saying blahblah, while opponents of this perspective maintained that insertopposingviewhere". . If there are no opposing views, well and good, but I see nothing in the article at this point to indicate (much less substantiate) that Alterman's aspersions on Nader's character and intelligence are anything other than the opinion of one man, whose views should not be given disproportionate amount of space lest we run the risk of seeming to promote a point of view. A digression into Nader's intelligence and pathology would seem to need much more support than that. :)  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There can be no serious dispute that the hostility to Nader among progressives is widespread (not universal, but widespread). To state that, and to quote Alterman as an example, as you suggest, is one reasonable way to present the information.  (Again, I'm not passing judgment on whether this particular quotation should be selected as one example -- only that some such opinion should be reported.)  We don't need "support" for discussion of Nader's intelligence and pathology because the Alterman quotation isn't being presented for its value as a reliable source on psychiatric issues. JamesMLane t c 18:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's simpler than that; the issue is whether we need a pundit's gratuitous insults in an article that is already chock full of indications of the "hostility to Nader among progressives," (unless by hostility, you mean cheap insults rather than opposition to his campaign, in which case we should just add a cheap insult section). The notion that this is in any way being "whitewashed" in the article just ain't borne out by a simple glance at the article. Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll also note that it's not properly placed. The section in which it appears refers to "Spoiler warnings prior to the election", not aftermath. (Much in the article seems to need restructuring; given how embattled it seems to be, I imagine keeping order is hard.) That's a digression, though. :) On the specific topic of the appropriateness of this particular material for inclusion by BLP, in stupidly simple outline form, it should be quite appropriate to say, "Nader ran. People said his running would give a win to the Republicans. The Republicans won, and a lot of people said it was Nader's fault because. They got mad. Other people said it wasn't because. They got mad, too. Nader himself said this." Building an article from the ground up, it would certainly be possible to include Alterman's quotes as partial evidence of how outraged some people were by Nader's decision and to balance this with the viewpoints of his defenders. However, without context these quotes stand to speculate not just on the impact of Nader's campaign, but on his state of mind: the implication is that he isn't smart enough to know better, and he is too self-important to realize his legitimate chances. Their use would require positing them as simple expressions of umbrage; I share Boodlesthecat's opinion that there seems to be sufficient attention given to negative viewpoints of Nader's campaign in the article without that. Hence, adding the context would, by my reading of BLP, seem too weighty. To boil it down, I think the sentiments without context are wholly inappropriate by BLP. I think it could be possible to contextualize them so that their use was not inappropriate, but that doing so would require restructuring what's already in the article so as to avoid unbalancing critical perspective. In the absence of that restructuring, I believe that Alterman's descriptors of Nader should be removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy Ayaan

 * - This is a new article on a documentary about Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I'm concerned that the article drifts from a discussion of the documentary to commentary on the subject's life. Because I've never dealt with BLP issues before, and because she is a controversial figure, outside views would be appreciated. // Dchall1 (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, as much of this information appears to be recounted in the main article, this might qualify as a POV fork. Dchall1 (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment following this line of reasoning, the article Infidel (book) (a book by Ayaan Hirsi Ali) is a POV fork too. Andries (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This article has now been deleted, as it had been created by a banned editor - A l is o n  ❤ 07:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Janet Reno

 * - adding defamatory material to BLP, not supported by source cited.// Anastrophe (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Material was removed on 2 February after discussion and has been stable since Jons63 (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Pablo Bertorello
Relatively new users appear to be writing an autobiography. Was cleaned up once, but is now full of citations to blogs. This seems to be the last version without blogs. Some of the refs added after that may be good, but it's going to take a bit for someone to sort out. Gimmetrow 00:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See also and
 * See also and
 * See also and
 * Gimmetrow was nice enough to inform me of this post after I had started an AfD nomination.. I'm not sure of how to proceed now. Suggest a speedy keep or see the nomination through? Rehevkor (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would let the AfD process run, unless it does so it sets up persistent folks to then run it through DR or quickly renom to AfD. The subject may be notable and the article just poorly written as well but AfD goes for a week so that might inspire some constructive editing to mitigate poor sourcing concerns. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#C71585">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#ff6699">boi 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Diane Francis considered a reliable source?
One editor in particular deleted citations from Diane Francis based on the fact the citations had the word 'blog' in the url. "Blog" in this case seems to be more of a newspaper marketing ploy than anything else. Here is another example of a "Blog" attached to a newspaper: Freakonomics

My point is the interpretation of WP:RS is too narrow in these cases.

