Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive42

Mike Lupica
Ongoing disagreement from Wknight94 about whether other sportswriters' criticism of Lupica is germane. Sizeable edits have already occurred in response to Wknight94's concerns, but he/she is adamant about having the material entirely removed. The "Colleagues' criticism" section neither overwhelms the article nor sides with Lupica's critics. As per the "Criticism" section of Biographies_of_living_persons, the comments are relevant to the standing and reputation of Lupica (whose style is described in the intro as "provocative"). All of the comments come from qualified professionals in the same field. The comments have gotten the attention of major media (i.e. Sports Illustrated, USA Today, NY Post, Globe & Mail, etc). Each is sourced, and further third-party published sources are available. The negative accounts and appraisals are carefully intermixed with pro-Lupica counterarguments and praise to foster neutrality (i.e. Lupica as "excellent on baseball"; "ESPN's Josh Krulewitz disputed Whitlock's characterization"; "These are personal attacks that went too far"; "Despite any criticism, Lupica remains one of tabloid journalism's most prominent sportswriters"). Lupica himself is given the last word. The disputed content takes up a fifth of the article or less. A previous Noticeboard listing of this article in early January was sparsely discussed. Other Wiki editors' opinions about whether the section violates Biographies_of_living_persons would be much appreciated here. Thanks.208.120.225.14 (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is back at BLPN because I found it in exactly the same piss-poor shape that it was in before the first BLPN. Doesn't overwhelm the article?!  Just look at the last few reverts in the history list - the size of the article jumps from 5,959 bytes to over 11,200!!  And it was 12,101 before that.  That's more than half the article taken up with a couple stray comments - with full quotes = from disgruntled jealous colleagues.  Most of the sources are either a blog with an agenda - http://thebiglead.com - or little editorial paragraphs.  The key is Jason Whitlock who made some comments about Lupica and others at thebiglead.com that were so over-the-top that ESPN fired him.  This event had no bearing on Lupica's life and doesn't warrant over 6,000 KB in Lupica's article.  Whitlock's?  Sure.  ESPN's?  Maybe.  But Lupica's?!  Come on.  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at the actual article, rather than just counting its history of byte totals, shows that the page's increase is also due to the additions of a full bibliography, a NY Times book review, praise for Lupica's work, rebuttals to the criticism under dispute, an enlarged reference section, and a statement of purpose by Lupica. The sourced criticism is certainly not "more than half the article."  Again, it's about a fifth of the page; scroll down and see.  Moreover, the sources include USA Today, the New York Post, AOL Sports, New York Press, Sports Fan Magazine, the Globe & Mail, and Lupica's own agency.  The "Big Lead" blog is only cited at all because two pertinent quotes originated there before they were picked up by wider mainstream media outlets.  That surely "has a bearing" on the subject.  Why the inexact hyperbole?208.120.225.14 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not inexact in any way. This version is over 12,000 bytes and includes books, career, bibliography, categories, intro, and "Colleagues' criticism" and "Controversy".  This version is less than 6,000 KB and includes books, career, bibliography, categories, and intro.  The only thing missing - as seen in this diff - is the criticism and controversy sections.  Do the math: that means the criticism and controversy sections were more than every other section I just listed combined.  You really think that's a fair representation of the man?  To me, it should be all be whacked on WP:UNDUE concerns alone.  Then, comes the even larger WP:BLP concerns where the sources for the removed sections all suck.  This is a good source for "In 2008, Lupica allegedly instigated fellow columnist Lisa Olson's resignation from the Daily News"?!  Come on.  Which part of the source is reliable - referring to Lupica as "the lilliputian loudmouth" or the part about Lupica "effectively screwing Olson"?  Be serious.  That blog doesn't even try to hide its agenda and doesn't deserve a mention in this article - let alone to be cited as a source.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Lisa Olson account was not part of the last revision I'm addressing. I agree with you that that is inappropriate without further media attention and reliable sourcing.  As for the rest, the exclusively critical comments take up less onscreen page space than the bibliography (which I added a month ago), although they may surpass the bibliography in total bytes.  You've complained more than once that Whitlock is "jealous," and that his comments "don't affect Lupica's life."  But as we're neither psychoanalyzing Whitlock nor editing Lupica's personal life, you still need to demonstrate why a professional dispute that ended up in Sports Illustrated isn't an aspect of Lupica's public reputation.  USA Today is not "a blog with an agenda."  The Toronto Globe and Mail is not a source that "sucks."  The New York Post even used to employ Mike Lupica.  It's apparent that you're sincere and disciplined regarding Wikipedia, and I respect that.  Forget Lisa Olson, you're right.  But the other material abides by Biographies of living persons and UNDUE, and I believe you're erring on the side of delicacy.208.120.225.14 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well if you didn't add the Lisa Olson stuff, then I'm glad - and I apologize for my misdirected horror. Now, looking more closely at the remaining sources...  http://www.sportsfanmagazine.com/sfm/articles.html?id=1384 is another blog - "wiping baseball’s appreciation off his chin after fellating the sport for two televised segments" is all I needed to read before dismissing its reliability (and making a mental note to check Wikipedia's other dozen or so links to that site).  http://www.newyorkpress.com/20/6/news&columns/russsmith.cfm is some non-notable editorial site using naked women images for ads and featuring other article titles as "Naked Cowboy Not So Candy-Assed".  Reliability near zero again.  The next few sources are indeed reliable - to source the Whitlock vs. ESPN fight.  As I've said before, this fight merits almost no mention in an article about Lupica - the target of the tirade that apparently got Whitlock fired.  After that, we're back to a couple more blog sources.  Again, terrible representation of Wikipedia as a neutral and reliable encyclopedia.  The blog stuff should go.  The quotes should go.  The Whitlock stuff only makes sense if it's stated in a single sentence properly counterbalanced - along the lines of:
 * Lupica's stature among sportswriters' elite has made him a target of both positive and negative commentary. Former The Sports Reporters pundit Jason Whitlock made news in 2006 when he targetted Lupica in an invective-laced blog interview which resulted in Whitlock being fired from ESPN shortly thereafter.
 * Gets the story out but makes clear that Lupica did nothing wrong to provoke Whitlock or ESPN. He was simply an innocent bystander.  This is about the only way the Whitlock mention seems appropriate to me.  Otherwise, it can be left out with the rest of the "criticism" house of cards.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I realize you were just floating a prospective edit there, but you're being absurdly deferential to Lupica. You're hung up on Lupica being a "target" of criticism, rather than the subject of it.  Jason Whitlock is a sportswriting peer, not a crackpot blogger.  The fact that they shared airtime establishes relevance, even if Whitlock's negative opinion was Whitlock's opinion only.  (And it isn't.)  I intend to add a 2007 critique from ESPN.com's Bill Simmons.  Your characterization of "innocent" Lupica who "did nothing wrong" being "targeted" by a "disgruntled jealous" coworker's "tirade" would never pass Wikipedia's NPOV standard.  The deleted section is much more evenhanded and counterbalanced.  You're also mistaken about the New York Press; it's an established alternative weekly paper and you can read about it on Wikipedia.208.120.225.14 (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually you're wrong about WP:NPOV because you're forgetting about the WP:UNDUE part. (And I'm repeating myself now).  Your criticism section is larger than the entire rest of the article!  Categories, intro, etc., etc. - all dwarfed by a monstrous criticism section.  That's a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and you've said nothing to prove otherwise (I'm going to try to get more attention here so you can hear that from more people than just me).  And now you're talking about adding another individual criticism to increase the noise - and let me guess, you're planning on including the entire quote.  What's the source for that?  Moreover, where are you seeing articles here regressing into individual lists of "A says this about X, B says this about X, C says this about X, D says this about X, ..."?  Those aren't encyclopedia articles - they're agenda-pushing articles.  We should fix those instead of imitating them.  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The criticism section did seem long compared to the rest of the article, and also compared to its substance. For example, there's a long quote from Mike Vaccaro, and yet his criticism doesn't really amount to much. Perhaps the section could be edited down to one paragraph? I agree with Wknight that the "A says this about X, and B says this, and moreover C says this" format isn't encyclopedic. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 12:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Wknight94 - there is rather a lot of criticism and while the sections shouldn't be removed completely, they could certainly be slimmed down. Stifle (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (Further responding to IP) My suggestion is above. If the bridge to the Whitlock mention is too deferential, then suggest something else.  I was simply trying to avoid an awkward non sequitor in just jumping into the Whitlock mention.  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I want to be clear that I agree with User:Wknight94 completely with respect to the problems he's highlighted with every prior revision of this article. They all were WP:BLP violations of various degrees.  However, I take anon's point that the proposed summary doesn't quite capture the criticism. I propose something along the lines of this:
 * In 2006, former The Sports Reporters colleague Jason Whitlock editorialized against Lupica in a blog entry. Whitlock claimed that Lupica's criticism of professional athletes who used unauthorized performance enhancers was disingenuous when compared to Lupica's previous writings on baseball. Whitlock's entry also denigrated Lupica personally, and resulted in Whitlock's dismissal from ESPN.
