Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive41

Rachel Ray
Rachel_Ray section is way unbalanced, I'm not a fan of hers but she doesn't deserve the extensive and harsh criticisms. 71.139.5.47 (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, actually she does. I think she's annoying, but you're right, not here.  I've tried to restore a little balance by shortening the section, sticking to the point, and removing some of the weaker-sourced criticisms (e.g. reporting of complaints made on blog sites).  I think it is notable that she's criticized for being a lightweight and for the premises of her cooking concept(s) being faulty - the dumbing down of cooking shows is probably important to understanding the state of food in America today.  But in moderation.Wikidemo (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

John Zizioulas
I recently began modify some of the edits made by User:Cebactokpatop on the John Zizioulas article. Zizioulas is the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Pergamon and sometimes accused by conservative Orthodox of being too sympathetic to Roman Catholicism. Cebactokpatop had inserted into the article a photo of Zizioulas seated beside the Pope, which the user summarized as 'J.Z. in his office, revealing his true face.' (See here and the edit-summary of this page:).

The article had contained a polemical section (occupying half the article) which Cebactokpatop has repeatedly insisted be entitled 'Traditional Orthodox view of the work of John Zizioulas'. This section accused Zizioulas of being 'heterodox', and was referenced only with extremist/questionable sources, inadmissable on this article according to WP:SOURCES and WP:BLP. Yet Cebactokpatop has insisted on restoring this section (after removal by various editors) many times - e.g. 

The user has reverted my edits at least seven times, insisting that his 'traditional Orthodox' section cannot be removed until he agrees. As my edits do not only concern this 'traditional Orthodox' section, but also involve the addition of new sections and new bibliography; his attitude amounts to the assertion that he will not allow any expansion of the article without his consent.

When he asked for a reference that Zizioulas was noted as a theologian, I provided one. His response was to call the addition of the reference 'further abuse' and to delete the reference (something he has now done twice - see the diffs, and of ).

Cebactokpatop has displayed repeated incivility on the John Zizioulas talk-page, on my talk-page and on his own talk-page. In response to my attempts to maintain NPOV on the article, he has accused me five times of being a 'vandal', telling me that I am 'very low' and that he can discern 'who I am and where I come from'. He has accused me of 'trying to quiet down the voice of the traditional Orthodox people', of 'promoting "pro" Zizioulas views' and of 'attempting to hide the fact that people disagree with his work'. He also placed a level-2 NPOV-tag on my talk page after I first removed NPOV material.

As the John Zizioulas article is the only article that Cebactokpatop edits with any frequency, it seems to me that his primary intention on Wikipedia is to ensure that this article represents an overwhelmingly negative and derogatory description of the Metropolitan.

Most recently, Cebactokpatop has begun to add irrelevant material on ecumenism intended to ridicule Zizioulas, and has justified his actions on the talk page with religious quotations.

Seminarist (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Insight (magazine)
This site seems to be being used partly as a coatrack to repeat false charges against Barack Obama. I wrote an article about the issue, which was deleted after a heated debate. Redddogg (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (breaking in) I am the editor who raised the issue wrt BLP on the talk page, thanks Redddogg for posting the issue here. The coatracking is repeating Insights false/unsubstantiated charges against BOTH candidates...to be clear.WNDL42 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the real BLP issue is that one editor (not Redddogg) seems to think that there is a consensus in RS for his opinion that Jeffrey T. Kuhner lied about his anonymous source in order to smear both Clinton and Obama (which was the Clinton campaign's initial response to the Insight story). And he keeps trying to force the article to treat that opinion as fact... Which of course is a BLP violation against Kuhner, since no one (except, if it is true, Kuhner) is a RS for that statement. He's just gone over 3RR again, btw. Wrong noticeboard, I know, but I don't have time now to pursue this. Andyvphil (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Issue Summary


 * I would characterize the above comments by Andyvphil as a mischaracterization. The article is being used to coatrack both the "obama's-madrassa connection" and the "clinton-investigating-obama's-madrassa-connection" rumors. The BLP issue has to everything to do with the use of the article as a coatrack for repetition of both of these unverifyable "internet rumour mill" claims. Apart from being widely known, the fact that event was an anonymous smear on both candidates has also been clearly established by extensive Google NEWS ARCHIVE analyses to be widely discredited, desc "smears", "lies" and a "double splatter smear" on both candidates. All based on nothing more than idle speculation by a politically motivated outfit. Insight's owners are (really not kidding) identified by Colombia Journalism Review as being "the media arm of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church". No editor is claiming that "Kuhner lied", but the consensus view among WP:RS sources is that it was a fabrication. In response to carefully constructed search query analyses of "Google Scholar", "Google News" and general google, it was established that the overwhelming consensus views (including Columbia Journalism Review itself) was that the whole thing from madrassa to "clinton campaign's thinking" was a political hoax. The "majority" is resisting the prominence of the WP:RS views and promoting the "fringe" viewpoint that Kuhner's anonymous sources were "legit".

Conflict Summary


 * The conflct exists between the (minority) opinion that the article should be structured and presented according to the categories in which it is presented, namely "media" and "journalism" as opposed to focus on the "politics" of the victims of the smear. The "majority" view point editors seem to have either or both of (a) WP:COI issues (including USER:ED_Poor and USER:Steve_Dufour, and others) via the Unification Church, or (b) have histories of single-issue tendentious political editing in support of coatracking Insight's "take" on the issue, in several other related articles. Insight's "story" on the story, is that their report "meant to focus on the thinking of the Clinton campaign". The conflict is manifesting in the form of recent edit warring by the "majority" in support of the Insight POV that means to now give undue weight to "the thinking or the Clinton campaign". This is clearly seen in Ed Poor's extended editorial on the talk page, and throughout the talk page. The article has been a long-term target of coatracking, including several instances of Insight's editor USER:jkuhner himself and other Insight accounts attempting to "spin" the article. For all I know, one or more editors may be acting on behalf of Kuhner, I'm normally a trusting editor, but we HAVE seen this happen at least three times already. This is a "hot" article and the matter is very serious here in the midst of an election cycle. WNDL42 (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The worst offense, a long block quote calling Obama an Indonesian Muslim, has been removed. I don't object to the article on BLP grounds anymore. Redddogg (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree There is some small movement in the right direction (there appears to be a new heading) but there are still major problems with the presentation, and with the article in general. For example, the first sentence needs to describe the whole event as the vast majority of Reliable sources do. Newsweek (Jan 27, 2007) called it a "madrassa hoax", and other reliable source characterizations are "double smear", "a rare double splatter smear" (MediaWeek), "the start of a scandal designed to harm both candidates", (Colombia Journalism Review) etc. Right now the discredited Insight "storyline" is still being presented first, and the most notable element, the consensus view among reliable sources, is relegated to a "media criticism" setion. What is notable about this story is that it's only element of fact was immediately discovered to be false, and the "speculations" given were all based on the primary falsehood that Insight used to construct the "double splatter smear". The headlines used by reliable sources were such as "The first anonymous smear of the 2008 campaign" (New York Times), a "Madrassa hoax" (News Week), etc, etc. should form the majority weight and should appear first.


 * Our portrayal should represent in character and weight, the overall "opinion" of reliable sources, and this indeed must "trump" and overrule the opinions of the individual editors, especially where (a) polar opposite and tendentious political POVs, (b) Unification Church COI's and (c) surreptitious interventions by Insight and Kuhner have all been involved in the formation of every previous instance of an apparent "consensus". Wikipedia is WP:NOT not a democracy. WNDL42 (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My "mischaracterization": "...one editor... seems to think that there is a consensus in RS for his opinion that Jeffrey T. Kuhner lied..."

Wndl42: "No editor is claiming that "Kuhner lied", but the consensus view among WP:RS sources is that it was a fabrication."

