Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive48

Roger Tamraz
Roger Tamraz was created by an apparent POV pusher. Many of the statements' citations do not have anything to do with the content, and are basically character assassination. This article needs a lot of researching and reference work. Andre (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've nominated it for deletion. It is sourced only by court documents, etc. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Maxine Waters
- Extensive information added recently to "criticism" section, concerned there is a serious BLP issue, e.g. unproven allegations of corruption, coverage of designation by a Washington policy group as "one of most corrupt members of Congress", etc. Other recent controversies added:. I had reverted the corruption one but did not want to revert too much on a single article - we probably need outside help to keep things balanced. Wikidemo (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apply WP:WELLKNOWN: In the case of significant public figures, [...] If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article. I disagree that there is something wrong with mentioning "unproven allegations of corruption" since allegations are, by their nature, "unproven". No question the allegation is relevant. I think the article should demonstrate at least with adequate footnotes from more reliable sources that the allegations are well-documented. If the charges are notable [...] well-documented by reliable published sources then there should be plenty of articles by newspapers and magazines. If those sources were added to the article, then mention that this very political CREW organization called her one of the most corrupt lawmakers should remain as an expression of the opinion of this group. As to reliable, this Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) group is a deeply political organization, although their politics are generally close to Maxine Waters. They're funded by a partisan group of "progressive Democrats" according to this Washington Post article. In the past they've primarily targeted far more Republicans than Democrats. Maxine Waters is not going to be turned out of office with bad publicity from these people: her re-election margins in the past four elections have ranged from 78 percent to 84 percent. So for all we know these are charges meant to make CREW look less partisan. Demand better sourcing. Noroton (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that this group has accused Waters of criminality does not seem to be notable. They accused a bunch of people as a program of theirs.  Also, saying someone is the "most corrupt" isn't even an allegation, it's a conclusion.  Wikidemo (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that in the context of, say, Wikipedia reporting that the Los Angeles Times published a story about questionable activity by Maxine Waters, the group's statement would be acceptable, but not without that context. "Corruption" isn't necessarily criminal. It can refer to noncriminal but unethical conduct. If the information that the group has called her that is mentioned in Wikipedia, it needs to be presented along with reliable sources that reported certain matters that could be construed as some sort of corruption by Maxine Waters. The Washington group's website mentions an L.A. Times story in a news release. Noroton (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah
There is some very problematic editing on this article and its talk page, with an editor trying to add dubiously sourced accusations against a living person concerning allegations of involvement in drug dealing and other criminal activities (see and ). This is in connection with a conspiracy theory, which is being advanced by the editor in question, that the person in question faked the death of his son. It would be helpful if some uninvolved editors could take a look at the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit in the article space seems to be unacceptable, the source isn't reliable. Regarding the talk page: when a user makes a comment regarding a living person, she doesn't usually put the source right after it (it may be at various places on the talk page). Thus, I can't comment on that until I've read through talk page. Bless sins (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Joan Bennett Kennedy
I came across this blp while doing assessments for WP:Biography. The article has some serious tone, POV and content issues, as well as sparse sourcing for an article containg so many negative facts regarding the subject. I'm not sure what to do with this. I tagged it for multiple issues, but the truth is, as it stands, I'm not sure it should remain, although she does have notability. As a note, I'm not really interested in researching and trying to fix this myself, since I just came upon it while involved in a significant project at the moment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * there should be no problem finding news sources for this, but it does need to be done. DGG (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not just that the article is largely unsourced, the issue is also that the entire thing reeks of "poor Joan, victim of the big bad Ted Kennedy" and is unbalanced and POV. I'm very tempted to wipe the whole article except for the lead. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sitara Hewitt -
I noticed a libelious posting about this very classy actress, someone is trying to start a rumour about her doing tasteless movies, and they actually start their post with "I'm not trying to start a rumour but. . " Please remove this comment as it is untrue and defamation of character.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sitara_Hewitt

Thankyou. 70.53.49.127 (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your report 70.53.49.127. I have removed the nonsense from the talk page, removed some unsourced potentially controversial statements from the article and watchlisted the page. CIreland (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

 * - Article improved greatly after input from neutral editors here (from this notice board), but a bit more may be needed. Long-term bias apparently not evident to majority editors (who allowed virtually no changes until recent intervention). Please check for remaining problems. // Exucmember (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact is all of WP's articles on creationism, intelligent design, etc. are way over the top. One issue seems to be that some people have a problem with the idea that not all humans think alike. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is still pretty bad. Like Rosalind Picard, it appears "concensus" of placing misinformation into an article trumps what the source material actually states. It's really feral parapharsing and source-shopping.  --Faith (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jessica LeCroy
I created this article a long time ago, based on an anonymous request right after anons stopped being able to create articles, and I feel a certain responsibility to it; but I also don't look at it very often (nor does anyone else), and I could use some advice or help. Most of the edits seem to be interested in portraying the subject in a positive or negative light, rather than in writing a neutral biography. In particular, there is a user at the moment -- -- who is trying to add negative statements, and I have warned that user off in strong terms per policy. But the underlying problem is that available sources are limited to official government biographies, which tend to vanish when the person in question changes jobs; so it's hard to tell if we can really maintain the article properly. Any suggestions on what should be done? -- SCZenz (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My first reaction is keep it short. The subject is only marginally notable. Are you 100% sure there is no copyright issue? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm 100% sure. It was copied from a U.S. government website by me (see the first edit), which was later changed (and also copied elsewhere).  However, I have no objection to stubification, or necessarily to deletion on notability grounds, if that's what others think is best. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Best stubify for now and some info can be added back as appropriate. Thousands of people have distinguished but not desperately noteworthy careers in public service. There is usually neutral/favourable information in official sources. If there are no reliably-sourced criticisms, then so be it. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda Due
Specifically the section: Propaganda Due... The article is about a major criminal scandal that took place in Italy during the 1980s. There is both historical fact and conspiracy theory involved. I am concerned that this section/list violates WP:BLP. The section is essentially a list of famous people who were supposedly members of P2, (and thus, by inclusion, involved in the scandal). The article claims that all these people were on a list created by the group's founder... but citation information on this is iffy (the citation is incomplete... and I am not sure if it would be considered a reliable source even if it was complete). Blueboar (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I have removed the list of names, and have requested better sourcing for the rest of the section. Hopefully that meets with the policy. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Aryan Guard
Material has not been restored. Please feel free to re-open if problem resumes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC) An editor has added and re-added this to the Aryan Guard claiming a "sex scandal". The group Aryan Guard is marginally notable (but sufficiently-so to have an article). The guy in question, is probably non-notable. The "scandal" is a small affair of concern to a few people in group and it's online opponents. Few people have heard of this person. Since it hasn't been covered in reliable sources, we shouldn't have it. I'd like to get some extra input, since the adding editor disagrees with my position. The YouTube video, the editor calls a source, has been deleted already. --Rob (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidently, based on the material added the guy in question is the founder and leader of the group, which would make him quite notable within the parent topic, if true. In that case, if reliable source coverage were provided, I would view such activities on his part as notable to the parent topic, even if few people have ever heard of the person, if the activities were covered in disinterested sources. In the absence of such reliable sourcing, however, inclusion is not appropriate per WP:BLP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

DJ Lady Tribe
Unsourced claims of illegal activity. Corvus cornix talk  02:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we even salvage anything from that article? Nil Einne (talk)
 * It is rather ugly. --Faith (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed some quite large purported quotes that seem to have been sourced from some website or other. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Declan Ganley