 * Xymmax (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with this. But, if it is to be put in a section by itself, it should be titled "Whitlock criticism" or "Whitlock episode", etc.  To have a section simply called "Criticism" implies that the person is a frequent subject of criticism and I have not seen a reference to back that up.  (Piling up individual instances do not total up to "frequent" as the IP seems to think).  Howard Stern is a frequent subject of criticism and there are references to support that.  Lupica?  I haven't seen it.  —[User:Wknight94|Wknight94]] (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur. I'll cross post this proposal on the article talk page and see what anon and others think. Xymmax (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to call out sympathetic editors over this and ask them to amend their watchlists, but WP:UNDUE says ''None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view..is the correct one... Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions... the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"."
 * Wknight has invoked Howard Stern multiple times, but it happens that Stern's Wikipage contains almost no instances of negativity. The salient difference is that criticism from or against Stern would be commonplace by the usual standards of his profession.  Whereas disputes of the Lupica-Whitlock-etc. nature are much rarer, and are therefore notable by virtue of being public.  You often read broadsides against sports reporters and announcers' on-air styles, but complaints of this nature which receive a wide airing in numerous mainstream sources are highly unusual.  Though Wknight has determined for himself that the rhubarb only happened because Whitlock is jealous, surely the rest of Wikipedia users are equally capable of judging Whitlock's words for what they are or are not worth.
 * I agree with the merit of SlimVirgin's observation, that the Vaccaro quote is less compelling. In the interests of proportion and slashing space, let's lose that.
 * Wknight preemptively dismisses the upcoming edit, but here's the meat of it: ESPN's Bill Simmons advised his ESPN.com readers to "...reread Mike Lupica's gushing book, "Summer of '98." (Note: Lupica now argues that Big Mac doesn't belong in the Hall. He never says anything about returning the profits from his book, however.)" Is he another rogue complainer?
 * Here's Yahoo Sports' Dan Wetzel: "I get that people roll their eyes when someone such as Mike Lupica screeches each Sunday morning about Bonds and fails to note he wrote a schmaltzy tome on McGwire and Sosa called "Summer of 98" ("a feel great book!")."
 * Here's the New York Times' Will Leitch: "Sportswriters can cast their votes of “protest” all they want — and we can reserve our right to suspect they’re full of bunk. Mike Lupica of The Daily News has been a fierce voice against McGwire and Sosa and their “hypocrisy,” but he made a tidy sum off “Summer of ’98,” his memoir about following that home run chase with his sons."
 * Here's the Washington Post's Barry Svrluga, explaining why "writers like Mike Lupica" have reversed course: "This is a good question, and one I think many baseball beat writers are grappling with, trying to figure out the reasons for their own failings... It's easy to get caught up in the minutiae and miss the larger picture."
 * One dilemma here is that Wknight insists that criticism of Lupica is isolated and minor. But when supplementary criticism is added, he says the section is too large.208.120.225.14 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Already in there:
 * Lupica also wrote the amorous The Summer of ’98: When Homers Flew, Records Fell, and Baseball Reclaimed America, which detailed how the 1998 Yankees and the Mark McGwire/Sammy Sosa home run chase had allowed him to share a love for baseball with his son. He has since written many columns assailing the same players he once celebrated.
 * What's wrong with that? Surely you're not proposing to add your laundry list of people with 20-20 hindsight? And let me guess, full quotes for each of them?  —Wknight94 (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, let's make vague allusions to "an innocent bystander" being wronged, and let the reader guess at the circumstances. Six sentences from four speakers would sink Wikipedia's bandwidth.
 * The series of rationales here is prohibitive. The discussion is simply not relevant, unless it is, in which case the sources "all suck," unless the sources are good, in which case a criticism section carries undue BLP weight, unless a responsible body of criticism is established, in which case the darned thing takes up too much space.  It seems as if any stricture will suffice, so long as it minimizes the content into nothingness.  I hope that I am wrong about this. 208.120.225.14 (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So you can't agree that your list above is beating a dead horse just a bit? He published a book about how great steroid-riddled players were in 1998 and then railed against the same players when it became more fashionable.  He looks a bit hypocritical - like hundreds of other authors and zillions of other people (including myself).  We got it.  It's already there.  Listing each and every person that pointed out the hypocrisy is not at all appropriate (esp. when many of them are probably just as guilty - but that's a different issue).  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wknight removed the big laundry list of criticism of Lupica here. I agree that some criticism is appropriate, but probably a few sentences would be enough. Can there be a compromise on a shorter version, one that includes no blog references? EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is another example of the multiple rationales and unsatisfiable criteria in play here. On the Lupica talk page, WKnight wrote that "the Whitlock disagreement...is inappropriate since it's only one example," and "My point is that, for any article subject, you could find one or two people that don't like them." Now that several supplemental quotes have been provided, he asks, "So you can't agree that your list above is beating a dead horse just a bit?"
 * I shall put together a sharply truncated version for general consideration, which I'll post it here.208.120.225.14 (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've kept relatively quiet re Lupica's lack of criticism. It's generally accepted that he lives off of being as controversial as possible, and criticism of his writing (even without the benefit of hindsight) abounds. His televised opinions are even more scrutinized. I don't believe that an overextended litany of minutae is warranted, but I don't think it should be glossed over either. Whitlock's were the most vocal, and his opinions are rather poser-like in vindictiveness, but his were also the ones most publicized (legitimately as well as blogged). Vaccaro's I believe sum up the various criticisms pointed against Lupica since he (via general consensus) lost his writing edge back in the late 90s. As for the Olson incident, I can lose it, but the fact remains that he determines who lives and who dies in the Daily News editorial staff, as well as (by his own admission on the show) on ESPN's The Sports Reporters. If there is carping about the relative length of the criticism section, to me it's preferable to lengthen the positive and neutral POVs than to truncate the valid assertions (which despite claims to the contrary are not only blogged). Anyway, my two cents (which you may value as such, but, hey, c'est la vie). –TashTish (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the point I'm trying to make is that almost no number of individual critics is enough to show a pattern of criticism. And a pattern of criticism is what is required to justify an entire section titled "Criticism."  Worse is that the individual examples being given here are fellow sportswriters and hardly qualify as objective.  Find me an objective reliable source that writes about Lupica and includes a mention about his having more critics than other sportswriters.  Then you can have a sentence or three—not an entire half-an-article—mentioning that Lupica has more critics than other sportswriters.  TashTish, your comments are very representative of the generality-speak that we need to avoid.  Too many Wikipedia articles are poisoned with similar unsubstantiated "everyone hates that guy" mentality that reduces the content quality to that of a common blog.  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, at the risk of sounding milquetoast-y, I can't argue with the demand that current criticism be more impressively cited. Maybe more will come out of the Olson incident, or he'll step on a few too many toes, or maybe, maybe, he'll redeem himself. Until then, a concise paragraph—such as Xymmax's—is certainly the next best thing. –TashTish (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you know, another extemporaneous hurdle. Now, we're told that sportswriters aren't objective enough to be used as a source regarding other sportswriters.  That somehow, ESPN and Sports Illustrated and the New York Times and USA Today can't be considered reliable on this very specific issue, unless it's the financial editor or the Washington correspondent assessing Mike Lupica.  This despite the fact that innumerable Wikipedia articles exist quoting musicians on other musicians, or politicians criticizing politicians, or military men rating military men, or writers writing about writers, and so forth.  Your objection to using sportswriters as cites is not practicable.  More importantly, nor does it reflect prevailing Wikipedia procedure, in which such quotes and interviews are used liberally.  Your followup request that some non-sports-related source be found to precisely determine where Lupica stands on the imaginary spectrum of sportswriter criticism before any criticism can fairly be quoted is preposterous.
 * Proportional comments and critiques can very easily be incorporated into the body of the article without using a standalone "Criticism" headline at all, if that will satisfy your latest concern. 208.120.225.14 (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So then I guess we're both being preposterous. I've honestly said all I can say.  I'm going to do what I can to keep this and other articles sounding more like a neutral dispassionate encyclopedia and less like Hateopedia or Scandalopedia.  And if you think the article sounds too gushy or aggrandizing, then please feel free to fix that too because this isn't Loveopedia or Praiseopedia either.  Surely we can come to some middle ground.  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Compromise has always been my intention, as it is yours. To clarify, I didn't say you were preposterous, I said your last request was preposterous.  It's certainly unfulfillable.