I repeat, any assertion or assumption that Kuhner either "fabricated" or "lied" is a BLP violation. He claims he had a source. No evidence one way or another has surfaced. It's not particularly implausible that some flunky tasked with opposition research shared his "discoveries" with Kuhner. In fact, internal evidence (I'm thinking of the bit where Kuhner says his source doesn't know if the "seminary" was radical) points against the hypothesis that Kuhner was lying, IMHO. But neither my opinion nor that of some writer for the NY Times or Mediaweek constitutes a RS capable of transmuting opinion into fact. "Fact checking" doesn't function in the absence of facts, and there is no such thing as a RS for speculation or tendentious conclusions. Andyvphil (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand WP:BLP. The central BLP idea is "do no harm". Reliable sources have characterized Insight and Kuhner in the ways they have for over a year now, and therefore Wikipedia "does no harm" by reflecting the majority view of what reliable sources say. We should feature this first and it should be given the same weight as it is given by reliable sources. Now, if reliable sources have widely discredited Insight in general and it's report of this topic specifically, then Wikipedia does indeed "do harm" by giving WP:UNDUE weight to (or even repeating) to Kuhner's idle and unproven "speculations" about a "candidates thinking". WNDL42 (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if Mr. Kuhner didn't lie about getting a leak from the Clinton campaign it was still bad journalism since he put out the story without waiting for both Clinton and Obama to have a chance to give him their views. He said that he called the Obama camp but they didn't call back. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Steve, agreed, and if that "bad journalism" was so bad that Kuhner was villified by virtually 100% of reliable news and journalism sources (even Fox News VP John Moody), then that villification is notable.

As the evidence provided at the talk page is mired in the noisy arguments there (and AVP's reiterations above appear to be likewise talking around the evidence), FYI, here is a brief summary of the data (per WP:GOOGLE) presented there:


 * (a) www search query results for "kuhner" and "madrassa"
 * (b) Google News Archive query results for ("Insight magazine") and (obama OR madrassa)
 * (c) Google Scholar archive search on Insight's parent organization


 * see also Wikipedia entry on Wikipedia entry "U.S. journalism scandals"WNDL42 (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it was "bad journalism". (Opinion, not fact.) That doesn't mean Kuhner lied and in the absence of any facts showing that he lied there is no such thing as a "reliable source" saying he lied. (logical deduction from policy, i.e. fact) Andyvphil (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Andy, I'm not sure there is any argument here anymore. You are 100% correct in that Wikipedia should not editorialize or speculate that Kuhner "lied", and I am not advocating that we do. However, if the weight of the facts presented by, and opinions given among reliable sources is so overwhelming as to result in an article that reflects a common view that the entire smear was a fabrication, our job is not to "mitigate" what reliable sources say. If it's true that Kuhner's behavior has landed him in the "hot seat", then that is a fact of life for Kuhner and Insight and we "do no harm" to anyone. Wikipedia represents the 'facts of life', in terms of what reliable sources say, and our job is to let the facts speak in a clear, encyclopedic and unmitigated tone, and let the reader decide. Anyway, at this moment it looks like all the conflicts are now "up front and on the table", so thanks to redddogg for having the presence of mind to put the issue here where it belongs, and to everyone who has spoken up. WNDL42 (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to jump in again, but continuing from above, let's all remember that the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is "verifyability, not truth". Kuhner's claims about the "thinking" of the candidate are well established to be unverifyable, even by Kuhner himself, and so per WP:BLP they should not be repeated at all on Wikipedia, except to the bare minimum extent that is absolutely necessary to establish context, and I believe that the highly critical reliable sources we're already quoting are absolutely sufficient to establish what Insight's claims were, and that they were unverifyable. WNDL42 (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

===(Slightly O.T. from WP:COAT, but relevant side discussion===
 * OK, "Wikipedia should not editorialize or speculate that Kuhner 'lied',..." If you meant it, it would be progress.
 * But, "if the weight of the facts presented by, and opinions given among reliable sources is so overwhelming as to result in an article that reflects a common view that the entire smear was a fabrication...". Please supply one RS "fact" that gives "weight" to the "view" that Kuhner "fabricated" (i.e., lied). Be succinct. Andyvphil (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is not relevant to WP:COAT, so I will repost and respond on the talk page...thanks WNDL42 (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

===(end side discussion)===


 * The subject, as I wrote at the very beginning ("...the real BLP issue is that one editor ...keeps trying to force the article to treat [his] opinion as fact.") is not merely whether the article is a COATRACK, but whether a BLP violation is in progress. Your argumentative headers seem to reflect an attitude that you are entitled to WP:OWN this section, Insight 's article, and perhaps all of Wikipedia. So I have struck them. And, while I'm on that subject, I will ask you to never again insert your point-by-point rebuttals into the middle of someone else's post and to consider carefully where you place any post that inspires you to write "(breaking in)".


 * Your "response" on the article discussion page spirals off into a misuse of search engines (you pointed to WP:GOOGLE, but you show no sign of having read it) and various penumbras of your previous assertion that the editors opposing you might be agents of Kuhner and the Moonies. It's not worth transcluding here.


 * Let's try again. You made the argument that "the weight of the facts presented by, and opinions given among reliable sources is so overwhelming [that the article should] reflect [the] common view that the entire smear was a fabrication". By "reflect" you have shown you mean that that should be the assumption behind how the material is presented.


 * My position is that it is not at all obvious that Kuhner "fabricated" anything. Here's an alternative hypothesis: Obama's statement in one of his memoirs that he had attended a "Muslim school" (Obama's own words) reaches the ears of a Clinton volunteer who notices that Obama is saying he was "always a Christian" (he said that in South Carolina, I'm supposing it's not new). Somewhere along the line "Muslim school" gets changed into "madrassa" which in turn is misunderstood as "Muslim seminary". And the eager staffer, like the two who later forwarded emails with false allegations, brags to Kuhner "He was a Muslim, but he concealed it... [we] hope this will become a major issue in the campaign... The idea is to show Obama as deceptive." And Kuhner, who's basically writing a political gossip column (that's what "political intelligence" really means, doesn't it?), believes it and runs with it. Bad journalistic practice, no doubt, but not "fabrication".


 * The question is what weight we give the POV that Kuhner "fabricated"(lied) vs. what weight we give the POV that Kuhner did not lie, but merely reported what he was told and failed to detect that some of the things he was told were wrong. The latter, btw, is a very common theme in this story. Examples (there are more): Obama's top strategist told the New York Post that Obama's classes in "the private school"(sic - he meant the public one) were in "comparative religion", and no RS has noticed the howler. ABC News showcased a clip of Obama saying "The notion that somehow at the age of six or seven I was being trained for something other than math, science and reading is ludicrous" and didn't notice their own film clip of Muslim kids -- like "Barry" -- training in Muslim prayer. A wealth of RS have accepted Obama's denial that he ever prayed in a mosque without inquiring what he was doing when everyone else was praying on the occasions that his sister says, they did go to the mosque "occasionally". And no reporter following Obama "noticed" that when Obama was campaigning in the Bible Belt his declaration that he'd always been a Christian because he'd been raised by his mother, a "Christian from Kansas" was contradicted by his own memoir ("professed secular[ist]"), his sister ("agnostic") and his mother's best friend in college ("outspoken atheist"). This from "journalists" who've had ample resources and opportunity to learn their subject. The same "journalists" who you claim are RS for pillorying Kuhner.


 * Consult policy. The New York Times, e.g., is a WP:RS only for "facts" ("Interviewed, Kuhner said...") not for opinions or tendentious characterization ("Kuhner smeared Obama..."). This elementary distinction is lost on you.


 * And you haven't produced the single WP:V fact indicating that Kuhner "fabricated" that I asked you for. Try again. Be succinct. A "fact". One. Without a "fact" to be subjected to a fact checking process there is no such thing as a "reliable source". Just a chorus of opinions. And Wikipedia takes the NPOV on opinion. Especially regarding BLP material. Which this is. Andyvphil (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your entire post above, beginning with an extremely deceptive misquoting of me (which I have struck), is an argument against a Straw Man of your own creation. Continued straw man attacks based on fabricated quotes of other editors are personal attacks.