 * - There is a user who keeps adding information referenced from something that appears to be a blog post. I have been editing it in the spirit of WP:NPOV and WP:RS, but there is a user who keeps reverting it back. The source I was referencing is the Times. I am asking for more experienced and neutral editors to take a look at this. // Qaddosh| contribstalk 05:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I wonder if you would find it beneficial to invite the user to discuss the matter on the article's talk page? I see that the most recent version by this user draws on more extensive sourcing, and it seems to me that the question to this user is not so much which source is preferred, but what information should be included and with what focus. I am completely unfamiliar with the subject of the article or the issue, but it does seem that there is notable controversy. The Times article you reference itself suggests the controversy may be wider than the original text would suggest: "His financial sources have been questioned. He says it comes from contributions." (Times does not seem satisfied with that response.) I tried to take a quick glance through google news, but most of the article I could find on the subject are pay per view or subscription only. This Independent article would, though, seem to add to the idea that more space may need to be dedicated to those questions than the article originally offered. There may be more neutral sources available for some of the issues that seem probably to be overstated in the article as it exists as I type. For instance, I don't know about this claim: "Ganley's "Libertas" Group has strong links with the American Military and the arms trade" (the source doesn't seem to support that), but it seems to be quite true, as the Guardian said, that " His sudden emergence as the most articulate voice of the no camp has unnerved many on the Irish left opposed to Lisbon, particularly because of his business links to the US military." I do think given what I've read this stands a good risk of becoming an article problematic for WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, as it seems this man elicits strong, polarized opinions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Amir Muhammad
Could someone please have a look at this article - seems to contain unsourced speculation about criminal activity (the being dropped as a suspect has news coverage - but the last paragraph seems especially problematic to me). Also I wonder if the article should be moved so links to other people with same name don't end up there by default? -Hunting dog (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems problematic to me, too. I'll take a closer look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All right. I moved the article--to the wrong title--based on what the disambiguation said about him. (It's currently at Amir Muhammad (police officer).) I'm not moving it again, because (never charged with a crime) doesn't seem like a good disambiguation. :) I've PRODded it instead. A google news search came up with enough that I could write a properly sourced article about him (,, , , , , and ), but I don't believe I should, by WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. He's a private individual who seems to have played a relatively small part in this investigation. He's mentioned in connection with it at the parent article The_Notorious_B.I.G.. More than that seems unnecessary and inappropriate. I wouldn't sweat it if somebody else came along and deleted it on BLP concerns, though I didn't feel it was quite speediable for it. It was a close thing, in my mind. If the PROD is challenged without good reasons & good sourcing, I imagine I'll be trotting it over to AfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some serious BLP concerns there. I think it's a speedy delete. --Faith (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and recreate as redirect to The Notorious B.I.G..  BradV  17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought about a redirect, but under what title? A disambiguating term is problematic. (stock broker) doesn't seem helpful. I would presume that a link to the parent article from the disambiguation page might be sufficient. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've wikilinked the disambig page, and tagged Amir Muhammad (police officer) as an A7.  BradV  18:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Once all the BLP-violating stuff is removed, there's really nothing left. I speedied it, and didn't leave a redirect (which, in my mind, would have been problematic even if there weren't naming issues).  Since Moonriddengirl PROD'ed it, I was going to leave her a coutesy note, and didn't know about this BLPN thread until I saw it in Moonriddengirl's contribs when looking to see if she was online, so hopefully I haven't stepped on anyone's toes. --barneca (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You removed any mention of this from the disambiguation page, but the guy is mentioned by name at The Notorious B.I.G. page so I think it should stand.  BradV  20:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't fight it if you re-add it, as I'm not completely sure of my footing here, but I still don't think the link on the dab page should be there either. My understanding is, if there is no article, there shouldn't be a link on the dab page.  We don't have an index where everyone mentioned in any article has a redirect or dablink at their name to that article. --barneca (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But there is a reasonable possibility someone will be looking for this guy in that context, in which case it should be there. Otherwise someone may create the article all over again...  BradV  21:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

←Just noting that my toes feel utterly intact. :) As I said, it was a close thing in my mind. I almost speedied it myself. As far as the disambig page, I don't think it's really necessary, either. The guy was cleared, after all. But there is enough sourcing that I don't think a brief, neutral reference that avoids any implication of criminal involvement is problematic. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I put it back because Barneca said he didn't care. But that doesn't mean I care either. ;)  BradV  21:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Larry Sinclair
Talk:Larry Sinclair currently reproduces libelous allegations from a convicted con artist. The article's been deleted, but its content has been reproduced on its talk page. Shem(talk) 01:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tagged for speedy deletion (WP:CSD) as a talk page whose article does not exist.  BradV  03:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's NPOV and the proposed version is well sourced. Not my problem this person is notable for scandalmongering. -- Kendrick7talk 03:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

James Dobson
An anon editor, using a couple of different IPs, is adding what seems to me to be POV language at James Dobson - example. However, I don't know enough about the article subject to tell. Could someone else take a look? Kelly hi! 02:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP with no sources
I am trying to deal with the Doug Bell article, a BLP with no sources despite years for people to find them. WP:V clearly says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" --Rividian (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Try WP:AFD again and remember to emphasise that no WP:RS have been found despite a year of trying? Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just tried AFD and absolutely nobody cared... apparently sourcing is optional if you work in video games. --Rividian (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Your AFD Articles for deletion/Doug Bell (2nd nomination) received 3 keeps, 2 deletes (+ you) and was open for a world record time of nearly 9 hours before it was closed by you. You didn't even give time for 2 of the people who suggested keep to respond to your comments. The AFD was very far from WP:SNOW heck no one even suggested it (which in any case should be decided by an uninvolved admin). This is seriously not the way to run an AFD... BTW, you didn't even close the AFD properly, it should for example, be listed in the article's talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * With multiple admins declaring sources really didn't matter so long as there was a subjective claim of importance, I didn't see the point the AFD except to aggravate me... it was clearly headed to a "no consensus" since WP:V is just an opinion. --Rividian (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. Given that 2 of the people who suggested keep didn't potentially have time to respond to your comments (they could have, for example, changed their minds) and that a lot of other people could have came along (for example, if 20 experienced editors with valid reasoning had suggested delete and those had been the only delete keep then I strongly suspect the article would have been deleted). Simply put, 9 hours is not enough time for an AFD, particularly when all you get are 5 responses. Let the process play out and if it doesn't work, then you can take it further. Don't make a half hearted attempts and then kill it for no good reason. (You could have just let it continue without responding further.) In any case, it would have made more sense to mention the AFD here rather then close it and then come here and complain Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Only one of the 3 people who suggested keep appears to be an admin, DGG Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A_Man_In_Black is an admin apparently... at least he's been deleting and restoring stuff in the past few days. Trying to get unsourced stuff deleted around here is just too frustrating for me apparently... between long-time admins saying WP:V can be ignored and people showing up on my talk page to troll because of my AFD nominations, I just don't have the patience to deal with it. 3 people ignoring sourcing was likely to turn into a lot more... when people see admins supporting some cause they assume it's right. --Rividian (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I missed him. There were 4 people suggesting keep then, and 2 of them admins. I still don't see the need to close it and I for one don't look much at who people are but what they say. Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The point of the comments at the AfD were that sources do exist... they simply have not been added to the article yet. There is an important distinction to be made between "Verified" and "Verifiable".  I agree that the article is in poor shape, but that calls for fixing it, not deleting it.  I am not sure that anything currently in the article violates WP:BLP, but if something does, just remove those statements (ie stubify the article) or tag it with citation requests. Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * People linked to books he wrote and articles about his games that may or may not have even mentioned him... that's not the kind of sourcing I thought articles were supposed to be based on. --Rividian (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That depends on what they are being used as sources for. If the article talks about his books, it is appropriate to cite them... and if it talks about his games, it is appropriate to cite sources that discuss his games.  What kind of sourcing did you think articles were supposed to be based on? Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Third party articles and books about the subject with non-trivial information... I thought this was the whole basis for writing articles on Wikipedia, per WP:V, but apparently that's not taking very seriously. In improving Wendell H. Ford recently I chiefly cited a 5,000 word biographical article about him, rather than articles about legislation that didn't even mention him. I thought I was doing the right thing... --Rividian (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you are correct... but not everyone is going to have a 5,000 word biography written about him/her... we use the best sources possible. I would consider a gaming industry magazine article that discussed the games Mr. Bell created to be a "Third Party source with non-trivial information", for example.  Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They'd be a legitimate source about the game, quite possibly... but no one even showed that these articles even mentioned Mr. Bell as far as I could tell. --Rividian (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Two comments on that... first, have you read the articles and know that they don't mention Mr. Bell? Second, even if they don't mention him... if they discuss games he created, then they are directly related to his notability (or are you saying that you doubt that he actually created the games?).  Again, I think all this indicates that the article needs re-writing and sourcing... not deletion.
 * Finally, I am not at all sure how any of this indicates that there is a WP:BLP issue to be discussed in reguards to this article (which is the purpose of this noticeboard after all)... is there a WP:BLP problem? Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof, per WP:V, is on people who want to keep content to find sources. There should be an obvious BLP problem when there's not a proven reliable source with any non-trivial information on a person. This wouldn't be tolerated if the person was someone we didn't like, such as say, a critic of Wikipedia. --Rividian (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While disagreeing with the way Rivi has handled the situation I agree with his/her main point. If this article is on a person, then we really need sources which discuss the person. If this person is really noteable enough for a wikipedia article, then there must be some reliable, third party WP:RS about him somewhere surely? If there aren't then I would have to presume this person isn't noteable enough for an article. It may seem strange when he ahs been a key person in the creation of award winning games, but it's probably reflective of the fact people care about the games, not the person (and that the whole team was regarded as much more important then key invididuals). Remember, if no one else cares about something, it's not our job to make them care... Sources showing that he created several award-winning games is insufficient IMHO for a biography on the person (they are sufficient for mentioning the person in the appropriate articles). Also, I agree that Rivi can't just claim "these sources don't discuss the person" if he/she hasn't read the sources. On the other hand, people can't claim "these sources probably discuss the person", although I've never read them, either (the only exception would be if the article title suggests it's on the person not the game). And if there is no evidence these sources discuss the person, then we have to presume they don't and the article lacks sources. Nil Einne (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did I say "these sources don't discuss the person"? You appear to have made that up. People linked to "reviews of Dungeon Master" and said some might mention Mr. Bell, I said "Fine, find the ones that mention him" and that was never done. You seem to be misrepresenting that as me saying none of them discuss him, which as far as I can tell is not at all what I said. Some sources somewhere might discuss absolutely anything! It doesn't mean much until people actually can find a specific source. --Rividian (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added one source, a self-written biography. This is usable for at least uncontroversial biographical details, though it's still insufficient. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is a vanity piece full of claims sourced by self-written material. It can be deleted by any uninvolved admin. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added two more references, both wholly independent. Neıl 龱  13:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Only 1 of which even mentions him and it's mostly about the game, but at long last it's a source. --Rividian (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
This issue is part of a much larger debate, and this subsection is no longer of concern. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC) User:Dicklyon has repeatedly added text to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders page, alleging that two living people, Dr. Ken Zucker and Dr. Ray Blanchard, are transphobic. Dicklyon quotes sources out of context to so as to implies that negative conclusions were those of the newspaper itself rather than people it interviewed.