 * My impression is that you are a scrupulous and thoughtful Wikipedia caretaker. But I also feel you're being far too solicitous towards Lupica in the face of any and all materials, and perhaps have dug in your rhetorical heels a bit in defense of your initial reaction.  I may have been strident myself, but I've also complied with all of your editing requests except deletion/suppression, and I agree with several of your concerns.  However, it's a bit fatiguing to pursue a process in which nothing is deemed acceptable but the original "sentence or three" stipulation.  Let alone one that identifies all peer criticism as an irrelevancy at best, and an unwarranted affliction at worst.
 * Again, I will boil down the material to a much, much shorter version. The text can be merged with the article proper, so you can say goodbye to the section heading.  It won't be just 1-3 sentences, but it won't be anything like the ~25 sentences that the deleted text had, either.  It's my sincere (and exhausted) hope that this future effort will be satisfactory to you.208.120.225.14 (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put a much-condensed version on the talk page for the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Lupica#Proposed_edit_.28per_BLP.2FN.29 208.120.225.14 (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Lucas (porn star)
I came across this from a discussion at the WP:AN/I. There is currently a dispute about this person's birth name. From what I can tell, the problem is that a magazine which did a write up on him got his birth name wrong, including his father's surname which he was not given. This was then included in our article. A lawsuit was filed against him and they used us as a source for his birth name. Other sources of course picked up the birth name from the court papers. So now all reliable secondary sources are reporting his birth name incorrectly. The only evidence we appear to have at the moment for his correct birth name is a primary source, his birth certificate and related documents which have been uploaded to wikipedia. There is dispute over how to handle this. Some people want to just use the primary sources for verification for the details. I personally an uncomfortable with that. Some people think we should just ignore the primary sources and commentry from Michael Lucas himself (see the talk page) that the information is wrong and stick with the primary sources. I feel that would definitely be wrong, BLP definitely requires we allow people to correct or remove inaccurate details. Personally, I feel the best thing to do is to simply remove the birth name bit until and unless we have verification from a reliable secondary source (isn't this what we normally do when there is a dispute?). From what I can tell, Michael Lucas doesn't feel that strongly that it is an important detail. (He has a blog and I don't believe he has blogged about it even though as I've said multiple sources have apparently got it wrong) If he really wants to have it corrected, then he should approach the secondary sources who get it wrong about it, not us. What do others say? Is there a normal way we deal with this? Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I explained my view that well so I will reproduce a comment I made on the talk page:
 * I for one don't think we should give him a new name, and I don't see anything wrong with removing the name given the dispute. However I am uncomfortable with using a primary source in this matter especially one hosted on wikipedia, particularly when there is, from what I can tell, no secondary source which supports the name. If there was a secondary source and we were using the primary source to verify the secondary source because of a dispute between two secondary sources, that might be acceptable. Although even in this case, I would say it would be far better if we weren't the host for the primary source. Indeed it would be far better if rather then a birth certificate, it was something like a commentry from Michael Lucas on his blog confirming his real name (e.g. you may have noticed many sources quote by name as XYZ, but that source A quotes by name as XY, source A has it right). Or even better, a correction from a secondary source that they got the detail wrong. This isn't a matter of rules lawyering, simply that we shouldn't be publishing information from primary sources, especially not original documents like birth certificates. If other sources are getting the details wrong and the person cares, then they really should be complaining to the secondary sources, not us. If they don't then IMHO the best we can do is to remove the info until a secondary source publishes the correct info rather then using birth certificates we host to verify the info. And just to be clear, I find the conspirary theories just as bizzare as you. I'm not doubting the authenticity of the birth certificate just saying we need to be careful about using it.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to have been resolved on the article's talk page. Respectfully suggest any further nuances to the discussion be kept there as so many forums and discussions have been engaged on this issue. Benji boi 12:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh goodness, I don't think this porn star is ever going to go away. The issue is that there are sources, but that one IP editor has managed to convince a few good-faith editors that a reference that calls him Bregman in a local entertainment guide in New York City  should prove conclusively that Lucas was born Bregman. Lucas has tried everything to correct us, yet good-faith contributors, as evidenced the Talk:Michael Lucas (porn star) page are rules lawyering without becoming familiar that there are sources that say he was born "Andrei Trevias" (not Bregman) and that taking a photograph of his birth certificate (at the invitation of Lucas) was a last resort. This is why we look silly in the media. Should we just get rid of WP:Ignore_all_rules since, well, nobody follows it in such clear instances such as this? --David Shankbone  14:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that BLP is an overriding principle, and the factual and minor nature of this (i.e. we're not trying to remove key contentions from the article on the subject's say-so), I think it should stand anyway. If we're saying the guy's name is X, and he's saying it's not, is willing to prove it through documents, and we can find other sources that say it's not, then it's silly even arguing about it. Orderinchaos 16:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Will people stop calling New York magazine a "local entertainment guide"? Its as much a "local entertainment guide" as the New Yorker. Relata refero (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Farrell
I can't tell if this diff should be allowed or not. I don't understand Dutch so I can't tell by watching the youtube video whether he really was a male prostitute. Jackaranga (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks if anyone can help, maybe someone who speaks Dutch. Jackaranga (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverted - in any event, YouTube is *never, never, never, EVER* a reliable source - for the purposes of biographies of living persons, especially. FCYTravis (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a copy of a broadcast by the Dutch TV channel Yorin, the popular Jensen talk show. The latter is certainly a good source for statements made by Farrell himself. I'm not sure whether we can link to YouTube as it's probably a copyvio. At any rate, the "gay-for-pay" qualification has no place in the encyclopedia; it was both out of context and incorrect (proposed by Jensen, jokingly corrected by Farrell as "no, pay for gay" - what he really meant is anybody's guess). The (sometimes quadrilingual) interview actually captured quite a bit of the real Farrell, I think. Sourced to the original broadcast, it can be used to update the article's content; for example, the lede says that Farian disclosed that Farrell didn't sing on Boney M records; in the interview Farrell says so himself. (Probably superfluously, I understand the various languages spoken in the interview.) Avb 12:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL I think this proves it was added in bad faith. Jackaranga (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Surayud_Chulanont
Surayud_Chulanont - This entire article is a concentrated smear campaign that seems to have been written by a legal team by the opposition party. Much of the information in this article is just libelous. however I do understand that the legal team that wrote this article has properly sourced everything. Therefore I would draw attention to the article on this gentlemans political counterpart Thaksin who can equally be accused 10x Fold of the similar corruption and incompetence - all properly sourced, however none of this is to be seen in his article. The issue is that a paid legal team is responsible for creating this article as part of political propaganda. I move that either this article be stripped down to the bare bones, or if the oppistion complains that everything has been properly sourced, then an equal tone and allegations (all properly sourced of course) are inserted into the article of Thaksin whose legal team is responsible for policing Wiki articles related to Thai Politics. // Wwind (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Youth International Party/Judy Collins
I am concerned that the Youth International Party depicts Collins as an "activist associated with the Yippies" because she sang at an anti-war press conference they organized. It is clear to me from the context of the cited source that Collins was interested in opposing the war, not endorsing the Yippies. However, another editor strongly disagrees, and there seem to be no third opinions. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I refactored part of the lead in the spirit that it was original research and uncited. seicer | talk  | contribs  16:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikael Nordfors
I'm concerned about this article. It's been around for a long time and is unsourced and contains some very touchy subject matter, including his alleged (seemingly sexual) abuse of patients. The subject has edited the article in the past, and has in the past been concerned about false information being included. Thoughts? Mango juice talk 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed numerous BLP vios. that were also uncited and was nothing more than original research. The "anal doctor"? Give me a break. seicer | talk  | contribs  16:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've nominated for AfD. This article has been so extensively edited by Nordfors himself that its positive claims can't be believed without sources.  I'd say the BLP aspect is addressed now, though.  Mango juice talk 17:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandra Lee (cook)