 * Wikipedia is not a "Court of Law" where we prove or disprove whether Insight or Kuhner are guilty or innocent of anything. We merely reflect, in content, balance and overall tone, what reliable sources say. The issue here is the use of the article as a coatrack for Kuhner's speculative views on someone's thinking, pure and simple. WNDL42 (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you don't get to tendentiously define what the issue is.
 * Again, you don't have any "reliable sources" for the allegation that Kuhner was expressing "speculative views on someone's thinking". In his original article (the cite to which has now, unbelievably, been censored from the article) he puts those "views" in quotes (see immediately above, where I reproduce them, in part). Either he made the quotes up (lied) or he reported them. You don't have a single fact to support the assertion that he "speculated" rather than "reported". Or you would have produced it, by now.
 * Again, my "mischaracterization": "You made the argument that 'the weight of the facts presented by, and opinions given among reliable sources is so overwhelming [that the article should] reflect [the] common view that the entire smear was a fabrication".
 * Original Wndl42:"...if the weight of the facts presented by, and opinions given among reliable sources is so overwhelming as to result in an article that reflects a common view that the entire smear was a fabrication, our job is not to 'mitigate' what reliable sources say."
 * This is the second time you have accused me of "mischaracterization", this time further characterized as "a fabricated quote", when a side-by-side comparison reveals clearly that I have merely subtracted some of the verbosity and incoherence with which you habitually express yourself. Now, stop screwing around inside my posts. Andyvphil (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I put the link to Insight's original story back in the article as you suggested. The article now seems to focus on the word "madrassa". Redddogg (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been letting them have their way. The article is a BLP vio in progress but the level of outrageousness required to get any attention to that fact is apparently very high. But not unattainable by T&W, surely. Andyvphil (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The article now reads, in part: In January 2007, Insight published anonymously written and unsourced allegations that opposition research into Senator Barack Obama's early childhood education had uncovered political liabilities for the Illinois presidential candidate. . Insight ' s quickly discredited report further alleged that unnamed members of Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign team were planning to use Obama's grade school attendance at State Elementary School Menteng 01, falsely characterized by Insight as an islamic madrassa, to harm the campaign of their opponent. Although the Arabic word madrassa refers to any kind of school, in post 9/11 United States political contexts it is primarily used to imply an association with Islamic fundamentalism.

Note that the third cite (as I write #11, as the first 8 are from elsewhere on this page) is solely about the use of the word "madrassa" in the US, so that the statements and implications that Insight's report was "quickly discredited", that Insight falsely described State Elementary School Menteng 01 as an Islamic madrassa, and that Insight implied that the madrassa was associated with Islamic fundamentalism are all in Wikipedia's voice, and are Wikipedia's responsibility. All are false in whole or in part and the last is a libel in reckless disregard of the truth, as I have pointed out repeatedly on the discussion page that the Insight article explicitly denied knowing if the "madrassa" its sources said Obama had attended was radical.

Also, the only thing "discredited" was not the report itself, but the content of the "sources close to the Clinton campaign"'s assertions. A distinction that Kuhner has emphasized on multiple occasions in quotes that have been entirely scrubbed from the article. And Kuhner didn't write that Mentang 01 was a madrassa. He said that Obama had written of attending Catholic and Muslim schools and also that the Clinton-associated sources had told him Obama had instead attended, for at least four years, a seminary. And if the "hidden madrassa" allegation is a "further" allegation, what were the the other "political liabilities"? I'm straying from the libel into criticism of the incoherent writing, but it is so badly written that it's hard to understand the meaning. But the "Insight said Obama attended a radical madrassa" libel is clear, and if this text is kept and Kuhner sues (which I admittedly don't think is likely) he ought to win. The editors of the page have had the facts pointed out to them, and they are writing in reckless disregard of the truth. Andyvphil (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. Even as I was writing the above, it got worse. Much worse.

==='Anonymous smear' controversy in 2008 Presidential Campaign===

On January 17, 2007, Insight published what would quickly come to be known among journalists and media experts as "the first anonymous smear" of the 2008 U.S. presidential election campaign, and as a "double smear" on two of its candidates. The Insight article used two instances of the logical fallacy of "begging the question", first in presenting a loaded question about Senator Barak Obama's childhood education, and then employing the Fallacy of many questions by attributing Insight's "Obama question" to the campaign team of fellow Democratic party candidate Senator Hillary Clinton.

Journalistic analysis of the Insight story began by examining the first sentence of the report, which asked the loaded question of whether the "American people were ready" for a candidate who was "educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?" The second sentence alleged "This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama." No basis was found for Insight's question and allegation, and throughout the ensuing controversy Insight steadfastly refused to present evidence or qualify it's sources.

Insight ' s report falsely characterized State Elementary School Menteng 01, which Sen. Obama attended as a child, as an islamic madrassa. Although the Arabic word madrassa refers to any kind of school, in post 9/11 United States political contexts it is primarily used to imply an association with Islamic fundamentalism.

After being picked up by television news networks, Insight's story was quickly debunked by news organizations and widely villified by journalists, including the Columbia Journalism Review. The article was immediately denounced by Senator Obama and described as "an obvious right-wing hit job on both candidates" by a spokesperson for Senator Clinton. Journalists condemned the Insight report as an anonymous "double smear" for its impact on both candidates.

HALLLLLLLOOOOO! Is anybody home on this noticeboard? Does Kuhner have to sue the Foundation before anyone will pay attention to this BLP issue? Is there another noticeboard for OR if everone's asleep at BLP? HALLLLLLLOOOOO! Andyvphil (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

nb: BLP, reads in part, "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics,..." The article clearly sides with James T. Kuhner's critics, beginning with the uncited claim of consensus in the very first sentence, a WP:RS violation. Andyvphil (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to work on the article to make it more neutral. If the issue of the Obama rumors is that important maybe it should have its own article again. That way the facts can be presented without it being an attack on any individual. Redddogg (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you are capable of appreciating finer distinctions than W&T attempt, but you're not having much success alone, simply by editing, at stopping them from running amuck. Both I and Athene cunicularia recognize that there's no point in wishy-washy corrections at the margin or inconclusive edit warring. You need enough NPOV-inclined editors to weigh in to make the fixes stick.  And this noticeboard has been a complete bust at producing any. Restarting Barack Obama's Connections to Islam won't make Insight(magazine) any less of a BLP vio. I noticed this morning that the contagion had spread to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, and I'm attempting to draw the line there. If contested that may draw the necessay attention. Andyvphil (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Andyv, you appear to be an almost single purpose account on the topic of the Obama-Madrassa story, with a special focus (most recently, at Jeffrey T Kuhner) of using every possible Wikipedia article as a WP:COATRACK for Kuhner's anonymous and unsourced allegations re that storyline. As Mr. Kuhner himself was discovered to be pushing an essentially identical agenda as you are, and he or Insight did so under at least two different usernames "publishtruth" and his own, and in the concurrent presence of multiple anonymous IP accounts that tried to "spin" the articles similarly -- well at some point you should consider taking care not to speak too loudly on behalf of supposed BLP vios against Kuhner while your edit history indicates you are primarily interested in pushing Kuhner's storylines on Wikipedia. Mr Kuhner's name has been almost completely removed from the Insight article on Wikipedia, and nothing there attributes the "smear" to him personally except to the extent that the articles reliable source references do so. If Mr. Kuhner has a problem (and I think it's reasonable to assume he's monitoring), then he should go now to the WP:OFFICE. WNDL42 (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * SPA? I'm a bit surprised it doesn't rank higher by now, but as I write this only one Obama-related article makes my top fifteen (at #15) and none make the top fifteen talk pages, by edit count. Compare . I already pointed you at this resource a week ago when you first advanced the suggestion that I was a tool of Kuhner or the Unification Church,, but I am by now unsurprised that evidence has had no impact on your assertions.