User:Dicklyon includes negative quotes from the Gay City News, but omits from his discription of that source all information that would balance such accusations. For example, the same source indicates that Blanchard said, "Naturally, it's very disappointing to me that there seems to be so much misinformation about me on the Internet. It's not that they distorted my views, they completely reversed my views."www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19693908&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=6

Similary, User:Dicklyon cites msnbc to include negative statements about Zucker but omits  balancing information from the very same source, such as "Zucker rejects the junk-science charge, saying that there “has to be an empirical basis to modify anything” in the DSM. As for hurting people, “in my own career, my primary motivation in working with children, adolescents and families is to help them with the distress and suffering they are experiencing, whatever the reasons they are having these struggles. I want to help people feel better about themselves, not hurt them," etc.

I believe these edits by User:Dicklyon violate WP:BLP. I have repeatedly deleted them and indicated that I believed BLP was being violated,, and User:Dicklyon has repeatedly re-added them nonetheless.,

In case it is relevant, I have previously made a report to WP:ANI regarding User:Dicklyon's behavior on other, related issues. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the ANI entry. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that the first edit of mine that TheLibrarian links above was restoring text removed for a WP:RS complaint, not BLP. It is hard to see how reporting this news, from multiple sources, violates BLP.  And in response to TheLibrarian's request, I was adding the bit quoted above that it refused to add itself, simultaneous with this BLP complaint it was filing.  I agree that TheLibrarian has repeatedly removed this content, but that's clearly because of TheLibrarian's WP:SPA and WP:COI, not BLP.  It's unclear to me why TheLibrarian thinks that I have alleged anyone to be transphobic.  Please also see the talk page sections Talk:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and Talk:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there concern that the current version is problematic with regards to BLP? The material I see seems neutral and thoroughly sourced, and it looks as though Dicklyon is open to addressing concerns, based on the history of the article and the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, not with the current version. After I began reporting the problems here and on ANI, User:Dicklyon began to soften in his willingness to balance what he was adding to pages.  Thank you for your attention, nonetheless.
 * —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Archives of Sexual Behavior
User:Dicklyon repeatedly adds to the page of a peer-reviewed journal, the Archives of Sexual Behavior, poorly sourced material alleging that the journal, its editor, and/or its editorial board engaged in unethical behavior in the handling of a manuscript, that is critical of Lynn Conway, whom User:Dicklyon acknowledges as someone he has known for 30 years.

The only sources Dicklyon provides are self-published blogs, and a student newspaper, and Dicklyon has been repeatedly warned by me and by an admin (User:DGG) that such sources are not reliable and are not sufficient for such a charge, which constitutes a violation of BLP,, , ,. Dicklyon repeatedly re-adds the poorly sourced claims nonetheless,. Weasle-worded allegations in a student newspaper clearly violate the BLP policy to "Be very firm about the use of high quality references."

In case it is relevant, I have previously reported Dicklyon's behavior on WP:ANI and on this noticeboard regarding a page related to the Archives. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree that this material is inappropriate with present sourcing by WP:BLP and WP:V. I have left a comment on the matter at ANI and removed the material from the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you be so kind as to mention what living persons you believe are being criticized unverifiably by the present version? I've tried to comply with requests for balance and sourcing, and have removed mention of the editor, and have not relied on any blogs.  And I don't understand the point about a "student newspaper" being less than a reliable source; please explain. Dicklyon (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you read the ANI comment, linked above, it will help, as I've quoted from the relevant guidelines there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Moonriddengirl, the source, at least for the this version is too poor for direct criticism of LPs (particularly Alice Dreger) Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

←Dicklyon is currently blocked for 3RR violation. I have suggested to him at his talk page and in the ANI thread that WP:NPOVN might be a good source of additional feedback, as the heart of the question here seems to be less about attacking individuals and more about establishing the professional credibility of certain points of view relating to transgender. I'm not suggesting we should quash BLP discussion here, but I am noting it because I believe that even when all BLP concerns are resolved, this larger issue (currently at mediation) will remain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Lucian Pulvermacher
Does anyone else feel that the section on Gordon Bateman is too long (i.e. violates WP:UNDUE), particularly given this is a biography on Lucian Pulvermacher not an article on the church? And that the criticism of Lucian by Gordon while properly sourced to Gordon and very likely really something Gordon wrote, should probably be removed given that it sourced to a site almost definitely not a WP:RS? I was just wondering since the whole article appears poorly sourced and given that it's something probably of not much interest to the wider world, would probably be difficult to find better sources for...? Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly, it's unclear. :) "Following the 1998 papal election, Pulvermacher obtained (in his view) episcopal orders by delegating Bateman (who possessed priestly orders from Pulvermacher) to consecrate Pulvermacher to the episcopate and then in turn bestowing episcopal orders on Bateman." What?


 * I'm not entirely sure what's going on with that section, but it seems to be primarily about Pulvermacher in spite of its title. If it were rewritten with the subject in mind, it would probably start with "Pulvermarcher had a falling out with one of his supporters, an Australian named Gordon Bateman who was one of the cardinals in Pulvermacher's whateveryou'dcallthat. Following the...invalid. When Bateman discovered that Pulvermacher, from his seminarian...flawed."(9).


 * I should think that Bateman no longer wears his insignia is a given.