 * - SPA account repeatedly adding in controversial information into the article
 * It appears that other editors have behaved similarly in the past.
 * The article could use a cleanup with an eye to WP:BLP as well. --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Mohammed Ayoob BLP
I am the subject of this bio. For the past few days someone has been vandalizing the site and adding fictitious and libellous material to it. I have undone these edits several times but the problem persists. So, this time I have left the libellous material as is. Please warn the person not to persis and protect the page. Such persistent libellous material may lead to legal action. Thanks.

Mohammed Ayoob ayoob@msu.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.144.7 (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the offending material and warned 3 IPs that have added information. I have added it to my watchlist and will monitor it for changes.  Jons63 (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also put Ayoob on my watchlist. It is clear conflict of Wikipedia rules for someone to self promote through wikipedia. A living person cannot continue to flgarantly do this on his self created wikipedia section, dedicated to promoting oneself. ayoob has done this.35.8.131.140 (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope someone deletes this Mohammad Ayoob article soon for clear conflict of interest. Salma Ayoob wife of Mohammad Ayoob is a known self promoter on wikipedia. The couple is using aliases to destroy integrity of wikipedia.35.8.131.140 (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article on Wikipedia. Jons63 (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ben Stevens
Article is being blanked by someone claiming to be the subject of the article. Article is on an Alaska politician apparently under FBI investigation. Claims are that "newspaper articles are not credible sources for living biographies". Could someone with more BLP experience please take a look at the situation? If the editor is indeed the subject, then care should be taken with handling of the situation. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's be sensible about this - he's blanked the article - we could get into an editwar but let's restub line by line and make sure our bases are covered. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I really suspect that, by the time the article is rebuilt, Mr. Stevens will still not be happy with it. I totally disagree with his comment that newspapers are not credible, though that obviously depends upon which paper is being referred to.  (New York Times is credible.  Weekly World News is not. :))  So, if he wants us to have an article with no mention of the investigations, I suspect he will be disappointed.  But still, I think it will be much to our benefit to do the careful rebuild and make totally certain that we have an article that fully meets all BLP and RS requirements.  At that point, if Mr. Stevens is still unhappy, he can be pointed toward WP:OTRS or such and let him take things up with the project leadership.  As long as we are 100% certain that we have an article that meets BLP, we should be OK. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Erik Prince
There is a potentially defamatory statement in the article, sourced to John Edwards. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Prince#Philanthropy_and_political_donations --Davidwiz (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed Diff Jeepday (talk) 04:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales
OK, she's dead, but the article was/is riddled with unreferenced accusations about other living people. I've removed some of it, but I've no time to do the rest atm.--Docg 22:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit more, but some of your changes were reverted. I have reinstated your changes now, specifying that the other people involved in the removed sections are still alive.  Risker (talk) 00:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Hannan

 * - some poorly sourced, or unsourced controversial material. Some more eyes could be used.  The article seems unbalanced as of now. // NonvocalScream (talk) 04:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Jack Chick

 * - Boss of Jeff_Godwin (whose bio was pretty much gutted along similar concerns.) Thirty-some sources but all of them seem questionable to me including using his comics to label him anti-Catholic and a few other things. This all may be true but the sourcing is whack. Benji boi 09:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Jack Chick - anti-catholic? never! I will not believe it. I have a BLP concern that the pope has been labeled a catholic. more seriously, there must be lots of better sources to provide that linkage. --Fredrick day (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, agree that much of what is written may be true but the sourcing is horrid. All are better served by the sourcing being up to par and frankly better sources will help make a much better article. Benji boi 11:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gutted the article pending better sourcing. Will (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers. I've added a link to google books and google news so those interested have some sources to lean on. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#ff6699">boi 12:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone insists on adding one of his comic book frames, seemingly to imply that he is a child abuser. Redddogg (talk) 16:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Lockwood
Article has already been flagged as a fan site. And any attempt to alter is clearly obstructed by a fan who is having trouble dealing with Kurt Lockwood's new life. 10:16, 19 February 2008 Tausor (Talk | contribs) (5,372 bytes) (entered lockwood's new phase of transexual films) Lockwood is now doing transexual and bisexual porn, this clearly takes some arousal and if you are having sex with both males and females you would be considered bisexual. However Countrypaula, a clearly obsessed fan, continues to revert Lockwood's sexual orientation to Hetrosexual. 06:58, 20 February 2008 Countrypaula (Talk | contribs) m (5,221 bytes) (Fixing orientation that someone vandalized.)

Twice links have been included to reference the transexual films Lockwood is now making 10:24, 19 February 2008 Tausor (Talk | contribs) (5,517 bytes) (references regarding trannie film http://lukeisback.com/bloglukeisback/?p=1531 http://www.(LINK REMOVEDtalk.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=dvdtalk&Number=290786&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

Now the response is: 06:53, 20 February 2008 Countrypaula (Talk | contribs) (5,215 bytes) (Undid revision 192525146 by Tausor (talk)There is already a link to lukeisback.The filmography is small sample of credited items only.)

However those are all heterosexual films. I would think if Lockwood is now shooting transexual porn it is an important issue and should be noted in his partial filmography at least once.