 * And, editorially Insight seems to be a one man operation. As I wrote on 11 Feb: "The distinction between ~'Kuhner lied about having sources in the Clinton campaign and he lied again when he said that Obama attended a radical Islamist madrassa, everyone says so'~ and 'Kuhner lied' is lost on me, and would be lost on the judge in a libel suit should it get that far. Especially since you've deleted Kuhner's rebuttals, wilfully deleted mention of the fact that the latter is untrue (the former is indeterminable) and removed the link to the article whose perusal would show that the libel is untrue. But, just go ahead being obtuse. The must be some level at which your violation of NPOV will spark attention from someone other than I..." Andyvphil (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears
There is presently an ongoing discussion at Talk:Britney Spears concerning how media converage of her personal life and behaviour in the last 12 months should be reflected on the Wikipedia page. I am personally of the opinion that much of what is reported in the tabloids (speculation concerning relationships, addictions, etc.) should not be included. Not only are most of these details hardly notable in the long term, but they will be inevitably used to paint a very negative picture of this individual's life as "spiralling out of control"--which is in my view both POV and original research. Other editors, however, are advocating for the creation of a subpage specifically for the purposes exhaustively compiling media reports of every aspect of her personal life without bloating the general page. Needless to say I think this would be entirely inappropriate. I would appreciate the opinions of more experienced editors on this issue.--Agnaramasi (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:RS, "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Tabloids are not well known for that. Per WP:V, "questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." I don't see much debate; they simply cannot be added in which would be in vio. of BLP.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that tabloids should be avoided, but what about sources like People.com (People magazine's site) or ABC, FOX News etc.? Anynobody 05:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * People Magazine is reliable enough that it isn't classified as a tabloid, but I wouldn't cite just the primary Britney Spears page as a source -- individual articles should work fine, as long as they are not op-ed/blog posts from various editors. The ABC and FOX articles are fine by me, but per BLP, even if the statements are adequately cited with reliable sources, they can still be removed if they tilt the balance of the passage, paragraph and/or article too far into one direction. If the entire article was devoted to slamming Britney Spears, even though it is well cited with approperiate sources, it would still be in vio. of BLP.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (To clarify) I personally could care less about Spears one way or the other, but news of her life seems to find its way into reliable news sites that I read. Without reading the articles, just looking at the titles, they do describe a woman who's life is "spiralling out of control" (in fact I think one article's title was "Out of control Brittney Spears shaves her head" or something like it). It's my understanding that the thing about WP:BLP is that it's not so much about finding good/bad things to say about someone rather finding high quality sources. If we pick and choose from multiple sources to influence the overall tone of an article isn't that a POV no-no? I imagine a person reading her neutralized article, saying to themselves "Well I guess Brittney's life is ok." who then reads stories on ABC, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, etc. which make our "neutral" assessment look wrong and pro-Spears POV. Anynobody 02:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse


I'm somewhat concerned about the overuse of reports from tabloid newspapers in this article. We should probably make our job to report the known facts about Winehouse, not the known facts about how the tabloids are reporting her case. A few more eyes on this article would be good, I think. --Tony 02:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Maddox


Could you have a look at Maddox. There seems to be a persistence swarm of IP editors adding unsourced and poorly sourced information to this article and it seems to have gone on for at least a month. This article has also been semi-protected before. There is an unsourced criticism section as well that the IP editors tried to source using a song. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

John DeStefano, Jr.


A concerted attack by the same anon over the past several days. Not frequently enough to require protection, but it needs to have an eye kept on it.  Corvus cornix talk  03:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an extra eye on it.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Godwin

 * - Article didn't have a bio tag on it and seems quite full of unsupported statements including him being categorized as anti-Catholic with no sourcing. Good news? It's a short article. My plate is full right now if someone else could take a look I would appreciate it. // Benji boi 04:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed most of the article as it was unsourced and contained several BLP vios, and removed two external links.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Jan Davis

 * - is rather insistent on inserting speculation  regarding whether or not this female astronaut had sex with her husband while they served on a joint space shuttle mission.  I feel that this is running afoul of WP:BLP's "not a tabloid" guidelines.  Obviously, this person disagrees.  Thoughts? // Tarc (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an easy one. The sources don't even match the content being added.  The two sources - both of questionable reliability - say nothing about "hypothesizing" whether the couple were the first to have sex in space.  High school kids love to edit Wikipedia, don't they?  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yea, this whole thing was pretty dubious, no doubt. Just wanted to get out of the revert war and get some outside eyes on this situation.  Thanks. :) Tarc (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is Slate of questionable reliability? Relata refero (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely as a trolling account and sock. To answer Relato refero, I don't know about the reliability of Slate in general, but that particular page sounded like a cute little fluff piece to me. Regardless, the page didn't say anything about anyone hypothesizing anything about Jan Davis. It simply stated a fact that Jan Davis and her husband were the first married couple in space - nothing about them having sex. This was typical trollish editing from DatDoo - slow motion edit warring to force in silly little inappropriate factoids. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rogers Cadenhead
See history at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rogers_Cadenhead&action=history

The material I removed seemed controversial and questionable in its assertions about both the behavior of Rogers Cadenhead and of Jimbo Wales. I removed it based on lack of a citation to a reliable source (blogs aren't, nor is original research). This led to a revert war and 3RR blocks. By my understanding, this really is a violation of BLP. So, I leave it here for those with more experience to either remove or ignore as appropriate, as I don't want to revert war over it. 65.96.171.231 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed claims made about third parties on self published sources, per WP:SELFPUB. Added to my watchlist.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ilchi Lee


I would like to request that all information casting Lee in a poor light be removed from the Ilchi Lee article. Dahn Yoga is a major corporation and anything casting it or its founder in a negative way reflects badly on us, and more importantly, our multimillion dollar business. Matthew Laffert (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew, you've been told multiple times that this sort of approach does not work. Your contributions to Wikipedia are welcomed, but they must respect the rules of the venue. (The majority of your edits so far do not.) You must accept that all reliably sourced material is allowed in Wikipedia articles, not just the information that you personally agree with. In fact the point is to provide encyclopedic articles, rather than opinion pieces that are biased either positively or negatively about the subject. This means that your personal beliefs, or the expected need of a for-profit company to keep itself in business, are not terribly relevant to what should be in the article. What's relevant is what material has been covered in reliable sources and then presenting that material in a balanced and neutral way. Since the article on Lee seems to attract people with strong opinions about the subject, and it's a living person bio, this is even more important. Forestgarden (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandeep Pandey


addition of unsourced, misrepresented and contentious material by, who's been warned a couple of times already, and. Doldrums (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

CltFn's serial BLP violations
The user was recently found to be a sockpuppet of the banned administrator My bad! He was banned for abuse, and Archtransit worked very hard to unblock him, but checkuser came back negative. Sorry.

He was a prolific editor on Islam and Islamic scholarship, who created dozens of pages about books, videos, and authors critical of Islam or about Islamic terrorism. The problem is that he used these articles as dumping grounds for the most outrageous nonsense about living people. Just a quick look through his pages reveal gems like, "Middle Eastern studies in US Academia has been effectively co-opted by the Wahabbi lobby by infusions of large amounts of money [...] Wahhabi funded academics like Edward Said, John Esposito and numerous others that are used by Islamic activists to refute criticism of the Jihadist ideology and to discredit those authors who provide useful analysis in the middle eastern studies. Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America"

I think we need to fine-tooth comb this walled garden of policy violations. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * CltFn first came to my attention for multiple BLP violations on Barack Obama and a POV fork that he created from that article (covering the infamous "Muslim rumor") and I AfD'd an article that he created (Articles for deletion/Prophet of Doom); many of the images he uploaded were also copyright violations and have now been deleted. While he doesn't appear to have been an Archtransit sockpuppet, he was certainly a very obvious POV-pusher. I agree that there's a need to review his contributions, as a lot of his editing was problematic. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

English Roman Catholics
Per policy, living people should only be categorised by religion if the following criteria are met:


 * The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
 * The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

I realise the second one may be open to interpretation, but the first is clearly not. I recently went through Category:English Roman Catholics and removed the category from a large number of articles where it was indisputable that the person should not be categorised in this way, for the overwhelming majority the only mention of them even being Catholic was the category itself. An IP editor took umbrage at this, and reverted my edits en masse, and is seemingly not only using dynamic IPs but more than one ISP. Relevant IPs:



The latest edits (from 217.42.6.13) are not only adding back the category to ones I'd removed it from, but also adding it to different articles such as this, although that category had been removed by another editor some months ago.