 * Is there a reliable source in that article? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Larry Wayne Sinclair
User:Kendrick7 has duplicated now-deleted libelous material from Larry Sinclair at Larry Wayne Sinclair. The material's also been posted to someone's userspace at User:Enigmaman/Sandbox. Shem(talk) 04:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick, speedy delete Paula Jones! -- Kendrick7talk 05:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Further more, I believe, per WP:ENC, we can have articles on people notable for libel, in much the same way the National Press Club (USA) isn't liable for renting the man a room. People need to stop crying wolf here; the article strikes a fair balance between the allegations and the history of the allegator. -- Kendrick7talk 05:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And for the record, this is not the recreation of previously deleted material. I don't have access to the deleted revisions, and my sources were published yesterday, while the speedy deletions took place some months ago. -- Kendrick7talk 05:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Creating this page at a different location to avoid page protection is not a sign of good faith.  BradV  14:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've renewed the request for unprotection on WP:RFPP as this version looks like it might be okay, but it needs to be moved back to Larry Sinclair.  BradV  14:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the allegations about the man's criminal history from the recreated article, and generally removed the information sourced only to a blog. I let stand the information sourced reliably (in this case, to the Sydney Herald). The other information will need to be reliably sourced before going back into the article, and presented in a neutral way. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon, but The Politico is a WP:RS. Only a minor detail at the end of the article was sourced to a portion of their site which is was the blog of one of their journalists. I have restored the material. -- Kendrick7talk 15:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would not rule out the possibility that a NPOV article could be written that would pass BLP, considering the extent of RS publicity, but the article in the history as last deleted is not conceivably an acceptable starting point. I'm certainly not given to  unwarranted concern about BLP in borderline cases, but ths was really impossible. DGG (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just don't see why, but it's possible I'm just obtuse here. We've got dozens of articles on subjects where their relevant felonious past is covered -- and again, this is something, the existence of which, Sinclair has been entirely public about in his own blog and press releases, conceding it's relevancy in coloring his allegations. We've got a half dozen articles about people who claim to have had sex with a later Presidential candidates, just counting Bill Clinton. What invisible line is this crossing? Wikipedia seems like a valuable tool in that it can fairly and dispassionately provide information here. -- Kendrick7talk 01:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, you can just reply to me at the DRV, as I'm going to reply to you there with the same points as above. -- Kendrick7talk 02:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I became involved with the article from this listing, and found many reliable sources before the article was inappropriately speedy deleted (the AfD was headed to keep or no consensus before this took place). I believe a well written article could have been formulated, given half the chance to use the breaking news in the last few days.  I don't see how BLP applied at all, as the article was directly drawn from several RS. Obviously the subject was not credible, but that should guide the way it is written, not become the driving force to delete the article.  --Faith (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Catherine Bell
I noticed that this article had as an external link Wikimapia coordinates to her house in California. To me that seems like personal information akin to her address and phone # so I deleted it. I assume that this was the appropriate course of action. – ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Very appropriate. Corvus cornix  talk  21:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thought so, just wanted to check. – ukexpat (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ely Calil
This article is pretty much an attack page. Corvus cornix talk  21:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice there has been a tag on the article's Talk page since 2006.   Corvus cornix  talk  21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to have two adequate sources. I think it meets the requirements of BLP policy. DGG (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Ely+Calil Many more resouces could be used from this search result. --Faith (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevada-tan
- We are having a discussion at the talk page of this article on whether to include the real name of Nevada-tan; firstly on whether it's sufficiently verifiable and secondly on whether it's worth mentioning even if it is. We could use some outside opinions. // Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article should be about the incident, not about the person, in which case, the name is irrelevant. Despite the title of this article, it is not a biography.   Corvus cornix  talk  21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the article should be moved to "Sasebo Slashing", a name used for the incident. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the article discusses the incident and not the person, that makes sense. However, it makes sense to preserve Nevada-tan as a redirect, since the popular moniker for the person is a reasonable search term. I am moving this line of discussion to the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ - move done. Neıl 龱  11:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ozzie Yue
Not a problem as such; can't find any WP:MOS about this. Person is born in England to Chinese parents, describes himself as "oriental" and is cast as an actor in Chinese roles. He does not speak Chinese. Do we describe him as English, Chinese or Anglo-Chinese? I haven't had his phone number for many years now, so I can't ask him. Anyone point me at policy here? Thanks. -- Rodhull andemu  13:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you've got a source, why not just describe him as you have here? It is very common in biography articles for a person to have migrated from one country to another, or in this case for his family to have migrated. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've found WP:MOSBIO now and left it as "English ... of Chinese descent" since that is an important part of his notability (as an actor playing Chinese roles). -- Rodhull andemu  21:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Smith (pastor) and Calvary Chapel


These two articles could use some eyes both from the standpoint of making them sound less like advertisements and from the standpoint of keeping libel out. See also the edits of. --B (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Joe Arpaio
There is some unsourced stuff in there and some stuff not directly related to Arpaio. This needs to be combed for BLP compliance. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Zezi Ifore
To have a separate section in such a small article called "Complaints", is over the top and gives undue weight to some criticism she has received on message boards.

The largest word in the article is "Complaints" and it is actually about her response, rather than the criticism itself. I am unable to edit this article as it is protected. 92.1.118.42 (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Trimmed per WP:UNDUE. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Parmjit Dhanda
Even though it has been reverted, an anonymous user added a paragraph that had original research. Would you investigate this? The IP user is: 92.9.250.138. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Richard Williamson
There appears to be a campaign to smear Bishop Williamson. His “views” which are carefully selected from a website take up most of the article space – even though his views have never received “significant coverage in reliable secondary sources” as per Wikipedia policy.

Compare the length of this article to that of Williamson's immediate colleagues: Bishops Antonio de Castro Meyer, Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, and Alfonso de Galarreta. All of them were elevated at the same time, yet this article is 12 times longer than any of theirs. It's even 50% longer than that of Marcel Lefebvre, who is far more notable than Williamson.

The subject is notable for being a schismatic bishop. He is not known, in detail, for his views and this article should not be a mirror of his blog. His views that haven't attracted attention in reliable sources shouldn't be given attention. Williamson is not notable for his views. To quote policy: “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable” and “editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability”

There were numerous uncited claims (e.g. "Williamson is generally regarded as the most openly critical of the Vatican"), unreliable sources (e.g. a youtube clip!) and sources that cannot be used (e.g. The Catholic Herald "interview", to quote Wikipedia policy "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source"). Some of these have been removed, yet a recording by Crusaderforsweden on YouTube is still seen as a reliable third-party source and an apparent interview with AngelQueen.org (a primary source) is being used even though it has not been referenced by a reliable secondary source – as per policy.

It is questionable as to whether this article should exist at all. "Articles about people notable only for one event" may well be applicable. Bishop Williamson is only notable for one event, as the policy says: "Cover the event, not the person".

I have asked user:Lima to cite “significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" demonstrating that the views/letters are worthy of notice and they can go in. this he has failed to do, yet he continues to revert to his version. PaulSoms (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the person is notable for a series of actions, not just a single event. However I agree that the lengthy account of his views was inappropriate. Only those views that have been mentioned in reliable, 3rd party sources should be regarded as notable enough to include. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, remove blog stuff per WP:SOAP. -- Kendrick7talk 21:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. There isn't enough reliable sources to support such a lengthy account.  Keep reverting to the proper version and go for a block if he persists in his behavior.  Celarnor Talk to me  21:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

William M. Gray
See Talk:William M. Gray.

The article is about a scientist known for (1) hurricane predictions, (2) denying global warming. Apparently, he boasted in April that he would wager a substantial amount of money that the earth will actually be cooler in 8-10 years. The contentious section is about bloggers&mdash;including at least one editor on Wikipedia editing the BLP with apparent COI&mdash;who would like to take him up on his offer. The blogger also paid for a print ad in a college newspaper, which he believes (and explicitly says on his blog) can count as a reliable source. I believe that a paid ad is still SPS and that such ex parte and self-published sources are not appropriate in a BLP. Comments? Cool Hand Luke 23:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. As I have argued in that same article regarding similar issues with a different editor, WP:SPS which are of a negative nature are clearly inappropriate.  I eventually raised the issue with the maintainers of WP:BLP to seek clarification on just this type of material.  This seems to be an on-going problem on this particular page as you know.  --GoRight (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

William M. Connolley
I am trying to add some criticism to WMCs BLP since it has none. The item I have chosen can be found in this edit. I chose to quote the material verbatum from the article for a couple of reasons, (1) it is fairly short and to the point, and (2) the sentiments were articulated and reported by someone other than myself. Paraphrasing leaves the edit open to accusations of POV pushing on my part. In this case I am merely including material from a WP:RS, The New Yorker, and in fact this same source is already referenced elsewhere in the BLP.

User:R. Baley has deleted my contribution and threatened to block me (see User_talk:R._Baley and User_talk:GoRight) if I add the material, or in fact any criticism of WMC regardless of the quality of the sources, so I have thus far refrained from adding it back in.

I understand that William Connolley is a respected administrator here on Wikipedia but that should not make him immune from criticism when it has been reported in a WP:RS.

Should The New Yorker be considered WP:RS for a BLP, and if so is my verbatum quote somehow inappropriate? I don't believe that my edit violates WP:BLP as User:R. Baley claims but refuses to specifically say which part and why.

Comments? --GoRight (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be correct. That article is being selectively quoted to paint the subject in the best possible light. -- Kendrick7talk 06:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I take that back, after reading the passage a few more times. I think the point is that another editor was able to complain so loudly that he got Connelly put on parole, despite actually being in the wrong. (Our gloss of the source could be better, though.) -- Kendrick7talk 06:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your assistance. I like the version as it stands now, .  I agree that your rewrite presents the material in a much more balanced manner and I am satisfied with the outcome if the regulars don't revert it.  --GoRight (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fred Singer
This BLP has been a perenial source of questionable additions from his critics here at Wikipedia. So much so that this observation has now made its way into a WP:RS at the National Post. I want to add the following material, see which summarizes the content of the article accurately and succinctly.

My purpose is to let the reader know of public concerns over the material listed there to keep it in perspective. I think it hard to argue that an article from a prominent source that basically states that the material on Singe's BLP is inaccurate, and intentionally so, is inappropriate for inclusion on the man's BLP.

As you can see here, and User_talk:GoRight, User:R. Baley has now threatened to block me if I even mention WMC (who happens to be the subject of the article cited), in any way and any where.

Should this material be blocked from the page as User:R. Baley and User:Raul654 wish?