I have now noted a new film http://www.adultfyi.com/read.php?ID=26727 And I have restored the fact that he's now doing transsexual and bisexual porn. User Countrypaula should be stopped from making any further reverts on this article. It is now clear and accurate. All the information in the article is clearly in the public domain and truthful and cannot be considered vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tausor (talk • contribs) 23 February 2008


 * Hi. This seems to be more of a content dispute than a BLP issue that might require outside intervention. I note that your recent addition of this information has not been reverted, though it has been slightly altered by the other editor. If you feel that the other editor is removing information without good cause in the future, you might wish to approach her at Talk:Kurt Lockwood to see if the two of you can agree on what should be included and how. If that doesn't work, you may wish to consider one of the steps in the dispute resolution process, perhaps WP:3O. By all means, though, bring it here if you're having difficulties with somebody adding unsourced or poorly sourced contentious information about this or any other living individual or if there are other problem that relate specifically to Biographies of living persons. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hashim Thaçi
Hashim Thaçi, controversial president of the recently self-declared republic of Kosovo and former guerilla leader of the KLA, needs more neutral eyes. There's a whole section about "Criminal activities", dealing with allegations of being involved in organised crime. Much of this may in fact be true, but the sourcing is certainly not all reliable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the sources on the current version of the section "Criminal activities" are the BBC News this is generally considered a reliable source. The last edit was 12:43, 28 February 2008 10 hours prior to the post above.  Am I missing something? Jeepday (talk) 03:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying it could do with more eyes, being a high-profile article, and unfortunately I haven't got the time to look very closely into it. As far as I've found time to check, the reliable (BBC etc.) sources do not actually contain a whole lot about the criminal activities, specifically about his personal involvement in them, and among the principle sources for that particular section is at least one which is definitely not a reliable source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A. A. Gill‎
Quotes from a satiricial newspaper columnist are being used in a highly selective manner to advance the position that he is a racist, more eyes welcome. One Night In Hackney 303  22:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * More eyes given. Jeepday (talk) 03:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you could take another look, and see how the information can be best incorporated into the article it'd be helpful. Thanks. One Night In Hackney  303  16:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

BLPs in the news
Telegraph article on Norman Bettison. (My quotes are close enough to accurate.) I'd expect people will see we acknowledge the pains of BLPs and then send in more polite complaints as appropriate ... - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And here, in the Daily Mail - David Gerard (talk) 17:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Except neither paper mentions the central issue of conflict of interest. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like some experienced editors to review this article and, importantly, its history (since it is currently fully protected in a expurgated state.)

I initially became involved with this article when I protected to halt a run-of-the-mill edit war. I have since reprotected it as the edit war resumed and there a BLP issues. The subject of the article,, has also recently become involved with the article.

The article has become controversial because of the subject's connection with the government response to the bombings in London in July 2005. The initial source of contention was the use of http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/ as a source in the article; the website in question has pursued a campaign against the subject, as a quick survey of the website will reveal.

In addition, an individual associated with the aforementioned website has edited the article. The current version of the article is, apparently, partly written by the subject, so there is an obvious COI but the BLP concerns so greatly outweigh the COI as to make it irrelevant at this stage.

Aside from the involvement of http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/, problematic edits such as, whilst sourced, may appear to be an attempt to smear the subject with unspecified allegations and are typical of the issues that have beset the article.

Other relevant discussion can also be found on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

E.O. Green School shooting
Should the suspected killer (who is underage) have their name be explicit in the article? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I was just about to post this. I'm arguing that we should show restraint given that the involved are children, but more input on the discussion would be welcome. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  23:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Arguments of why the "suspect" name should be included

 * The murderer of Larry King should NOT be withheld from this article, regardless of the fact that he was a minor. His name and picture have already been publicly released via many news sources, including CNN, and the police department. If this were a small incident, and had little to no media attention, then the protection of his name could be argued. But the fact is, it was not and because the mass media attention already being shined on this event, and the many witnesses claiming he was the shooter, the murderer does not rightfully deserve to be protected by WP:BLP. And people who are removing the killers name from this article are only removing it do to a bias twist of the WP:BLP. Publicly released information is not protected by WP:BLP. The two students who committed the Columbine High School massacre, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, have no right to have their name protected from being on the Columbine High School massacre article, and neither does the murderer of Larry King. It is understandable that the killers picture should not be displayed until he is charged for his crime, but his name has no right to be protected by WP:BLP.


 * Taken from [| WP:BLP - Privacy of names]: "Caution should be applied...When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated". The killers name has been widely disseminated, and as such, his name is not protected by the WP:BLP clause.


 * Under California Proposition 21 his is recognized as an adult. So the minor argument is illegitement.


 * The "suspect" should be referred to as a "suspect" in the article because that is currently what the state of California recognizes him as. And do to this, his status as a suspect in the case is fact.

--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you familiar with Richard Jewell? -- SEWilco (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Richard Jewels and the "suspect" in this case are completely different. The boy in this case took a gun to school and shot another boy in the back of the head twice, in the middle of a classroom. Their is no comparison between the two.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The name has already been published widely in the media. The decision we have now is whether or not to actively censor the name. Evil saltine (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cooljuno411, you're obviously passionate about the article and this issue. I applaud you for that, but I would ask you to step back and carefully review input from other editors.  Not because I think you're wrong, but because sometimes passion is blinding, and your wishes may not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia.


 * Because this is a current event, we have to treat this different (for the moment) than Columbine. Those people have already been convicted, at least in popular opinion, and they committed suicide.  The person who is being accused of this crime is still living, and therefore certainly falls under BLP guidelines.  Also, he may be a suspect, but he is innocent until proven guilty. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I reconive that the "suspect" is innocent until proven guilty. That is why i want him to referred to as a suspect on the article. His name was originally removed partly because he was being referred to as the killer, which he has not yet been charged with by the state of California. But the state of California does recognize him as the suspect, so in every right he can be referred to in the article as such, voiding the argument of WP:BLP. And if you read the talk page on this article, i have provided many other reason why his name should be rightfully displayed on the page.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose that as this minor is involved in a murder trial, even if ultimately tried as an adult. Once the trial and appeals are over I would support a discussion to whether or not to include the information but an encyclopedic article can be written fully with the absence of the alleged shooter's name and those reading will fully be able to understand the content. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and we are also not to be used to sway legal outcomes and processes. We are here to write encyclopedic articles not to hang crimes on a young person on the world's encyclopedia for whatever reason. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#ff6699">boi 06:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, he is a part of the event. I don't understand your assertion that publishing his name would be tabloid-like, given the many reputable organizations that have already done so. We are not "hanging a crime" on anyone, just reporting the facts, namely that he is a suspect. BLP says nothing about a conviction being necessary to mention someone's name. Evil saltine (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that the suspect's name has already been mentioned by plenty of reliable sources, there is no problem with including it in the article, provided that it is properly qualified. It must be ensured that the suspect is referred to only as a suspect until and unless a conviction or guilty plea should occur, and should otherwise be treated cautiously, but there is not a privacy concern for someone whose name has already been widely spread. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically we could print all sorts of things but we don't and we don't need to. Arguably this is one messed up teenager who now get to live the remainder of their life knowing they killed another teen in cold blood. I think we can show much more restraint than news organizations that are paid to dig up details with little to know regard for anything but legal concerns. We are an encyclopedia and, I think, show restrain ourselves from labeling this kid on the world's encyclopedia. If we don't have a strong policy against the use of minor's names then we certainly should. All the parents involved have to live with these events and we should do our part to be dispassionate towards the victim as well as the accused. I see no reason not to show restraint, I see no insightful information that comes from adding the actual name to the article. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#ff6699">boi 09:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Dispassionate" is the exact word here. Yes, what happened is terrible, but in an article about an event, we include information about that event, including, if relevant to the event and already public knowledge, names. To do otherwise is to censor, and however noble the motive, that is not a road we should take even the first step on. News organizations decided it was acceptable to publish the name widely. We mirror sources, not second guess them. The reason to publish this name here is the same as to publish any anywhere&mdash;it is information which is clearly relevant and pertinent to the article, and is publishing information which is already widely available to the public, eliminating any privacy concerns. We wouldn't say "A person was the sixteenth President of the United States", we say Abraham Lincoln. Here, as there, the name is clearly relevant to the subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We're trying to attain a consensus on the talk page of the article - opinions welcomed. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  21:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