Who Diane Francis is:

"Diane Francis, Editor-at-Large of the Financial Post, is an entrepreneur, author, broadcaster, speaker and columnist. She became a columnist with the Financial Post in 1987, joined its Board of Directors in 1988 and became its Editor from 1991 to 1998 when the paper was bought and incorporated into the National Post. Diane has been a columnist for 25 years with the Toronto Star, Maclean's, the Southam newspaper chain and Sun newspaper chain as well as a regular broadcast commentator on business and politics.'"

IMO Diane Francis answers to someone within the the National Post organization she works for should therefore be considered a reliable source in the same way as any other reporter in a reputable newspaper. I am seeking comments from other editors.DSatYVR (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The portion of WP:SPS which states "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." seems to apply here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Diane Francis is certainly a reliable source. In my opinion, however, Wikipedia an WP:RS in particular needs to be updated to reflect the realities of 2008. While it used to be generally an accurate stereotype to consider blogs as unreliable diary-like creations with no accountability, more and more blogs are being considered RS as more and more of them are being put together with the same sort of due diligence as "traditional" journalism. The above referenced Diane Francis blog is a prime example of this. I'm not saying all blogs should be rubber stamped, but I do feel restricting acceptability to those with third-party publication is simply not realistic in 2008. 23skidoo (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Lucas (porn star)
Editor David Shankbone has removed reference to Michael Lucas having been a prostitute and substituted the comparatively benign term "escort" in its place. The source cited clearly states: "Lucas then worked as a hustler -- earning money through prostitution..." Wikipedia defines hustler in this sense as a male prostitute. Shankbone has also removed reference to Lucas's real last name being Bregman. The source cited clearly states: "Lucas was born Andrei Treivas Bregman in Moscow in 1972." There are many other sources on the internet supporting the facts that Lucas worked as a prostitute and that his real last name is Bregman. Coincidentally, the changes Shankbone has made were specifically requested by Lucas on the bio's talkpage. --72.68.122.108 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why aren't you using your username? It's hard to communicate with anonymous users. What are the sources for these assertions? Do they meet the highest standards of reliability? If not then they should be removed. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This has already been resolved. See Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#C71585">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#ff6699">boi 23:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a separate noticeboard. This board discusses content which is what is being discussed here.  Yes, both sources in the bio meet reliability requirements: the first is Yale Daily News, and the second, New York Magazine.  Other equally reliable sources can be found on the web by searching "Michael Lucas, prostitute" and "Michael Lucas, Andrei Treivas Bregman."  The preponderance of sources state that Lucas had been a prostitute and that his real last name was Bregman. --72.68.122.108 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing that resolved flag with a comment: the resolution at COIN was to refer the IP editor here. The editor proceeded instead to AN and was again referred here. The merits of the BLP argument haven't actually been addressed yet, and this is the place for it. Please do not trap this person in a Catch-22. There actually is an issue worthy of examination here: did David Shankbone pursue too conservative an interpretation of BLP? The use of prostitute in the article is arguable on the basis of multiple reliable sources. I do not endorse this editor's use of inappropriate fora or refusal to use a registered account or stable IP address, but the issue he or she raises actually does deserve examination and this is the proper place to examine it. Durova Charge! 23:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies. Anon editor 72.68.127.152 added this gem to the LGBT Wikiproject talk page and I thought this was simply more of the same. The COIN item was from anon 72.68.122.138 so this could all be a coincidence. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#ff6699">boi 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And actually wouldn't the talk page of the article, a RfC if needed, be the place? It's here now so fine but the editors have shown a willingness to discuss issues and lean on reliable sources when in doubt. To me this still smacks of a veiled attack against Shankbone who's gone above and beyond for wikipedia and now for wikinews. Has anyone mentioned this to Shankbone by the way? <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#ff6699">boi 00:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Update. I've left a message for Shankbone on talk and found this in the process. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#ff6699">boi 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you have one person behind an IP who is evading detection by using a range of IPs (who are so familiar with Wikipedia rules, guidelines and administrative pages that they may be a banned user - I assume NO good faith). They do not deserve our attention, and if you'd like to see some of their handiwork you can go here (,,, , , et. al.). Regarding Durova's allusion to an substantive issue, that was already addressed at COIN. I will quote Becksguy, who hit the nail on the head: "Several points made in response to the nomination: (1) To characterize this substitution of terms as WP:OR is an unreasonable and unsupported attempt to apply the concepts of OR. Escort means prostitute (as does hustler, rent boy, and several other terms, depending on the genders of the provider and client), and escort is the term generally used in the industry, so it's simply not OR to use that term instead of the legalistic term prostitute. For example, escorts is the only listing category used for that profession in newspapers, magazines, and on-line. If the cited sources support Lucas being a prostitute, they necessarily support his being an escort, as the terms mean the same, so there is no evidence of 'planting' OR. (2) Further, in terms of labeling, we routinely use, for example, gay instead of the legalistic term homosexual, African-American instead of Colored or Negro, and other preferred terms of identity, per WP:MOS, unless in direct quotations. Why pick on the world's oldest profession? (3) Also, the actual label used in one source above, Yale Daily News, is 'hustler', not 'prostitute', as in: 'Lucas then worked as a hustler -- earning money through prostitution to open up his own porn production company in New York City.' The term prostitution in this citation is used in the sense of source of income, not a label for a person and the actual word 'prostitute' was not used. (4) I don't see this as WP:COI either. Claiming that there is a COI because Shankbone removed sourced content and replaced it with unsourced content at Lucas's behest is also unreasonable and unsupported, since it remains fully sourced, as explained above, and there was absolutely no material change in the content or slant as a result of this word substitution. (5) Endorse closure as not supported. — Becksguy (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)" Clearly this person has an issue with Michael Lucas, and we need no indulge them. -- David  Shankbone  00:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