Comments? --GoRight (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's fair to call this navel gazing. The source is really about the editing behaviour of William Connolley, and would in some form be proper in WMC's bio, but the material is tangential to the bio of Singer himself, since it has nothing properly to do with him. -- Kendrick7talk 16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Singer's opinion on William M. Connolley would have to be demonstrated to be WEIGHTy by a secondary source, so it fails as BLP source on Connolley. That means we should exclude it from Connolley's article, and probably shouldn't include it in Singer's either (BLP applies everywhere). If third-party reporting picked up and covered Singer's remarks, it might be worth including, but Wikipedia biographies are not campaign platforms for the subjects to have their remarks preserved. Cool Hand Luke 00:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's an Op-Ed published in a newspaper, not a blog, and so has undergone editorial oversight. As such I'd give it more weight than the typical WP:SOAP. I thought my edit was OK. -- Kendrick7talk 00:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I also like your approach to the Solomon Op/Ed. As you say, it has undergone editorial oversight.  Some of the regulars, however, seem to want it gone.  I have done my best to defend it but I am at the point that I can no longer save it on my own.  There is active discussion related to your change at Talk:William_Connolley if you want to join in.  --GoRight (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Larry Lamb (actor)
IP editor, using a dynamic IP address, so far:

Has edited the article and changed nationality from British to English. No citation is provided, instead he insists that the IMDB page on the article in question is sufficient justification. The "source" in question merely confirms birthplace but does not confirm nationality. He started to edit war over this change, then started to follow me around posting comments on my talk page and my friend's talk page labelling me as a vandal. His IP is dynamic so any reply on his talk page he doesn't seem to get. I'll admit my initial edit summaries may not have entirely help but since I tried to provide an edit summary highlighting the need for a source, instead he insists that my reversions are vandalism and the IMDB page is sufficient. I can't see the point in edit warring over something so trivial so I gave it a few days and then reverted again. He was back almost immediately with a revert

I initially posted this as a vandalism alert due to the edit war and to AN/I because of him following me to other pages. They suggested dispute resolution and so here I am.

His edits are quite possibly correct and I am not disputing content per se but I'm at a loss as to how to get this guy to understand the need for sources. Has also edited Joanna Page, James Thornton (actor) and Bruce Mackinnon, with the same changes. Justin talk 12:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum, editor has reverted changes once more, ignoring edit summary, comments on talk page, comments on article talk page and a mirror on AN/I. Justin talk 12:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's get this straight - you have edit warred after reverting my good faith and accurate edits. You also fail to mention that you "wiki-stalked" me first. Your edits prove this. You didn't like me added (accurately) England to "HMS Cardiff (D108)" you therefore followed and reverted my other edits.

92.12.29.14 (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the only comment I intend to make by way of reply. An edit by this IP editor came up on an article that a friend was involved with in getting to FA status (HMS Cardiff (D108)) and was on the front page for a day.  It's on my watchlist and so when the article was changed for the detriment I followed up on this editors other edits as is my practise.  I generally find that vandals will edit multiple articles and I've often found and reverted vandalism in that way.   That is not to say the edits in this case were vandalism or made out of bad faith, I was simply following up to be thorough. By no means all edits by this editor were problematic, I only edited those where sources were not provided to back up the edits.  This is not wikistalking.  However, since then this IP editor has followed me on my own talk page, a friends talk page, various noticeboards accusing me of edit-warring and vandalism and is clearly ignoring the comments I have left as to the reasons for my actions.  This is wikistalking.  When I mentioned WP:3RR in one page he accuses me of edit-warring, I mention his following me around as wikistalking and now he's accusing me of wikistalking.  To be honest I'm completely bemused by the whole business.  Justin talk 13:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Todd Bentley

 * - The material at Todd Bentley is clearly controversial and negative information. Everything about it appears to derive ultimately from a you-tube video, but I'm wondering if the other source might elevate some portion of the material to reliable source levels.  I'd also appreciate some more experienced eyes putting this article and Lakeland revival article on their watchlists; they have a large number of inexperienced editors active for an ongoing event.  GRBerry 15:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the other reference source looks very much like an advocacy group, and I wouldn't count them as entirely reliable or neutral; I also don't see them showing up in discussions by major media. There may be some links there to similar stories printed in mainstream media, however, and that is worth investigating. I suspect this entire section needs to go until and unless better reference sources can be found. Other opinions? Risker (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is also a letter-for-letter copy of this . I think it should go immediately, as a copyvio if nothing else.--Slp1 (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've taken it out as a copyright violation. Thanks for that catch.  GRBerry 17:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact this is a reliable source for (though much shorter version) of this incident. --Slp1 (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We are having a problem with this article that People seem to be whitewashing the Man and the Event and anything that is brings him out in a bad light is being suppressed. It is clearly bias as even sites such as Microsoft have a contrversy section and this is one of the most contreversial events going on in chrisitiandom at the moment. I did not mean to do a copyright violation! If you look at the article most of the articles are from the same sources! --DeltadomDeltadom (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

CJLL_Wright
Recently, an editor on the Cahokia has made inappropriate edits and comments about my concerns with recently added information. The editor (Doug) added a comment about ancient native American burials and the vertical finger bones as being evidence of buried alive in Mound 72. My concern is that this claim is stated as a speculation in Young's book and is not supported by any data in the Mound 72 study by Fowler of the archaeological remains in the Burial mound. My discussion on the talk pages stated that without supporting evidence in Mound 72 book, the suggestion of Young is unsupported evidence that falls into sensationalism, misinformation, speculation, and even racial bias. CJLL is making the accusation that my comments are attempting to call the author a racist, however, this could not be farther from the truth. I have not ever stated anything of that sort. These claims are entirely CJLL and Dougs misinterpretation of the topic. Hopefully this clears up the issue entirely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CJLL_Wright#Cahokia Marburg72 (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a complete misinterpretation of the situation. There is no 'Young's book' at all, although Marburg72 keeps referring to the book in question as by Young and the quote at issue by Young.  The book in question is Cahokia, the Great Native American Metropoliswritten by Melvin Fowler, the "dean" of Cahokia archaeologists, and Biloine Whiting Young and published by the University of Illinois Press. Young is a professional author who helped Fowler tell the story of the Cahokia mounds. The book is written after the publication by Fowler and others of the excavations there. In it there is a suggestion that some bodies buried at Cahokia show indications of being buried alive. There is no indication of who wrote the passage, but Marburg72 continually refers to the book as 'Young's book' and claims that Young wrote the quote I cited.. On the Cahokia mound talk page Marburg72 says that the book is not scholarly and "is entirely about petty arguments and opinions. If its not fringe, it falls into wp:soap category." He also used the (now deleted phrase) "before spreading unsupported falsehoods".
 * He specifically says "The view that a vertical fingerbones equates to sacrifice or burial alive is a highly speculative, inaccurate and even racist against Amerindians." This statement seems pretty clearly aimed at the authors of the quote. As for his accusations of racist bias against me and the authors, I cannot see how a suggestion that centuries ago some Native Americans were buried alive can be considered racist in a real life context in which far worse atrocities have been committed by white Europeans in the last few years.
 * I was not going to bring this up officially, but now Marburg72 has come here, he has done the same thing about the work of another living author, David Oestreicher. Oestreicher has written several articles showing the Walam Olum to be a hoax, eg ale of a Hoax, in The Algonquian Spirit, edited by Brian Swann. University of Nebraska Press. He reported that a poet who had written a modern translation now agrees with Oestreicher that it is a hoax. On Talk:Walam Olum responds to this saying "Oestreicher apparently has an itch to discredit anything associated with remote intellect concerning Amerindians." and "you really think Napora would confess that his lifes work was wasted after based on an article by a detractor? Your authors claim/decision to write that he communicated with Napora is not a trustworthy claim considering his long and determined effort to be a detractor to the document." and "if Verifyable references in your view are Oest. saying that Napora read his article and then confessed that his entire work was wrong, then you should take a look at the scientific method - that sort of claim is evident to the most casual observer that he was fanning his own sail". In the context it appeared to me that Marburg72 was implicitly accusing Oestreicher of lying about having a direct communication with Napora in which Napora acknowledged that the Walam Olum is a hoax. Doug Weller (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Doug should have attempted to read what I wrote, not what he thinks that I said before commenting. See initial comment. These claims are entirely CJLL and Dougs misinterpretation of the topic. Hopefully this clears up the issue entirely. Marburg72 (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't add anything further by way of background explanation, I think Doug has covered it. I will note however that the only part of this that concerns BLP are potentially defamatory comments made by Marburg72, directed against several living scholars and authors.
 * At the crux of Marburg72's complaint here is my removal of two comments he had recently made on a talk page that (IMO) accused a named author as (a) writing falsehoods and (b) racism.
 * I also note that some 8-9 months earlier Marburg72 had made some article edits and talk page comments that amounted to accusing the archaeologists directing excavations at Cahokia/Monks Mound of illegal activity. Those edits were actually noticed and read by some of those 'real-world' folks M72 had accused, and they responded with their concerns on-wiki (see here and here). Fortunately they seem to have been placated (eghere) by the removal of the accusations from the article text, although M72's comments remain on the talk pgs.
 * Frankly I would welcome comments/examination by a previously uninvolved party here.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 00:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as you are attempting to change the subject, Digging into a mound without a permit is a state crime; unauthorized digging into an Indian grave is a federal crime; destroying part of a World Heritage Site is an outrage. See Wotangng Ikche Volume 15 issue 51 for the complete story of the Monks Mound fiasco. See illinois law 20ILCS 3420 for a complete explanation of the legalities of excavation of over 30.000 cubic feet out of the sides of Monks Mound with Backhoes with no permit.
 * http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=372&ChapAct=20%A0ILCS%A03420/&ChapterID=5&ChapterName=EXECUTIVE+BRANCH&ActName=Illinois+State+Agency+Historic+Resources+Preservation+Act.
 * "Adverse effect" means: (1) destruction or alteration of all or part of an historic resource;
 * See also the Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act (Illinois Comp. Stat. Ann. 20 ILCS 3440/0:01, et seq.). yes, Monks mound ::::contains and contained burials - both native and historical. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), ::::P.L. 101-601. What part of this law do you not understand? Marburg72 (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes Marburg72, I am quite aware that excavating or otherwise disturbing a designated site without the requisite permissions in place is a serious matter, and an offense (depending on jurisdiction and nature of the disturbance). That is precisely the point here. A charge of conducting such an improper excavation would, if substantiated, be highly damaging to an archaeologist's career. Allegations of incompetence or carelessness likewise. Hence, potentially defamatory.