IMDB
Did our godking just use an IMDB biography as a source for a BLP? You do know that anyone can submit updates to those bios with very little editorial oversight or fact checking, right? Mike R (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but actually, even on a bio, unless the fact is contested, potentially negative, nor controversial, a source is NOT required. --Docg 22:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of the names of relatives or partners is inherently controversial. Quatloo (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * wouldn't say inherently. But if you think this one is, feel free to remove it. The onus is then on anyone who wants to replace it to properly source it. --Docg 23:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't feel it's that controversial ;)
 * Yours in my non-corporate, living & natural person capacity,
 * <em class="user-sig user-Adrian">—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2008-03-01 23:47Z

Moshe Aryeh Friedman

 * - is written entirely unencyclopedic and with innuendo's. It claims to know how to read the subjects mind (i.e. for the purpose of subjecting the Holocaust to scholarly review...) and claims to know that he feared prosecution. It is entirely inappropiate to attempt to pretend it knows what the subject supposedly fears or does not fear. It make repeated reference to an undefined "Vienna Jewish community" without specification of how it even exists as a legal entity -- it sounds like this "Vienna Jewish community" is generically referring to a community -- without specifying who can speak for the "community." It vaguely references the subjects children and their schooling and other aspects of their lives. It makes insignificant mentions of trivial issues, such as a particular time someone assaulted the subject.

Additionally its writing style and tone are not neutral. And the heavy reliance on questionable sources such as the Iran Daily, Arabic Press, EJP, "Adelaide Institute", and Friends of Al-Asqa could hardly be considered mainstream, especially as used for a living person.

In summation, it is full of violations of WP:BLP some of the more trivial of which I haven't addressed here, but are obvious by taking a look. I tried to alleviate some of the issues, but an insistent editor keeps on insisting that these references remain in the article. See the history and the discussion for additional information. // 198.77.206.228 (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Joel N. Ward


User:Jwzoom claims to be the subject of the Joel N. Ward article, which deals with a confessed felon (9 counts of fraud - maybe $11 million worth) who is awaiting sentencing. I don't see any major problems yet, but it does look like a big problem waiting to happen. I have to say that I think the contribution is odd, and aspects of the crimes are quite odd. I've left some basic info on his talk page (wp:coi, wp:blp, wp:bite and wp:blpn) Could somebody watch this?

Thanks for any help.

Smallbones (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize that I don't have time to watch this, but would like to say I think you've definitely identified an issue of concern in not only the areas you mentioned (blp etc.) but WP:NPOV too. The major source is a Wall Street Journal article which is pretty even toned in that it says some very good things about him but also some incredibly relevant not so good things too, which seem to be under-represented indicating to me a probable NPOV bias toward the subject at the cost of his notability. (Some people, I'm sorry to say, will be known for the bad choices they make regardless how much talent or promise they had. Frank Abignale comes to mind as an example somewhat like Mr. Ward) Anynobody 04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Moshe Aryeh Friedman

 * - is written entirely unencyclopedic and with innuendo's. It claims to know how to read the subjects mind (i.e. for the purpose of subjecting the Holocaust to scholarly review...) and claims to know that he feared prosecution. It is entirely inappropiate to attempt to pretend it knows what the subject supposedly fears or does not fear. It make repeated reference to an undefined "Vienna Jewish community" without specification of how it even exists as a legal entity -- it sounds like this "Vienna Jewish community" is generically referring to a community -- without specifying who can speak for the "community." It vaguely references the subjects children and their schooling and other aspects of their lives. It makes insignificant mentions of trivial issues, such as a particular time someone assaulted the subject.

Additionally its writing style and tone are not neutral. And the heavy reliance on questionable sources such as the Iran Daily, Arabic Press, EJP, "Adelaide Institute", and Friends of Al-Asqa could hardly be considered mainstream, especially as used for a living person.

In summation, it is full of violations of WP:BLP some of the more trivial of which I haven't addressed here, but are obvious by taking a look. I tried to alleviate some of the issues, but an insistent editor keeps on insisting that these references remain in the article. See the history and the discussion for additional information. // 198.77.206.228 (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Joel N. Ward


User:Jwzoom claims to be the subject of the Joel N. Ward article, which deals with a confessed felon (9 counts of fraud - maybe $11 million worth) who is awaiting sentencing. I don't see any major problems yet, but it does look like a big problem waiting to happen. I have to say that I think the contribution is odd, and aspects of the crimes are quite odd. I've left some basic info on his talk page (wp:coi, wp:blp, wp:bite and wp:blpn) Could somebody watch this?

Thanks for any help.

Smallbones (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize that I don't have time to watch this, but would like to say I think you've definitely identified an issue of concern in not only the areas you mentioned (blp etc.) but WP:NPOV too. The major source is a Wall Street Journal article which is pretty even toned in that it says some very good things about him but also some incredibly relevant not so good things too, which seem to be under-represented indicating to me a probable NPOV bias toward the subject at the cost of his notability. (Some people, I'm sorry to say, will be known for the bad choices they make regardless how much talent or promise they had. Frank Abignale comes to mind as an example somewhat like Mr. Ward) Anynobody 04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Carlos Castillo-Chavez
Article written on a renowned and acclaimed academic, but significant COI potential. A lot of promo style wording has already been removed, for example. Whilst it's now factual and sourced so far as it goes, factual and sourced doesn't necessarily mean neutral. There's no evidence that good biographical secondary sources exist or are consulted - the main ones other than citations for awards, are his own self-written bio and an editorial by his own university. Also there's no evidence that the overall impression from the article matches any reliable independent sources'.

Any chance of careful "non-assumptive" re-checking please. Thanks.