Most of the articles currently affected are as follows:

Gary Breen, Lisa Butcher, Jamie Carragher, Alex Curran, Brian Conley, David Connolly, Cat Deeley, Tess Daly, Anne Diamond‎, Declan Donnelly, Rupert Everett, Kevin Foley (footballer), Andy Griffin, Lewis Hamilton, David Kelly (footballer), Martin Keown, Peter Kilfoyle, Rob McCaffrey, Terry McDermott, Patrick McGuinness, Paul McKenna (footballer)‎, Steve McMahon, Steve McManaman, Sharon Maughan, David Morrissey, Coleen Nolan, David Nugent, Andy O'Brien (footballer), Erin O'Connor, Tom O'Connor, Paul O'Grady, Gary O'Neil, Patsy Palmer, Nick Park, Joe Pasquale, Phil Redmond‎, Wayne Rooney, Paolo Vernazza, John Welsh (footballer), Matthew Wright

However, as this IP editor is seemingly intent on adding the Catholic categories to anyone they think is a Catholic without actual evidence, that list could conceivably include almost anyone English, or any other nationality for that matter. Rangeblocks won't do any good, semi-protection won't do much good unless you're planning to semi-protect articles on any living person who might be considered a Catholic by someone, so what's the answer? One Night In Hackney 303  08:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I support you 100% on this. As you say, our policy is that all info, even categories, must be verifiable. Another one I've noticed is Category:Irish-Scots getting put into articles on random Scottish people with Irish surnames. --John (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Taking one of the above as an example - Steve McManaman. He comes from a Catholic family, and probably went to a Catholic school from what I was told earlier. However he himself says "I’m not truly religious, but I’ve got Catholic family". But if the fact he was born into a Catholic family or went to a Catholic school was in the article, it's a dead cert somebody would add the category. BLP is very clear on this, so how can we stop these categories being abused? One Night In Hackney  303  18:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We can't. I've faced a losing battle with Hindu and Muslim categories. Anyone with an Arab-sounding name is Muslim, and so on. We need to be very very firm with this. Relata refero (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest a sticky on top of this noticeboard, a section saying "problem categorisations" that people can go through every now and then checking for details in the article, self-identification, references, etc. Relata refero (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

May I add what I hope is a constructive suggestion? We have had a similar problem on the Quaker wikiproject, regarding some people who may be wrongly categorised as Quakers. Our practice there, in cases where there is any doubt, has been to post a note on the talk page asking for evidence that the subject is a Quaker. If no evidence is provided within a reasonable period of time, then the category can be safely removed. I think this is good practice, as presumably someone had a reason for adding the category in the first place, so it is reasonable to give them a chance to justify it. Admittedly Quakers are fewer in number than Catholics, and it is usually quite easy to tell whether or not the subject is a Quaker, so our problem is much smaller.

Feel free to adopt or not this proposal as you think appropriate, but I think it makes for more accurate categorisation and saves time and effort in the long run. (Note that the talk page request should include a clear definition of the criteria for inclusion in the category.)

--NSH001 (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

American academics
Eyes on the contributions of, please, a reincarnation of. A tendency to create articles/focus on academics working in controversial areas politically, write a line about their research, and then add four quotes from FrontPageMagazine (or CounterPunch :)). Relata refero (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Cathal Ó Searcaigh


Cathal Ó Searcaigh is an Irish poet who is the centre of a storm on controversy and could plausibly face criminal chrages for sex wigh a minor in the immediate future. A used 'Haiduc' has been systematicly editing to remove all traces of criticism from the article.

Removed unsourced criticism that breaches BLP? yes he does seem to be doing that - oh look, so did I when you re-added it. Cease and desist or the page will be locked. If you have sources that back the additions you are trying to add, I suggest you find them. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Eyes required on this article - I'm removed some material in accordance with BLP but a subject specialist would be helpful. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Article is being used as a platform for homophobic attacks against Ó Searcaigh, repeated efforts to paint him in as negative a light as possible, and a discrediting campaign against his friends and supporters. One user has attempted to smear me for trying to maintain a neutral tone. Haiduc (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a look and removed the last two paragraphs, which were based on letters to newspapers, opinion columns, podcasts and whatnot. Undue weight.  The article should of course report the facts about the police investigation and the statement by Mary Hanfin in the Dáil. --TS 15:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

George Stamatis


I have been trying to copy edit this article and add some fact tags and remove redundant categories, but another user insists on blindly reverting the article page and blanking the talk page and telling me to go elsewhere. Another editor has helped but I do not want to keep reverting myself. This also appears to be a COI and vanity article. This persons seems notable but needs NPOV. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dimosthenis Liakopoulos
needs a few more eyes. Article about a controversial TV personality who most people (rightly) regard nationalist crackpot scientist. Article stood as a highly critical anti-Liakopoulos polemic for a long time; recently somebody turned it into an uncritical glorification. Both versions are untenable. I've deleted most of the article for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the BLP vios. in the Controversy section, and removed all but his main web-site under EL (spam links).  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wah, this beast has many heads. I've just redirected El and Nephilim‎, there may be more of the sort. Walled garden alert. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Seeing this from the pro-Liakopoulos guy, I've blocked him indef. Faking the bible as a mouthpiece for racist filth is seriously uncool. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The faking-the-Bible stuff had me puzzled until I saw Angelos Sakketos (is this chap notable)? Aha. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 16:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Prodded. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done a couple more prods. Details are at FTN here. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 16:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tudor Chirila‎
Article has become a soapbox for personal opinions and grudges, dominated by Pinkish1  and TheRealPitbull, the latter removing NPOV templates. JNW (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed BLP vios., original research and uncited materials. Pretty much the entire page.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also Prod'ed for weak notability stance.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This has, notwithstanding the very good efforts of Seicer, become a full-scale edit war between Pinkish and Pitbull. Pure mishigoss. JNW (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tudor Chirila. seicer | talk  | contribs  02:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sara Roy

 * - I'm concerned that portions of this article, especially Sara Roy, serve no purpose except to attack the subject. Also, there have been repeated attempts to include, under the heading "Political postitions", a newpaper article about a political position explicitly not taken by Roy. I think that article violates WP:UNDUE, as (a) Roy is not the subject of the article and (b) Roy is not notable for her views concerning divestment from Israel, the subject of the article. // — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed it as a clear case of original research and likely BLP vio. I also removed one uncited statement, but the remaining could stand to either be cited or refactored so as to not include them. Seicer (t | c) 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See my section on User:American Clio above. Relata refero (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ward Churchill misconduct issues