 * It is you who sought to use wikipedia's pages to level such a charge (that the 2007 Monks Mound excavations/slump repairs were improperly conducted and "illegal"), based on nothing more it would seem than your own opinion and apparent incomplete grasp of the situation.


 * Your allegations have been countered here point-by-point by one of those you accused, and it's evident from this account of the Illinois Archaeological Society's 51st ann. conf. where the matter was discussed, that you were quite misinformed about the legal status of the excavation. To quote from that record, "[Paula Cross, IHPA's Superintendent of Historic Sites] noted that IHPA’s slump stabilization plan was carefully worked out over a period of several years. This observation was well documented in the Saturday morning presentations as was the need for such a plan. Secondly, she observed that no “permitting” requirements had been violated and that in fact “permitting” did not apply to government agencies working on government land. Instead there is a protocol of “approval” that is required and that IHPA was very careful to comply with the protocol." And further, "It does appear that the geotechnic run-up to the ultimate choice of strategy of repair was well crafted. Also after the hoe work was completed, the hand work and data collection proceeded in accordance with IHPA published standards."
 * Your allegations of improper and illegal activities are not substantiated by the record, nor by any actual fact or finding of illegal or improper behaviour, as ruled by some competent authority. Even if you were a legal expert in this area (and I don't think that you are), and even if you were physically present at the time (which I gather you may have been), your own personal interpretation of what the relevant laws did or did not require in this instance is completely irrelevant and provides no basis to make such charges, or use wikipedia's pages to promote such allegations and pursue whatever personal agenda you have. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 05:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And in fact, he was temporarily blocked for his behavior. . Doug Weller (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not too keen about this either -- I don't think editors should be making what appear to be accusations of criminal activity on Wikipedia. This stuff ends up on the web too easily, the Cahokia stuff did  Doug Weller (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] You again failed to mention the fact that a Cahokia Committee was installed after this destruction of the Mound expressly against the agreement of the State "historic preservation" superintendent - because of the lack of communication with site mangament and the Master Management Plan. As the IAS stated "From my perspective, there was an obvious miscommunication regarding the importance of intergroup communication." You also failed to mention "At the Saturday morning paper session there was some further discussion of the Cahokia Committee. While Paula Cross did not contribute, Fellows Mark Esarey and John Kelly were pressed very hard by colleagues bearing concerns over the slump stabilization strategy and methodology. On balance, Kelly noted that if we, or anybody, wanted to know what was happening at Cahokia, we should join the Cahokia Museum Society. However, the IAS’s discussions and issues are with IHPA and not the project contractor and it is not clear whether this was an agency position statement or a personal, visceral response. Actually, as nearly as I could determine, IHPA really did not directly respond to questions and thoughts regarding re-establishing the Cahokia Committee. Questions were somehow just re-directed and thereby avoided. " Seems as though you ignore the fact also that "The operational or field decisions regarding control over the activity of the hoe operator and how much and which of the undisturbed mound fill to remove remained glossed with the assertion that, “We had someone there all of the time keeping an eye on the mechanical excavation.” The response to the question of whether this was at times only Dr. Kidder’s graduate student volunteer was, “Yes.” " This means no archaeologists were on site when the backhoe operator proceeded to tear out over 30,000 cubic feet from the largest remaining Ancient Indian Mound in the USA. It is apparent that you do not understand this topic or the Walam Olum or the Mound 72 issue and your presentation of the issue is entirely false and uninformed. This was not a "win" for the IHPA.Marburg72 (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since Marburg72 had already posted the above comment to another talk page, to save any further tedium I will just put in a link to my response at the other page.


 * Marburg72 should also realise that this is a noticeboard meant only for review of BLP-related actions on wikipedia, not a place to air opinion. The only question of relevance to this board ('interest' is probably stretching it), is whether or not I, Marburg72 or someone else involved has acted in a manner disrespectful of our BLP policies. So far, no-one has questioned or criticised my actions in removing a couple of potentially defamatory statements. On the other hand, there have been several editors who have identified comments left by Marburg72 &mdash;on numerous occasions and across several talk pages&mdash; as concerning, potentially defamatory and contravening BLP. Including, importantly, a couple of the actual people who were the subject of your allegations. Doesn't this imbalance of response suggest something to you, about the relative merits of your claims? --cjllw ʘ  TALK 07:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * CJLL's creation of "Defamatory statements" apparently are only his and dougs misinterpretation of the information presented on the talk pages. If this is the only relevant question on this board, clearly, Doug and CJLL need to discontinue misinterpreting information and making false accustation about my statements. Clearly, their opinions are based on their personal bias and fall into the Battle category on wikipiedia. These editors should take their battles elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. the wikipedia guidelines state: Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not "insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion." Doug and CJLL have repeatedly made statements that are not in line with this policy. These editors are disruptive and insulting by removing wikilinks, reliable sources, and by continually making accusations of my statements that I did not say. Marburg72 (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I admit to removing duplicated Wikilinks and links to simple nouns like 'art' and 'poetry' and 'anger'. I don't agree that personal web pages or anonymous genealogical are the scholarly sources you think they are. I don't think the four other active editors on Walam Olum that disagree with you are the disruptive ones. Can we drop this? I have no idea why you are discussing wikilinks, reliable sources, etc on this page Doug Weller (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mark Geier
Long-standing issues of WP:COATRACKing this bio and introduction of blog sources at this article (it has been going on for years), having to do with Thiomersal controversy and autism. The article was recently protected for a while, but as soon as protection is removed, same resumes. I've tried to clean it up many times, but redlinked new accounts keep appearing. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Scientologists
Is the Church of Scientology a reliable source for who can be listed as a Scientologist. Please visit Talk:List of Scientologists, if you have an opinion (I prefer to keep all discussion on the talk page, if possible). --Rob (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Glenn McGee
Two edits are posted from IP address 72.224.19.243, in Schnectady, New York, by an anonymous poster. Rather than ask this person to provide their identity through any other method available within the context of remedies for false or misleading statements made on the web, and since there are perhaps three people in all of Schenectady, New York who could have written this post who are within the 72.224.19.243 domain/subdomain, I would ask please that the person making this false edit identify him or herself. - Glenn McGee


 * - brief explanation // 74.76.183.8 (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The edits involved  are based on this source.  It does not strike me as particularly problematic.  The article appears to need a major rewrite, with NPOV a concern.  Additionally, the article as a whole has manual of style issues.  Can an other editor with knowledge of the field take a review.  GRBerry 20:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I took a quick mop and broom to it, converting to inline refs and the like; but it's only a start. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, McGee has taken to removing requests for citations, with angry summaries saying that it is an insult to require verifiability of what "everybody knows" (in his field, I would guess). I don't want to get into an edit war with the guy (assuming that it is in fact he), but he's got a pretty bad case of WP:OWN here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The anon was, among other things, trying to remove perfectly reasonable statements of his editorship of journals, and so one--they can when seriously challenged  be cited from the journal home pages, & I will do so to remove all doubt, but when baseless objections are made to material such as this,  there is  reason to doubt  that the challenges to material are made in good faith. I see nothing much wrong with the tone of the article as it stands, but I'll add some of the things usual in scientist bio articles, such as key papers & reviews of his books.  DGG (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * From the article he seems to be only notable for one thing, being fired from his job. I will tag it a non-notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

J. Michael Bailey complications with COI(ish) editor
An editor, self-identified as Andrea James, is demanding that I not mention her past off-Wiki actions on the talk page of a Wikipedia article that relates directly to these actions.