IP Blocked - the 72.68.0.0/16 IP range is blocked for 72 hrs due to ongoing, widespread harassment of David Shankbone originating from differing IP addresses in that netblock. I had already blocked 3 addresses individually for 72 hrs, I am extending this to the whole range at this point. This campaign of harassment is unacceptable behavior, whoever it is who's doing it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ew! If I'd seen that diff of the personal attack before I would never have unresolved this thread.  It's one thing to pursue a complaint at the wrong fora, which can be understandable in a relative newcomer.  Quite a different thing to post graphic insults.  Clearly, BLP was a smokescreen for a personal vendetta.  I apologize for the inconvenience my post caused.  Good block.  Durova Charge! 01:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's my understanding this post is for the discussion of content issues related to the Lucas bio.

I found the following sources that reference Lucas's work as a prostitute:

- Wall Street Journal - glbtjews.com - amazon.com (see Editorial Reviews from Booklist) - AVN Media Network - and the article sourced in the bio itself.

And the following sources reference Lucas as "Andrei Treivas Bregman":

- Gay.com - Advocate.com - Wall Street Journal Blog - NYTimes - BUTT magazine - Lucas's own blog - United States District Court - and the article sourced in the bio itself.

These show that Lucas was a prostitute and that his real name is Andrei Treivas Bregman. --72.76.94.214 (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Gossip magazines as reliable sources
An anonymous IP editing Huma Abedin insists that Woman's Day is a reliable source. I do not believe is sufficiently reliable per BLP standards as it is a sensationalist gossip magazine of the same time as OK!. The important claim - Abedin's alleged romantic relationship with presidential candidate Hillary Clinton - is already supported by the reputable broadsheet The Times. As I have reverted several times to enforce WP:BLP in spite of WP:3RR, I would like expert attention to be directed at the sourcing of this article. Thanks in advance, Skomorokh  confer 09:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Woman's Day is not a gossip magazine. You make it sound like the National Enquirer.  The majority of the magazine is recipes, crafting tips, fashion, food, homemaking things, etc.Wjhonson (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, a paragon of journalistic integrity whose repeated rumours we should trust implicitly and repeat with abandon throughout the encyclopedia. Skomorokh  confer 09:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore I believe that fact Clinton agree to be interviewed for the piece adds to it's credibility.

I would also add that it makes no statement either way as to it fact or fiction it states the allegation was made Clintons response and a third parties (Renta) statement.

It adds no weight to either side but advises the reader that the story was published.

I would also state that wikipedia has many other articles which contain such information including Bill Clintons sexual misconduct allegations for example