 * - There has been a long-running edit war on this article which, according to the article lede, is about "accusations of misconduct against Ward Churchill and an investigation by the University of Colorado at Boulder where he was a professor.." Within the past couple of weeks, one editor swept through the article and, in a series of targeted edits, removed various allegations of misconduct that were not on point with the topic of the article (that is, allegations of misconduct unrelated to the UCB investigation).  A number of other editors have been wholesale reverting this material back into the article.  I decided to file this notice when, on the article's talk page, one of the reverters indicated that he believed the article should be expanded to include any misconduct, even if unrelated to the article's topic, as long as it was "reported in mainstream sources".  In other words, I think this article has become a coatrack and exposes Wikipedia to substantial WP:BLP liability.  // Nandesuka (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, he is a very prominent and problematic figure (accused widely of being a fraud, not to mention his comments about 9/11), so any encyclopedic article about him is going to contain derogatory information. But where's the limit?  No matter who he is, I think it's inappropriate for BLP, POV, and other reasons to devote an entire article to criticism of a person, particularly if it's not just over one event - just a general article talking about the person's alleged misconduct.  It's iffy that there should be an article devoted specifically to a single investigation.  Whitewater or Monica Llewinsky for Bill Clinton, maybe.  A single professor's allegations of misconduct by his university?  That's going overboard.  The article itself is an utter mess, a breathless account of all the claims and counterclaims, evidence, etc.  I'm not sure the article can be repaired, given all the dueling editors, and it's bordering on deletable.  I took a first step, which is to remove all the quotations.  Much of the article is a quote, then summary or analysis, of primary sources.  Quoting people's accusations, defenses, and findings verbatim is no way to write a Wikipedia article....the policy sources I mention on that are WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH.  There's also a WP:NONFREE / copyright issue.  Although it might be marginally legal to quote entire paragraphs of copyrighted material instead of summarizing what they say, it's certainly not in keeping with our free content policy, which discourages using copyrighted material when a free alternative can be made.Wikidemo (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, fr starters I think the page needs to be renamed to something which doesn't suggest that it's supposed to be a clearinghouse for everything bad ever said about this person. Perhaps Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation. FCYTravis (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was briefly involved in editing Ward Churchill a couple of years ago, until beaten back by personal attacks. It was a mess then too. There are people who turn up to edit these articles who have very strong personal feelings, based to some extent on various forms of racism, some of it to do with him claiming aboriginal ancestry that others say he doesn't have. So we end up with the nonsense about how he said he was 1/16 this, but in fact he's only 1/32. Ideally, there should only be one article on him, and we should cut the criticism right down, and make sure it's written respectfully without all the long quotes. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. This strikes me as being very similar to the BLP problems that we had with the now-deleted Barack Obama Muslim rumor article, and the article looks to me very much a POV fork. Is there any good reason why this content can't be in the main Churchill article? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The misconduct child was created by Lulu, who has freely disclosed his pro-Churchill prejudices. He created the misconduct child in order to segregate critical material out of the main bio. Since then, he and others have attempted to delete the article. Failing that, they've attempted to cut it way back. In other words, I see their entire BLP argument as a stalking horse for an unabashed pro-Churchill POV.
 * The fact is that Ward Churchill's public persona is that of a miscreant. There is extensive evidence of his wrongdoing. Reasonable people can interpret that evidence in different ways, but there is no valid reason to exclude the issue from Wikipedia. The misconduct article is sprawling, but for the most part it is impeccably sourced to mainstream newspapers and scholarly journals.
 * The current dispute on this page surrounds the issue of Churchill's claim to Indian ancestry and tribal membership. Two mainstream newspapers have conducted separate genealogical investigations and found not a single Indian ancestor in Churchill's family tree. Furthermore, Churchill has claimed to be an enrolled member of the Keetowah Cherokee tribe, but the tribal office says that he was never an enrolled member, and that they only recognized his honorary membership for a few months back in 1994. I think that the entire ethnic fraud issue can be boiled down to a few sentences, but the various POV wars have contributed to the sprawl. As long is there a contingent of pro-Churchill editors insistent on minimizing any mention of the extensive critiques of his public persona, the problem will persist.Verklempt (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a good example of why POV forks are Bad. Relevant material should be merged back into the main article on Ward Churchill and all of these POV forks should be deleted. It's not a case of having too many great sources and too much material - it's a case of segregating POV's in different articles instead of trying to produce a comprehensive, balanced assessment. MastCell Talk 22:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ward Churchill is a polemicist and a very strong critic of the FBI. Let the record show that all attempts to balance either one of those Articles has been vehemently fought by editors who hate Churchill.Editors such as Verklempt. As a matter of fact that article was speedily deleted as a result of one of them trying to keep this out of the articles external links section. Verklempt is now claiming that we are the ones who tried to get it deleted. I think that the only real solution to this matter is put this and several related articles on probation, as was done with the Homeopathy related articles. : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC) : Albion moonlight (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nandesuka's statement that the material was removed in a series of edits is untrue: almost all of it was removed in a single edit. Perhaps Nandesuka is thinking of the Ward Churchill article. Kanguole (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We should be slow to put articles on probation simply because there are apologists for controversial figures. Article probation tends to enforce the status quo, and levels the playing field between people who think the article should look one way versus the other.  In this case I don't see it as a war between Churchill detractors and supporters.  I could care less about Churchill, but if a person as prominent as he is widely believed to be a fraud, with nearly all the mainstream sources on that side, then even with the most generous application of BLP, NPOV, etc., we should mention that he is generally believed to be a fraud.  Does that make me a POV detractor?  I don't think so.  It's almost a mainstream versus fringe issue.  If Wikipedia becomes that kind of battleground for politically-charged subjects we might as well give up on trying to cover them.  From what I see of the history, the material should be merged back into the main article if a consensus for doing so.  If such a consensus is demonstrated, then anyone who edit wars to keep it out is being disruptive and can be dealt with as a behavior matter.  If no consensus is found, so be it, we have a POV fork.  Wikidemo (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidemo misread what I said so I will rephrase It. Some of the articles related to this one are being edited by tendentious editors who are gaming wikipedia. These editors should be scrutinized by arb com and the community in general. Not because of their POV but because of their disruptive and tendentious editing habits. Let the chips fall where they may and the scrutiny begin ASAP. : Albion moonlight (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Vicki Iseman - political BLP issue
The article was speedy deleted and the reason given was BLP poorly sourced. The NY Times is not a poor source. I was working on improving the article when it was deleted. I have posted on the talk page of the article and that of the admin that deleted it. This person is all over the news and the situation is noteworthy as it related to the credibility of the apparent Republican nominee for President. The article should have been a regular AfD with a discussion on its noteworthiness.Failureofafriend (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A betterplace to start might be, Deletion Review. That is better suited to undelete an article.  Jons63 (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed the wording in the lead (appeared to misquote the New York Times) and removed the Controversies section as a six-kilobyte coatrack in this five-kilobyte stub. --TS 15:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been put back and considerably expanded. --TS 01:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We've now got a biography on someone who's been accused of maybe, alledegly being "friends" with John McCain. Seems to me that although the (alleged, rumoured and denied) incident is notable it is not worthy of a biography, it breaches WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK - as well as being open to political mischief making. The incident is already covered at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, so I have proposed a merger. BLP savy people might like to comment at Talk:Vicki Iseman . PS, I am British and have no US political axe to grind here. (Good luck to the next US President whoever she is ;) )--Docg 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: We still have Huma Abedin. Relata refero (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm apprehensive about disputing anything with editors I respect as much as Tony and Doc, but I disagree with the reasoning here (to redirect). We're not talking about Jenna Bush or Al Gore III, both of who have become significant by accident of birth. We're talking about an adult who is a registered lobbyist. That may not make the subject notable, but it certainly establishes public figure status. Her actions over time have raised some eyebrows and are the reason newspapers all over the English-speaking are writing about her today, not a mere accidental one-time event. Additionally, her actions have nothing at all to do with the campaign; instead they call into question the actions of another public figure, many years ago. I might agree that the campaign pagespace should include information about the controversy, and I might also agree that there should be a page specifically devoted to the controversy. Under no circumstances would I agree with Iseman page redirect or merge; she's now defacto notable. BusterD (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * i question the assertion that 'an adult who is a registered lobbyist' confers public figure status. Anastrophe (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I may not convince, but let me phrase it another way: In the United States, it's illegal to lobby a congressman as a private citizen. You can talk to them, eat with them, and try to convince them to act as you wish, but you can't lobby without public registration. The act of public registration renders the individual lobbyist a public figure. That's not my opinion by the way, that's U.S. law. BusterD (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unconvincing. Registering officially with a government does not make you a public figure. We would not keep an article on a lobbyist for just being a lobbyist - it is not an office important enough to keep an article per se. She is notable only for the "controversy" and thus we should (and do) have an article on that and not her.--Docg 19:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, by this rather absurd "public registration" standard, all barbers, doctors, auto mechanics and contractors would be public figures too - all of them are required to be publicly registered and licensed, at least in the State of California. FCYTravis (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect a lobbying expert could find a citation which would satisfy you, but it's not my field. The entire field of federal lobbying is legally required to be totally transparent. Every haircut, appointment, repair, or construction (to use your metaphor) is required to be disclosed (see Open Secrets). I do agree with User:Therefore that the subject deserves an AfD, not a mere redirect. Even if the action of redirecting was done with the best of intentions, it's not clear there's sufficient consensus to redirect, and so the action had the appearance of looking like going around consensus, IMHO. The article is clear of controversy as of this timestamp. If it really offends the pedia, one of you should nominate it for deletion. I'd do it myself, but that would be pretty pointy. BusterD (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the answer is that BLP standards are more stringent than the US law on who is a "public figure." We have purposes beyond avoiding risk to the Foundation from libel suits: we also want to avoid badmouthing people, becoming a partisan fighting ground, etc.  If someone is not a public figure we are very careful about posting derogatory information, even if true and sourced.  We "include only material relevant to their notability."  We also don't allow opinion.  With public figures we allow derogatory information but only if it appears in "a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources" (also phrased as "notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources"). That all goes well beyond libel law, where opinion is protected and truth is a complete defense, and the matter is truth rather than verifiability.  Plus we have a notability standard.  Being a public figure is not synonymous with being notable.  One who becomes so due to a single scandal fails notability as NOT#NEWS, and even if they are independently notable NOT#NEWS prevents us from repeating tabloid-type unproven accusations.  Though not certain, it also appears that our definition of "notable figure" is more restrictive than the law.  The BLP heading uses the phrase "well-known public figure", which it distinguishes from "people who are relatively unknown" (even if they are notable, and presumably, even if they are public figures).  To be fair the policy links to public figure, which describes the legal definition, but as a matter of interpreting policy, I don't think the presence of a wikilink can be read as a deliberate attempt to incorporate the article's definition of a subject into the policy.  It's just there to be a helpful link. Wikidemo (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I recognize that the debate wrt deletion is now going on at Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman, but wrt the BLP issue: At least one prominent attorney, discussing the applicable First Amendment law to this case, has stated "She is not a public figure." See http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dean/20080222.html.  As former counsel to the president, John Dean knows a thing or two about constitutional law; probably a bit more than anyone posting in this discussion (myself included).  I'm an attorney myself, and although my practice rarely touches on the First Amendment, we all have to suffer through a course in that in law school.  The claim that a lobbyist is a public figure by virtue of the registration requirement sounds pretty fishy to me.  I see no reason to relax the BLP standards based on Iseman's status as a registered lobbyist. TJRC (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't deny that John Dean is well qualified to comment on these subjects, and the excellent article makes a strong case against her being a public figure. I'll retract that part of my argument. Thanks for the link. BusterD (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I should also respond to TJRC's inaccurate characterization of my claim. My argument was not merely that the subject needed to register in public; I was asserting because of the inherent transparency requirements of lobbying law, all of subject's work activities at that time are by statue a matter of public record at the present time. In my own humble (lay) opinion, that's a supportable position. BusterD (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My characterization was not inaccurate. The "matter of public record" point may have been the only point you intended to make, but you didn't limit yourself to that. Among the many things you actually said was "The act of public registration renders the individual lobbyist a public figure. That's not my opinion by the way, that's U.S. law."  Those are the statements to which I respond, and those statements are not correct.  And that's a critical point, because the standard for defamation (and therefore one of the concerns for BLP) is relaxed for public figures.  The issue of whether something is a matter of public record is an entirely distinct issue from whether the subject is a public figure.  That goes to the wikipedia-wide standard of verifiability, which applies to both BLP and non-BLP articles. One has to do with making sure Wikipedia is not in violation of the law (which, as a nice side effect, makes for a better-quality article); the other is merely about quality of the article. TJRC (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 22:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Debate continues at Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman--Docg 22:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