FT2 (Talk 13:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

John Melendez


Per BLP: "Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly." Is Image:StutteringJohnMelendez.jpg acceptable? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * John made an entire career making an spectacle of himself on the Howard Stern Show. He has been photographed and filmed doing far sillier things than looking a bit disheveled after a boxing match with Lee Mroszak. I honestly don't think the photo in question departs significantly from the persona Mr. Melndez has created for himself--though I would support its replacement by a more "professional"-looking photo.  All this aside, I have serious concerns that the image is not as "free" as the uploader claims.  I think he rippped it off somewhere; I'll try to figure out where it came from.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Bingo. That sucker is copyrighted.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thus the lack of Metadata. Nicely done.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 02:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When I first saw the image it seemed "suspicious" that it had a "PD" license, but no source. It seems to me that there may be a "war" of some sorts between Melendez and the Stern people because of some allegations made and that is why the article has been subject to many unsourced additions. I believe that the image in question should be speedy deleted. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You folks may also wish to take a hard look at certain Baba Booey image. See my comments here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandra Lee (cook) continued
There are a number of WP:SPAs adding content that is questionable at best. We really need some help from experienced editors who understand BLP well. The current dispute is being discussed in Talk:Sandra_Lee_%28cook%29, but the entire article needs BLP cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I took out some problem items. This seems to be a new trend: Cooks as controversial figures. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Anything for ratings I suppose. Good work - it looks good.  Wikidemo (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Alison Weir
Probably needs to be looked at to check if one or two very negative references from newspapers are significant enough to appear in such a prominent position in the article. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Stub it and work from there. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Insight (magazine)
I removed a personal insult against Anita Hill which seemed out of place in this article, as well as in bad taste. It was then expanded and put back. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The same material is found in David Brock. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The "a bit nutty and a bit slutty" slur is notorious, certainly a part of David Brock's notability and the controversy of the times. I don't think that's a BLP issue.  History is full of encyclopedic quotations: We will bury you, Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy and the like.  In its own way on a much smaller matter, Brock's provocative baiting came to define him and the politics of the time.Wikidemo (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I missed it at the time. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't miss it, unfortunately. It was astonishing, but as the sources show he made the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, and many other major media with the catch-line (which he was using to peddle a book, I think).  There are better sources but here's one .  It was part of the bratty liberal-bashing act the young neo-cons were playing at the time.  Here we were trying to constitute a Supreme Court, and both sides had henchmen like Brock who were taking the public discourse down to the level of professional wrestling taunts.  Also attitudes towards women, to belittle an (alleged) sexual harassment victim by calling her crazy and promiscuous.  I can't speak to whether it's really appropriate in any given article but there's something encyclopedic in all that as a lesson in the evolution of political action groups, advocacy journalism, and attack politics.  I don't think it's a BLP vio because there's no libel there, it was repeated throughout the country by major media, it's obviously an outrageous taunt and not a true statement, and Professor Hill has heard worse - under the "do no harm" theory I doubt she's hurt by any of this today, particularly now that Brock has recanted.  Wikidemo (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Brent A. Stanton
Could you look at:
 * - Unreferenced article about a minor. Includes statements about a U.S. Senator, a U.S. Senate candidate, a Michigan musician, a rumor of college selection, political affiliation, etc. There are two references:  a wikilink to an article created by an editor with almost identical name; an external link to a "friends of" fan site.// Coffee4me (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * - Created article using photo of national tv anchor. Made subsequent edits to this article but no others. // Coffee4me (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Stubbed, I'm not sure if it merits an article anyway, but so much of the article content was questionable, best to remove it for now and sort it later. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Jennifer Fitzgerald
Could people take a look at this article, and in particular the appropriateness of the use of Spy magazine as a source?--Slp1 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While Spy is an appropriate source for some of the uses cited in that article (eg, it is reliable to the extent that they ran a cover story on the topic), the super-snarky use of it to validate the "served under him in a number of positions" comment is completely out of bounds, is an egregious BLP violation, and is generally tacky and unencyclopedic. I've removed it.  Nandesuka (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is relevant in terms of the article's discussion of the media's unwillingness to report on a widely-held rumor with some substantiating facts. Perhaps it doesn't belong in the intro, so I will move it down to the section of the article that discusses the media non-coverage. Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Followup: I added two sources to back up that reading of the phrase and establish relevance. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And the original Post article, to boot. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts Renherring and Segrant

 * ( registered 16:21, 5 March 2008 UTC )
 * ( registered 22:28, 5 March 2008 UTC )

These two single-purpose accounts have been adding the same paragraphs and external links about a "www.wowOwow.com" website and "WOW founders" to a series of articles, all biographies of living persons.

The website they've been using as a source and adding to external links sections has almost no content. I have found no independent reliable sources which verify what they've been adding.

I initially embedded the information, awaiting verification, and cited the need for reliable sources and verification and the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy in my edit summary. One of them (Segrant) added the same with the same content-less source again, then the other moved in as well.

I posted on Talk:Mary Wells Lawrence (the talk page of an article I've edited, one of the articles they've been hitting). Neither of them has responded.

Please, could I get some help here to sort this out? — Athaenara ✉  01:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to assume good faith, but that really feels like they're adding spam content for the(ir) website to get it more hits when it launches. —C.Fred (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly fits the spam profile. Given that google finds zero hits for a "wowOwow" website with the names they've been linking, how can we verify any of it?   I'd block them myself, but I have an editor COI on one of the articles.  — Athaenara  ✉  01:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say there's grounds to revert, since there no independent sources that verify that they're contributing to the site. —C.Fred (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a real help when you stepped up to the plate there and started swinging. Thank you.  — Athaenara  ✉  02:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, what do you know, a citation turned up, datelined today:
 * I've stored it in my studio temporarily, and I'll think about writing a brief neutral and grammatical paragraph tomorrow which would be suitable for the bios of the co-founders of the site. — Athaenara  ✉  03:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The website should not be used as a source. Until there's notable content on it it shouldn't be linked at all.  So far, it consists of five lines with two email links.  — Athaenara  ✉  03:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The website should not be used as a source. Until there's notable content on it it shouldn't be linked at all.  So far, it consists of five lines with two email links.  — Athaenara  ✉  03:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The WOW website and the content on the founders, contributors, etc. can be verified. I'm happy to cite it in a more encyclopedic way - I work with these women, so at the very least, it's based on daily conversations with all fifteen. It isn't to promote the site, it's more to make sure that their biographical information is comprehensive. The Stephanie Rosenbloom article is a great source, and Josh Getlin's article for the LA Times will go live this afternoon. --Segrant (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Verified how? I see a bare site and one minor mention - until any of those notable figures write something for this site and it's picked up by notable media, I'd consider adding it to individual pages to a trivial mention that should be removed. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion. The right time to consider linking to this site is *after* its content has received general notice in the media, not before. The mere existence of such a site is not notable in my opinion. Wikipedia is not a resume, and we don't generally include in each person's biography a complete list of all the projects they have ever done in their life. Segrant's daily conversations with the founders of this website are not a reliable source (since unpublished) and are not citable. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since Wikipedia doesn't link to blogs, why would we link to a collective blog? --CliffC (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Stephen L. Norris


I'd like a few eyes over this please. The material I portioned off into the "Corporate dealings and career" section reads like someone's research notes and may have WP:OR/WP:UNDUE problems. Thanks. MER-C 06:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It does have WP:OR/WP:UNDUE problems. I've removed text which was unsubstantiated and used primarily for "connecting dots" to no clear, let alone verifiable conclusion. The sources do not make the claims the article makes, they are just reports and company websites, so only the verifiable info was kept. I believe this clears up the problems. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden page


If I may, and with ALL due respect...

In my opinion, the Rachel Marsden page needs some severe editing by someone who was not in a relationship and/or volatile break-up with Rachel Marsden... ideally, that should be someone who is NOT accountable to the man who was that runs Wikipedia.

In my opinion, the page in question has become nauseatingly cluttered with irrelevant information that appears to be presented solely for the purpose of causing undue distress and adolescent drama for Ms. Marsden, NOT for the sake of being informative or useful.

In my opinion, the irrelevant information that has been added and the "discussion" that follows it are not useful to the general public, nor is it "polite" or provided from a "neutral point of view" as is set forth in Wikipedia's stated policies.

In my opinion, and I'm sure many others' opinions were we to be asked such a thing, everything related to or having led to the "information" recently added to the "Rachel Marsden" page only serves to diminish the image and purpose of Wikipedia and tarnishes its otherwise reputable record to date.

Grams64 (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * can you provide specifics of what you found wrong with the article - it makes dealing with issues much easier. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that this account has only three edits, all here, and was created earlier today. I smell a troll. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To Daniel: I beg your pardon! No trolls here, consider a bath perhaps. :( I've simply never felt the need to make an account on here before.  I've usually only used this site for info, never felt qualified to edit pages.  However, the current drama playing out on the news as well as on one unfortunate woman's page...  A professional, informational website simply is not the appropriate place for adults to sort out their relationship drama.  Plain and simple, and correct, thank you very much, no matter what motives you would care to wrongly assign to me.  :P

As to Fredrick's inquiry, I don't feel qualified to pick it apart, but reading it, it's obvious that there have been recent edits that have the sole purpose of contributing to and escalating a personal issue occuring recently, and now very publicly, between Ms. Marsden and Mr. Wales. The problem is that the information may be perfectly accurate and true, but it's also obviously been put there only to be inappropriately provocative and inciteful. I'm sure that he (Mr. Wales) knows what info does and doesn't belong, but apparently - in my opinion - he may not be mature enough or removed enough to do the right, appropriate, and proper thing in this case.