Woman´s Day has almost 2.5 million readers, mostly women, who are of all ages and socio-economic groups. They live in cities, suburbs and regions. They are interested in their homes, families, careers and leisure time. They want to be healthy, fashionable, entertained and informed, to have fun, to know what´s going on in the world, what celebrities are up to and what´s new in health, nutrition, beauty, fashion, fitness and food. They want budget-conscious fashion, five-minute beauty routines, nutritious meals in 15 minutes, easy fitness ideas and helpful advice on life´s little problems. They enter contests in their thousands, write, fax and e-mail hundreds of letters every week, share secrets, advice, worries and joys. Woman´s Day gives its readers what they want.from ACP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The two of you are arguing about different magazines. Woman's Day in the US is a Good Housekeeping clone. In Oz it's an OK magazine clone. One is an RS the other isn't.
 * The Abedin article already mentions the rumour through a Times article. There's no need for anything else. Relata refero (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Q. Was Clinton intervied in the times article ? Was Renta interviewed in the times article ? There are millions of exapmle though out wikipedia were more then one source is nothed and i beleave they ofer different information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I fancy they weren't interviewed for this one either, merely quoted. De la Renta was quoted in the Vogue article on Abedin, and Clinton said this at a newsconference, I think. Again, Women's Day (Australia) is not a reliable source. Relata refero (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fancy has little to do with fact! In the Vouge article did Clinton speak of her warm and memories Of the time she and Bill spent in australia ? I fail to see all the fuss why are you so determined to remove what is simply information that there was such a story printed in woman's day ? What is you motivation ? Why do you seek repress a mater of fact ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Fancy' is a figure of speech. Articles, especially in non-RSes, pick quotes from elsewhere and frequently do not assign the specific source. Clinton could have been talking about Australia at any point. Please cease your reverts, you now have 5 in a 24 hour period. This article is not a reliable source, and is thus inadmissible, period. Relata refero (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * for goodness sakes, if you're going to assert that a major presidential candidate is having a gay relatinoship with a staffer, you need a better source than that.  Wikipedia!Not!Gossip column.   Wikidemo (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated I am not asserting anything the information I have contributed is a fact  which is on December 10 2007 there was an article which stated the following ! Such information is contained extensively throughout wikipedia. I think you have Woman’s Day confused with New Weekly and  FYI Australia has its own version of OK magazine

Australian weekly magazine Woman's Day subsequently ran a story titled "Hillary Clintons Gay Scandal" which stated "Hillary Clinton has been accused of having an affair with Huma Abedin". Clinton replied "It's not true, but it's something I have no control over" So close are the two women they even holiday together. "They are lucky to have found each other" Fashion designer Oscar de la Renta is quoted as saying in the piece after hosting the two on holiday at his Dominican Republic home

In regards to the revert you continue to change it how many reverts do you have ? The mater was put here to be decided upon. A presidential candidate has no right to special treatment! Article states Hillary Clinton speaks to our own Angela Mollard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The IP's reverted someone else now. Thats 6/7 reverts in the past 36 hours. Can someone with the tools block him please? Relata refero (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Times reported in November 2007 that a dirty tricks campaign was underway intimating that Abedin and Clinton were engaged in a lesbian affair.[3] Australian weekly magazine Woman's Day subsequently ran a story titled "Hillary Clintons Gay Scandal" which stated "Hillary Clinton has been accused of having an affair with Huma Abedin". Clinton replied "It's not true, but it's something I have no control over" So close are the two women they even holiday together. "They are lucky to have found each other" Fashion designer Oscar de la Renta is quoted as saying in the piece after hosting the two on holiday at his Dominican Republic home.[4]

While the mater is being delt with you and your friends continue to change it ! Look at how the article is now and always was structured. I fail to she your point ? you do not make a case and just change it ! why ? please note i fixed spelling due to your reverts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * IP blocked for 3RR. Eventually. I had to go on IRC and whine a bit first. Relata refero (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When you can't make an argument to back up you opinion you try to block people ? Thats very sad! Why dont you leave the page alone until a decision is made ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is how I would approach the situation. We already have an article on Woman's Day, the US Magazine.  That's confusing as we've seen if there are multiple publications of this name.  We need someone to add the  template which will redirect to a disamg page.  Then we need someone to write up an article, even a stub on this other Woman's Day and link it up to the disamg page.  Then and only then we should have a discussion on the article for that publication to form a consensus for whether or not it is a reliable source.  And if consensus cannot be reached, the publication should then be relisted at the reliable sources noticeboard for further community input.  As it stands, those of us not living in Australia, really have no way to give input. Wjhonson (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What, we can't determine a magazine's a tad unreliable unless we have an article on it?
 * As a kicker, I see the front page of Women's Day Aus today is "Kissing Dad Just Feels So Right: Julie Is Madly In Love With Her Own Father". The site's online. Its a supermarket checkout rag, and I don't see why we need an article on it to determine that. Relata refero (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would draw to everyones attention that you have made a mistake or misinformed readers as the page you refer to is not infact the front page I would also point out that the story you point to does contain the name of the writer as has been discussed above. i would ask you to withdraw your mistaken or missleading statements thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)