List of featured articles on living people
Please see User:Carcharoth/Featured articles needing regular updates for a list of 80 featured articles on living people. Thought it might be useful to see how well featured articles are handling BLP issues, and also for people to check the articles for BLP problems as well. Is there anywhere stable where I can link this from for people who regularly deal with BLP issues? Note that this does not cover all featured articles with potential BLP issues, for example, music group articles (also listed on that page) have been excluded from the "living people" list I made, as that list is intended to be a subset of the "single-person" biography list. Other articles types (eg. murder cases) may also be featured, and thus have BLP issues, but I thought the 80 listed there were a good start. Carcharoth (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Paula Casey Article


The Paula Casey article clearly contains a biased skew against Bill Clintion, the Clinton Administration, and her in particular. Paula Casey is currently one of my law professors. Please review the article. It is poorly written, and contains clearly-biased statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.135.40 (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I tagged the article as non-notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree about the notability aspect. In the meantime I have also removed some inappropriately sourced (in my opinion) negative material and original research and commentary.  The main "reference" for this is * "The Hubbell Standard,Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys", which looks promising due to an association with the Wall Street Journal, but on closer examination is an unsigned webposting as far as I can tell. --Slp1 (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Maddox - User:Arisedrink and sourcing


User:Arisedrink stripped Maddox down to the bare minimum and removed a lot of unsourced info. That sounds fine and dandy.

But I feel BLP is being interpreted too harshly or not in a common sense manner.

For instance, - I used a third party reference (Salon) for the telemarking job along with a primary reference. And in addition I added that Maddox wrote "Alphabet of Manliness" and "The Best Page in the Universe" - both of which are widely known to be written by him. I figured that I did not need a source for that particular statement. He removed all of this with the explanation "'common sense' is not a reliable source; removing per WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV)" - This does not feel right to me. I want the policy and its interpretation straightened out regarding this article. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I originally deleted most of the material at Maddox due to BLP/V/NPOV/CITE concerns. My stance holds to this:
 * "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Jimmy Wales
 * If it's not cited, or has a citation requested tag, then it should be removed. While all of the information may not be inherently negative, it is best to err on the side of caution. The content can always be restored via the edit history and properly referenced, so it's not entirely lost. seicer | talk  | contribs  21:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion is at Talk:Maddox AND the responses are being examined. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Corrected "Arisefaith" to "Arisedrink" WhisperToMe (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Arisedrink is still at it. I asked him to go to the talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

J Stalin


There's an edit war going on on this article as to whether the claims that the rapper sold drugs are reliably sourced. The source appears to be linder notes of an unreleased album, which, released or not, don't seem to be a reliable source.  Corvus cornix talk  00:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than forking this to yet another location (this would be the fourth or fifth place this discussion is taking place), please visit the primary discussion at WP:AN/I and take a look at the wider sockpuppet disruption issue before wading in. The main source is a newspaper account of his criminal conviction in a feature article profiling the rapper.  The album with the interview, a second source, seems to be in release, btw.  Thanks.  Wikidemo (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not the primary discussion on this topic and has nothing to do with the content dispute.Icamepica (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky


"Although Chomsky is himself Jewish, he has been accused of antisemitism by sociologist Werner Cohn. Cohn has also condemned Chomsky's equation of the policies of Israel to Nazi Germany. He states that Chomsky's book The Fateful Triangle "...contains twelve references to Hitler. In each case some Jewish action is said to be like Hitler's or some attribute of the state of Israel or the Zionist movement reminds Chomsky of Hitler." His role in the Faurisson Affair has also led to allegations of anti-Semitism. Alan Dershowitz has criticized Chomsky's endorsement of Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist whose work Dershowitz considers to be anti-Semitic. "

There is a dispute regarding this material. Please see Talk:Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky.Ultramarine (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of Information Act (United States)


The subject of this article is the Freedom of Information Act in the United States. Several sources describe the history of a woman named Barbara Schwarz and her usage of the FOIA in the United States. The primary source describes her nationality/legal status in the US thusly: One of the other aspects of the FOIA law -- which has gained increased scrutiny in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- is that it may be used by citizens and foreign nationals alike. In some cases, fugitives of federal justice have filed FOIA requests and received responses, since only the courts may declare that a person who has flouted the laws of the land may not benefit from them. Schwarz says she entered the United States on a visitor visa in the late 1980s and tried unsuccessfully for years to adjust her status with the Immigration and Naturalization Service before giving up. She says she has a German birth certificate but claims it was doctored to conceal that she was actually born in Utah. Fighting INS: "I have tried to get it worked out with the INS," says Schwarz. "They could probably arrest me or throw me out of the country for filing FOIA requests, but I'm not easily scared."-S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System 2003 article form the Salt Lake Tribune.