Related articles:


 * J. Michael Bailey and his book,
 * two "medical" articles here and here
 * one dedicated to the controversy
 * various articles for other adults with a public opinion: Andrea James, Lynn Conway, Deirdre McCloskey, and probably others.

The facts are these:


 * 1) Andrea James is a transsexual activist (and a film producer, screenwriter, and actress, among other things) who was (is?) a principal figure in a politically motivated campaign against J. Michael Bailey.
 * 2) Bailey published a "popular science"-style book in 2003 that is, in part, about a concept of MtF transsexualism which James finds extremely offensive.  James is not alone in her dislike for this book, which is believed by many activists to be politically dangerous and marginalizing for transsexuals.
 * 3) In addition to normal activist "noisemaking", the campaign against Bailey involved a number of legal and academic allegations, from practicing medicine without a license (for writing a letter to a sex-reassignment surgeon, without pay) to claims that interviewing people for his book was legally regulated IRB-controlled research (as opposed to journalistic research, which is a free-speech right).
 * 4) One of James' actions during this time was to copy photographs of Bailey's children from his website and to post them on her own website with "satirical" captions.  The pictures were taken when the children were in elementary school and middle school.  The captions James placed under the children's photgraphs included statements such as "Prostitute" and "Is this girl a cock-starved exhibitionist?" and "There are two types of children in the Bailey household: Type 1, who have been sodomized by their father, or Type 2, who have not".

None of these facts are disputed and all of them are verifiable. Specifically, James does not deny having written these things: she openly acknowledges both the writing and her intention for them to be offensive, calling them "deliberately offensive satire". James claims to have apologized privately to the children, which would tend to indicate that she thought her actions were wrong. However, the Bailey children do not appear to agree with this assertion, and in public, James steadily defends her right to publish "deliberately offensive" innuendo against Bailey's family as 'legitimate public discourse'.

Not only does James not dispute the bare facts, but all of these facts, along with the sources that support them, are well-known to the regular editors of these articles. Many of them are included and properly sourced in the Wikipedia articles.

"Leaving entirely aside the question of legally protected free speech for a minute, I would like to point out to anyone whose blood might be reaching the boiling point, that James behavior towards the children has been roundly denounced inside and outside the TS community: See for example a blog posting by transsexual activist Julia Serano, who passionately hates Bailey's book but still writes (specifically about this incident involving James), 'I am against personal attacks, particularly ones that involve someone's children' and 'I don't think Bailey or his children should be personally harassed' and 'She [James] was wrong to bring his kids into it'."

The current situation is this:

It will not surprise any regular editor to hear that J. Michael Bailey and associated articles are difficult to keep even approximately neutral. It's a polarizing issue. It would be difficult even if one of the principal participants in the campaign wasn't vigilantly defending her interest in all of these articles. I started a talk page discussion on two recent changes that I thought were unjustified. My concerns for the second (and smaller) issue have been satisfied (but see Can of worms).

The as-yet unresolved issue was the unexplained deletion of a direct quotation by a "pro-Bailey" person, properly sourced to a New York Times article. The quotation deals with the chilling effect on free speech that (might/could/has: Pick your POV) resulted from the anti-Bailey campaign. (After all, would any normal parent publish a book, knowing that it was likely to result in the publication of "satirical" statements about you raping your children?)

The quotation was deleted in the course of a bunch of other changes. The deleting editor doesn't mind it being restored, but he thought it would be best to include the next quotation in the NYT article as well, from an anti-Bailey person: "Nothing we have done, I believe, and certainly nothing I have done, overstepped any boundaries of fair comment on a book and an author..." for balance.

The undisputed fact is that at least one of the principal actors in this campaign launched an obscene personal attack against some people whose only "crime" was being the children of a man that James hates. I am convinced that the typical reader of this encyclopedia, as well as a majority of TS folk, will not think that James' "satirical" obscenities and innuendo constitutes "fair comment on a book and an author," and I said as much on the talk page. I did not name Andrea James as having done this, but I'm sure that every regular editor would have known exactly what situation I had in mind, even if Jokestress had not promptly posted to remind them.

Jokestress is unhappy with my view of her actions and has repeatedly demanded that I strike out about half of my initial reply, on the grounds of WP:BLP.

I state plainly that I despise Andrea James' past behavior and that I am not impressed with Jokestress's demand that references to well-documented and repeatedly admitted publications be removed: If you are going to publish deliberately offensive statements about children (and their mother, and their father, and the woman that their father was dating [the parents are divorced]), and to insist that you have a free-speech right to do so, and even to gloat in the same talk page discussion about the irony of pulling a statement in the father's book out of context, so that it obscenely disparages his young son, then IMO you have no room to complain when your well-documented choice is used as an example of "overstepping the boundaries of fair comment on a book and an author".

I have no particular interest in respecting the tender feelings of a person who once valued the feelings of two innocent children very lightly indeed. However, I have been accused of BLP violations for not conforming to Jokestress' personal POV about her actions. I would welcome the advice of any uninvolved, independent editor on making my comments conform with WP:BLP, assuming that other editors believe that mentioning of these documented facts actually transgresses WP:BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC) (who apologizes for inflicting such a long section on readers of this page)


 * This editor claims I "accused Bailey of incestuous child rape," which is an outrageous and baseless claim that violates WP:NPA, WP:BLP and probably a dozen other policies about disruptive editing and attacking other editors. I have asked her to strike through it, and she seems to think that's not necessary. This editor has a long running problem with me personally that includes adding misinformation and then insulting me when I requested corrections and then removing evidence of those earlier attacks. Further, I find the entire entry above laced with all kinds of passive-aggressive insults and incivility that have no place on Wikipedia. I have tried to remain civil throughout these repeated slurs, but this latest accusation simply is beyond the pale. Jokestress (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Note, please that the incestuous child rape isn't likely to be a complaint here, since a father sodomizing his own underaged child is always incest and always child rape. The problem is likely the word accused. There are more definitions of the word accuse than merely whether the work, considered as a whole, rises to the legal standard required for libel per se. I am not a lawyer, and it should be perfectly obvious that I do not make use this word according to the limited definition given in law -- at least as obvious as Andrea James' claim that her reprehensible treatment of these children is protected free speech. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Five years later, you are obviously still very wound up about this (which was the point of that exercise, of course). However, that does not excuse you from your obligations on Wikipedia to avoid personal attacks. You are exactly right that the word "accused" is the problem here, as I noted in my requests on your talk page to strike through that allegation. That is a serious allegation that has no basis in fact, and I am requesting once again that you strike through it and stop making that claim, as it is patently false and malicious. What I wrote five years ago is absolutely protected speech and fair comment; what you have written is not, and it has no place on Wikipedia (or anywhere else). It is an allegation that has only ever come from you, and I am asking you yet again to retract it. Jokestress (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

user:Jokestress edits of BLP on Kenneth Zucker
I am a colleague of Kenneth Zucker, and I am concerned that Jokestress/Andrea James has written a biographical page on Zucker. Jokestress/Andrea James has previously written the following letter to Zucker's hospital regarding Zucker (and others), thus becoming an actor in the events. Despite the rights she has to express her opinions off-wiki, it does not seem appropriate for her to be involved in writing the BLP's of the people once she had involved herself in their lives, such as by contacting their employers.