Grams64 (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So do you have anything specific to us to go on? or should I just blank this for breaching our BLP policy due to the potshots you are taking at someone we have an article on? this page isn't a soapbox, if you have specific issues with the article tell me what they are and I'll look into them, otherwise there is nothing further to be said - we are not mindreaders. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking potshots at anyone, including Mr. Wales, or especially Ms. Marsden. I don't know how to suggest addressing this. I'm not good with excessive drama. I'm simply stating that - from what I was reading on Ms. Marsden's page the night of 3/5/08 - I think Mr. Wales has taken this article beyond "informational" as part of his personal situation, and I think that someone removed from his drama should look the page over in general, objectively, so that the information and tone of it would be more appropriate to the medium rather than the media. I didn't know exactly how or to whom to address my concerns, and it took me a while even to find my way to this forum. Whoever is in charge can do what they feel is best with my comments... I just wish that someone (preferably other than Mr. Wales considering his position with Ms. Marsden) might be able to objectively address the issue as far as it's spilled onto Wikipedia's pages.

Grams64 (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your concern, Grams64. Please be assured that several very experienced editors, completely independent of Mr. Wales, are checking over that article and making sure that anything that's not well justified as being in complete accordance with our biography of living persons policy is removed. Your thoughts on this are very much appreciated, .. dave souza, talk 00:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Mr. Souza, for considering my concerns and taking me seriously. I guess I just felt for Ms. Marsden's situation... Not a good position to be in, having one's life picked apart publicly by someone with the power to do so, and having no power to do anything about it. Your impartial assistance and intervention is very much appreciated, and accepted on behalf of Ms. Marsden... I don't suppose she'd mind, as we all need a kind champion now and then. :)

Grams64 (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Lonsdale

 * - Article was previously deleted after concerns were raised about WP:BLP (I did not create that previous article, but I did contribute secondary sources to its "Further reading" section). Just wrote this new version completely from scratch, utilizing WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. I am requesting input here on the article, and if there are concerns about it, if someone asks me to I will nominate it for deletion myself.   // Cirt (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted the original as a clear BLP violation. I have redirected this recreation to Scientology and Me. Lonsdale only seems notable for his appearance in one episode of a weekly BBC documentary. It is bad enough that we have an article (Scientology and Me) on a single episode of a multi-topic news programme, without a "biography" of a bit player. This guy simply isn't notable enough, and I suggest that you might want to merge anything that is relevant with that article. WP:BLP means we tread carefully with bios of the recently dead, and using one of them to have a go at scientology isn't on. We've sufficient articles debating Scientology.---Docg 09:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No objections to 's action here. I made a good faith attempt at recreating the article in a 2nd version sourced to multiple WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, but just couldn't find much mention of Shawn Lonsdale the individual that did not focus on his role as a Scientology critic. I hadn't contributed article-text to the first version, just a list of secondary sources in a "Further reading" section. Cirt (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * According to both Scientologists and Scientology critics there are not nearly enough Scientology articles, only 400 or so. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Alycia Lane

 * - BLP of a local newscaster with what seems to be an overly-aggressive controversy section. My plate is rather full so if someone else would be willing to sort it out, it's not that long of an article but seems to be a bit non-NPOV. // <u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#CC00CC">Benji <u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#ff6699">boi 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * She seems to have lost her job because of a couple of stupid things she did, but not otherwise notable. I tagged it as non-notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I trimmed down the coverage of the two incidents, which had taken up 80-90% of the page to a couple of sentences. I have a feeling some people will not be happy with that however. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed notability tag & made some minor changes . . . otherwise I think your revision cleans the article up quite a bit. - Mitico (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The footnotes are still there for people who want to read about the "scandalous" incidents. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Simon Moores
- This article is largely unsourced and appears to have editors too close to the topic (including the subject himself who has extensively written the article), myself and others working on the topic. I could really use the input of neutral editors to decide notability of details. Furthermore the style of writing is not the best but there might be cries of "foul play" if I edited directly as we both blog(ed) in the same location niche. // Lord Matt (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I offer myself as a neutral conflict resolver if the majority of those involved are interested. Jeepday (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

John Yoo (again)

 * - the article on John Yoo previously had uncited nazi comparisons, which were removed. New nazi comparisons, which were poorly cited, had been added (and reverted). The article was previously mentioned by me on this noticeboard (old revision). Some extra eyes would be appreciated, so any problematic text can be dealt with more quickly. Thanks Andjam (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Restored it as there is no reason to delete sourced material. To claim that Scott Horton (lawyer), Marty Lederman, The Guardian, Heinrich August Winkler, (to name but a few), fail WP:RS and WP:V is ludicrous to to popint of being surreal. Also, you fail to mention your previous attempt at removing sourced material was dismissed by an uninvolved editor. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 13:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a BLP violation but it seems to give undue weight to someone's opinion comparing Yoo's positions to those of Nazi lawyers; and indirectly Bush to Hitler, and the war on terror to Nazi Germany's invasion of the USSR. The comparisons were made by a commentator, however the article should be about Yoo himself. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide me with a hyperlink to the dismissal by an "uninvolved editor" please? Thanks very much, Andjam (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael Henderson (writer)

 * - Subject of article has complained about article accuracy . I have added requests for cites, but the issue requires further examination. // Mangoe (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Eh ye gads! Stubbed - please watchlist. That was terrible.--Docg 15:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Darko Trifunović

 * has recently been the subject of intense edit warring between Bosnian and Serbian editors. It was also discussed a few days ago at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive380. I've intervened to do a complete rewrite to resolve some major BLP problems (see for the previous version). I would be grateful if uninvolved editors could review it and provide any feedback about the new version. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Great job, ChrisO. I will comment in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:88Soldat88

 * - New user has been adding Obama's middle name, twice; he created a false article about an alleged bastard half-brother, and has been tagging articles for race, religion, homosexuality, etc., without any sourcing Bearian (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I will take a look. In the future, please post disruptions at WP:AN/I ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * User warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * User warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bjork
As a relatively new editor (and one who prefers to avoid stressful situations unless being paid to be there), I'm reluctant to engage in direct conflict with other editors. However, as I look at the relevant Wikipedia policies, this appears to me to be a situation where I should be relatively aggressive in removing inappropriate material The underlying situation is simple and undisputed. At a concert in Shanghai, singer Bjork performed a song with political content, then followed it with a series of exclamations that generally interpreted (and correctly interpreted, to my mind) as supporting the independence of Tibet. The Chinese government has reacted unfavorably, allowing limited news reports of the vent after some dalay, announcing plans to more strictly regulate appearances by foreign performers, and claiming that Bjork's comments had "hurt" the feelings of the Chinese people. Some of this is accurately reported in the Wikipedia article. However, a nontrivial amount of derogatory material regarding Bjork has been inserted into the article by QuickTime, raising BLP issues. The derogatory material is sourced only to blogs, presumably violating WP:RS reliable source policies. Some of the derogatory material is quoted in English, but the blog sources are all predominantly non-English language (I infer some form of Chinese-language, since the character set does not display properly), raising even further issues under WP:RSUE. I did leave some similar, less controversial material in the article, since it appeared plausible, was not really derogatory towards Bjork, and since I assumed the good faith of the editor who inserted it, but I deleted the controversial and dubious material in accordance with the BLP instructions at the head of the discussion page, explaining my action on that page. While the material I deleted may not entirely be an indisputable violation of any of the individual policies involved, looked at as whole, I could see no justification for including the material. QuickTime then reinserted the material, with minor alterations, saying it was necessary to use blog sources because Chinese media are censored, and because not allowing comments from those blogs "is unreasonable because it does not allow unbiased writing of this entry." I suspect that User:QuickTime does not really understand the requirements of the policies involved. I expect to shortly delete the dubious/controversial material again, with more detailed references to the policies involved, and would really appreciate any suggestions as to how to promote civil resolution of the matter. Because BLP calls for such material tobe "removed immediately," I believe it is appropriately for me to act quickly. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have deleted that material and commented in talk. I'll keep the page on my watchlist for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)