The fact that she is an undocumented immigrant/illegal alien/whatever one wants to call non-citizens living in the US despite not following the rules seems to be the cause of concern regarding WP:BLP, so I have a couple of questions. First, since it's both true and relevant (discussed in a source) how is stating that she's an undocumented/alien/whatever a violation of our rules about biographical information? Second: Assuming it is a violation, and we self censor to avoid her being deported, how does that square with the law? Anynobody 07:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh my - worms, meet can opener. Here's some useful initial reading on the subject. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, I'm dumb: you initiated the deletion review; with that in mind, do you really want to re-open discussion on this? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Because these biographical details are COATRACK-y in an article on FOIA, and have been given virtually no coverage (goes to WEIGHT), and because the community decided to delete that biography. Stop trying to re-litigate this. Cool Hand Luke 08:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist: Yes I do, otherwise I wouldn't have posted here :) There is a difference between having enough information for an article and being notable enough to be mentioned in one. (The FOIA thing and her suit against the Tribune are what I've always maintained her primary notability is. The Scientology stuff I could care less about)

Cool Hand Luke how much weight would you say is necessary for inclusion in our project? Anynobody 08:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(The Coatrack identification is just plain wrong, if it were to be one then much more personal and unnecessary details would be mentioned, if you have access then read the deleted Barbara Schwarz page and talk to find out.) Anynobody 08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, how about more than, say, three sources when we're accusing BLPs of crimes. The main reason this should be excluded is that this has nothing to do with her notability in re FOIA.
 * Look, I used to read the Trib every day. I remember this article, and I read it in hard print. It was amusing, but it was not the basis of an eternal attack on her immigration status in an encyclopedia article about FOIA.
 * You lost the deletion debate, please move on. Cool Hand Luke 08:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, you seem to be making your assertions based on the idea that having her article deleted means that there shouldn't be any mention of her anywhere: You lost the deletion debate, please move on. I'm sorry to say that's totally incorrect, I'm not talking about recreating her article, having enough to create an article is not necessary when mentioning her in the context of FOIA. Secondly you appear to be under the impression that this is an attack; ...an eternal attack on her immigration status in an encyclopedia article about FOIA... and as I asked in the initial post here, how exactly is it an attack? (And please don't forget my second question, are there legal ramifications for us by self censoring on a legal issue?) I assure you I'd be happy to move on, if you or someone could answer my questions citing some policies or guidelines. (If you just don't like the idea of providing accurate info about her legal status then please say so.)

I'm sure there are dozens of people who would rather not have articles here, but do. If at least three sources are needed, then I suppose you should get to work proposing these for deletion: Margaret Holloway, Brianna Stewart, Antoinette Millard, and Kaz Demille-Jacobsen. Since WP:BLP doesn't give a minimum number of sources, I doubt your assertion of at least three will carry weight with editors working on some of these articles. Anynobody 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Her supposed illegal status is not relevant to FOIA in any obvious way, which probably explains why multiple source don't mention it. And yes, a claim that she's violating the law is an attack (a "negative or derrogatory claim," if you prefer), so demands the highest scrutiny from BLP and for topicality. This just isn't relevant and is thinly sourced. It shouldn't have a place in an article about FOIA. Cool Hand Luke 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Her supposed illegal status is not relevant to FOIA in any obvious way, which probably explains why multiple source don't mention it. I'll address this in more detail on the article's talk page but she's violating one federal law and taking advantage of another ...a claim that she's violating the law is an attack (a "negative or derrogatory claim," if you prefer), so demands the highest scrutiny from BLP... We aren't making any claims, we're citing a source which is in turn quoting Schwarz.

Cool Hand Luke if her illegality in the US hadn't been discussed specifically by a source you'd be absolutely right in that it'd be an attack to say she's not in the country legally whether true or not. However since a source does discuss discuss her legal status this isn't simply Wikipedia asserting she's in the country illegally. Anynobody 02:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Scientologists, notably recently Tom Cruise, have been rightly criticized for personal attacks on people who disagree with them. Why would Scientology critics want to do the same thing? Steve Dufour (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve Dufour with all due respect, Scientology isn't the issue so let's focus on the point here. The original questions were: ''First, since it's both true and relevant (discussed in a source) how is stating that she's an undocumented/alien/whatever a violation of our rules about biographical information? Second: Assuming it is a violation, and we self censor to avoid her being deported, how does that square with the law?''

You said on the talk page: The way I see it the issue of her visa has been used as a threat against her, to notify the INS about her alleged illegal immigrant status. This would be the best forum to explain that perspective. Anynobody 02:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to be the obsessed anti-Scientologists (who seem to outnumber the Scientologists themselves BTW) who are attacking Barbara. In my opinion it gives their cause a bad image to do so. And we only have Barbara's word in a 2003 interview for info on her status, which might have changed since then. It is also not related to her (questionable) notability. I think I have been more than fair in my attempts to compromise on the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve Dufour I'm not going to address your Scientology concerns, since this issue barely even relates to it. I will address the parts of your post that are related though.
 * And we only have Barbara's word in a 2003 interview for info on her status, which might have changed since then. It may have, but unless we have another source to reference as far as we are concerned it hasn't.
 * It is also not related to her (questionable) notability. There was an extended discussion about just that between myself Cool Hand Luke and Stan En where not only was it established to be relevant but anti-defamatory.
 * I think I have been more than fair in my attempts to compromise on the article. I think you have tried to be as fair as possible to, however your conflict of interest between what you promised Barbara Schwarz and our rules has made your efforts destructive rather than constructive. Anynobody 03:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason she was only mentioned in the media in 2003 is an indication that she is not really notable.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if that were a valid argument, which I honestly don't think it is, she wasn't only mentioned in 2003. The AP article also used as a source is from May 04. Anynobody 05:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Still we should not make a statement about her condition in 2008 based on two articles published in 2003 and 2004. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, her immigration status is off topic in an article about the FOIA. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct. Anynobody's current offering is less defamatory than originally offered, but it's still off-topic. Cool Hand Luke 16:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Folks, as I've said several times, it's not about what we think is or is not on topic if the source puts it on topic. I notice I didn't mention here specifically how the source does that, however I did on the talk page.
 * She's trying to use FOIA to prove her US citizenship, which she can't because she wasn't and she thinks the government has more information about that and other subjects she's researching relative to her believed past.
 * A blueprint for open democracy and government accountability in other countries, the FOIA has been stretched to its limits by a reclusive woman who, by her own admission, is in the country illegally. This quote is directly from the Tribune source.
 * I assure you it is indeed most on topic. Anynobody 02:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Jon Winningham
I'm preparing to AfD this article - this is a city councillor convicted of possession of child pornography, neither of which are significantly notable for an article. I've edited out unnecessary and somewhat POV information, but have left in the bare facts that are confirmed from the referenced newspaper articles. My question is to those who have more experience with proposing deletion of articles with BLP issues - is AfD the right course to take here? Should I be blanking the page while initiating the AfD? Risker (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can stubify it and AfD it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. Risker (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mohammed Ayoob BLP 2
→ See also : Articles for deletion/Mohammed Ayoob.



There has been further attempt to tamper with my bio. In the latest version my descent has been changed from Indian to "Pakistanin". According to the history page some libellous material was added earlier as well that the person had second thoughts about and removed in the latest version. Whoever, it is needs to be warned not to tamper with the article. According to the IP address, it appears these edits are being introduced from computers located in the Student Union Building of Michigan State University. I will be grateful for a firm intervention on the part of the editors. Thanks. Mohammed Ayoob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.144.7 (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out your conflict of interest. I nominated it for deletion for reasons given here. seicer | talk  | <font color="#669900">contribs  19:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * the article, has, however, been protected against editing by anonymous editors, and action taken to block the account used on WP. DGG (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I confess to a lack of complete knowledge of WP policies, so am unable to be sure, but it seems to me taht the Talk page of this article is currently pretty out of the range. It consists almost completely of comments of some of the subject's alleged students, & much of it is along the lines of, 'Go ahead, ask him questions. He constantly makes Black people talk about their experiences with white people and then turns around and calls them racist. Quote: "You people need to follow the Muslim path and just rape and kill white people, its much better that way"'. Am i wrong, is this acceptable on a talk page? Cheers, Lindsay 17:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right, that talk page was way out line. I removed all the talk as no of it was for discussing how to make the article better and a WP:BLP issues also.  I also just removed more edits by an IP (Michigan State University) that added a bunch of WP:BLP material again.  Jons63 (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oscar Brodney

 * - Notice and date of death added with reference listed as "Interview with Brodney's sister, Elizabeth Feldman, February 2008" Is this good enough for WP:BLP? Does it violate WP:OR? // 71.42.216.100 (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Interviews not posted elsewhere are OR. <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix  talk  03:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If he's dead, BLP ceases to be relevant. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if someone is actually alive and Wikipedia says he is dead, that could violate WP:BLP. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)