http://www.tsroadmap.com/notes/index.php/site/comments/letter_to_consultant_brought_in_to_clean_up_camh_clarke_institute/ —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be worthwhile to have another editor review the new article, but the conflict of interest you express concern about would be better aired at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Are there any specific concerns about the article, as the primary issue from this board's perspective will be the sourcing, balance, and accuracy of the article?  Reviewing, a history merge from Kenneth J. Zucker to Kenneth Zucker may be worth doing, but there is no clear copy paste merge here to absolutely require it.  GRBerry 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have posted the above note on COIN. My main concern is with the great imbalance of the article, which exaggerates the prominance of issues relevant to Jokestress' sociopolitical views relative to Zucker's overall career, selectively quotes other authors in ways that serve Jokestress' long-standing efforts to discredit Zucker rather than fairly represent his actual views (Jokestress/Andrea James' many statements about Zucker are available on her personal webapge at www.tsroadmap.com by searching for "Zucker" or his hospital, "CAMH"), and understates Zucker's own statements to the contrary. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As the author of the original article,, I would like to point out that the controversy surrounding Zucker's methodology is a large part of his cultural relevance. I had never heard of Zucker until the piece by Spiegel aired on NPR. Cstaffa (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all saying there should be no article or that he has no cultural relevance; I am saying I believe it is is terribly inappropriate for the article to be edited by someone (Jokestress) who has also taken it upon herself to write letters to Zucker's employers disparaging him. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Begging your pardon, I was replying to your claim of imbalance. I do not at all agree that the article exaggerates the prominence of the controversy surrounding Zucker's GID therapy. Cstaffa (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my misinterpretation, and you are, of course, free to your opinion regarding what constitutes balanced. (Of course, if one's knowledge of a scientist's curriculum vita is based on a radio broadcast that covered only a single aspect of it, then one would be hard pressed to know what balanced would look like.) Nonetheless, my point is about whether it is appropriate for a BLP to be written by someone who has also sent disparaging letters to the employer of article's subject. My opinion is "no." —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Take the counter example- suppose an editor had written a complimentary letter to a subject's employer, or a fan letter to the subject himself. Would we say that the editor shouldn't edit the biography? I don't think we would, so long as the editor follows the rules. We don't require that editors be neutral, only their edits. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I can recommend only that you read Jokestress' string of edits: Together with editing the Zucker page, she has included large edits about Zucker on the conversion therapy page attempting to cast Zucker (falsely) as a reparative/conversion therapist. Specifically, Jokestress has made edits to expand the definition of "conversion therapy" (poorly sourced to the report of an activist group) so that Zucker suddenly counts as a conversion therapist. (She has done this following the American Psychiatric Association's (correct) statement that Zucker does not do reparative/conversion therapy; so Jokestress is now revising the WP definition to make the reverse seem true.) One would be hard-pressed to refer to her edits as neutral. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't appear to be a BLP issue. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

John Leslie (television presenter)
There seems to be a content dispute regarding removal of material (which is well-sourced but to the detriment of the subject of the article) going on at John Leslie (television presenter). I'm not at all experienced in the BLP issues, but I thought this might be the place to report it. Pseudomonas(talk) 21:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The latest addition is sourced to the BBC, which is fine. The paragraph before lacks in-line citations. They should be easy to track down. BBC, ITN, Guardian, Times, Telegraph, Independent are all appropriate sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Will Smith
I took out a paragraph which was about someone allegedly blackmailing Mr. Smith and his wife. The purpose seemed to be to suggest that there must be some secret that they were trying to hide. I think putting that kind of thing in a BLP is kind of against the spirit of what a WP bio should be, even if there is not exactly a rule against it. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It didn't seem to reflect badly on the article subject in any way. The issue is whether E! is a good enough source for such a statement. I would say not, because it seems to be tabloid in its type of coverage. If the issue it mentioned did turn out to be a noteworthy news story then it should be possible to find coverage in more serious news sources. If there is no such coverage, then it is not worth noting in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The paragraph has not been put back so maybe there is no problem. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
There seems to be a concerted effort to keep properly sourced, but not flattering material from the above referenced biography. The material was removed repeatedly without reason then the page semi-protected. The material is not mine but seems to be well sourced. Could someone more knowlegable of proper procedures review the talk page, check the listed sources, and at least add to the discussion if not remedy the situation?

66.230.106.220 (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)David Adamson66.230.106.220 (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it the comparison with Chavez that you are talking about? If so, it is cited to Newsweek and would seem to be an appropriate addition, on condition that it is properly worded. Pulling together various comparisons to Chavez from different sources could be original research and therefore unsuitable. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree and thats why I jumped in to the editing but the editors who dont seem to want to allow the material have protected the page. Is there someway or someone who can resolve the issue and clear off the protection or re-post the cited material? Again, I am very new to this and it is almost to the point of "really not worth it" to continue when I really have no "dog in the fight." I like the idea of wikipedia but this was my first venture into the process adn it has been frustrating. 209.112.186.4 (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)David Adamson


 * I've requested the page be unprotected. Protection by an involved admin seems a little overboard. -- Kendrick7talk 02:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

How to handle unsourced BLPs - a question in June '08
I regularly come across biographies which aren't appropriate sourced, if sources are used at all, and I think it's time to revisit discussions about what to do in such situations. I only discovered the 'delete in 5 days' tag recently, and would like to apply it regularly to such articles, so I'm coming here to see if there is / might be consensus for such tagging? (perhaps this is common practice?).

Two examples from my 'random button' browsing today are Tareq_Aakef and Myriam_Fares - in both cases there are unsourced claims that should probably be removed (in the former the reference to a dispute in the 'personality' paragraph, and in the later, the information about who she's rumoured to be dating) - but that's only the start of the issue really, because (for example) I can't be at all sure whether the first sentence in Tareq's article concerning the belly dancer is fair and neutral, a sly dig, a bit of a 'puff piece', or somehow really insulting to someone with local knowledge.

Is tagging for deletion in 5 days a good idea / acceptable? thoughts most welcome... Privatemusings (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't be active in BLPs for at least a little while, but would still like some feedback on the above - is it ok to nominate unsourced biographies for deletion with the rationale that they have no sources? (I feel pretty sure that this is a fairly straight forward question, because I have a nagging feeling that I should know the answer!) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely - though if it seems like an obviously valid bio simply lacking sources, a 5-minute Google search for a basic source wouldn't hurt your case. FCYTravis (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * that's one of my the key things that I'm trying to think through at the mo... I don't think there should be responsibility on the part of the person suggesting deletion to provide sources - at least I think that's what I don't think! Totally agree that if someone is prepared to source them at all, then that's great - but if they aren't (and remember that they've been sitting online being read, in some cases for quite a while) - then I think they should probably be deleted. Am I right in thinking that if the tag remains there for 5 days, then a passing admin will probably just delete the article? - it could always then be re-created (hopefully with sources!) at any time... Privatemusings (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, in general I agree, but if we're talking about an article on, say, a Congressman (I should hope that none of those are unsourced, of course!), then I think doing a two-second Google search is in keeping with good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia. If someone runs across an obviously valid article that simply lacks a source, then I think that person does more to help the encyclopedia by spending three minutes to Google and add a source than by spending 10 seconds to tag and move on. If you know the article is good, why not fix it while you're at it? It's good etiquette. FCYTravis (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Kerr
Grateful if someone could take a look at this, the sourcing is dubious and the allegations are quite significant.

Thanks

ALR (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * the sourcing is from one respectable newspaper, not at all a tabloid at the time. its articles include the allegation that other newspapers did not report on the story because of a UK order preventing them from doing so.  the article is presently clean, because the serious allegation are in the linked newspaper, not the article. The articles are however posted on an potentially unreliable but fascinating third party website, Cryptome, one of whose specialties is asserted UK misbehaviour in N.  Ireland,  so they really need to be checked against the actual newspaper . There ought to be some other sources as well, if one looked in the right places, but I dont know much about this kind of investigation. DGG (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at it.
 * I'll observe that I culled most of the inference from the article, leading it to being very limited in nature. I have two main issues; The newspaper articles are apparently single sourced themselves, reliant on one self professed witness with no further attribution and secondly, in it's current state there is no assertion of notability and as far as I can see no scope to assert notability.
 * I'm familiar with the allegations, and some of the surrounding information and I can't see how to make it more notable, in a reliable and robust manner, using the available open source material.
 * ALR (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris Heimerdinger

 * - Chris Heimerdinger is a novelist noted for his success in the LDS community. His Wikipedia page is being policed by a user who insists that all changes go through him so he can check their accuracy with Heimerdinger. I accidentally embroiled myself in this controversy; I think it's time that some outside editors came in and read the talk page and help decide what the appropriate course of action is. Thanks. Thmazing (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I commented at some length on the talk page there. I consider some of the material borderline. DGG (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciated your guidance. Thmazing (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Verne Troyer
TMZ, a gossip online site, has reported that there exists a sex tape of the above person (best known as Mini-Me from Austin Powers). I've been reverting the addition because it is a controversial statement by a non-reliable source. Several newspaper's blogs have started reporting on the TMZ allegations (with no independent confirmation) and now are being used as sources. I would like assistance in monitoring this page for the use of reliable sources. Thanks. &#8756; Therefore | talk 03:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't belong until there's confirmation that the tape is actually of Troyer - the veracity is as yet unconfirmed by any reliable source. FCYTravis (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Guardian has reported on this (G2, "We watched Mini-Me's sex tape so you don't have to", by Marina Hyde, "Lost in Showbiz", on page 2). As well as the print edition, it also appears in the website's blog section:
 * http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/lostinshowbiz/2008/06/we_watched_minimes_sex_tape_so.html
 * Ho hum. So this is what I get for my 80p! --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * An update: a Federal judge has issued a restraining order prohibiting distribution or reproduction of the tape. FCYTravis (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Eros Ramazzotti

 * - A user is repeatedly inserting a long text he has copied and translated from a newspaper, using language that it heavily biased, unencyclopedic and violating WP:peacock, WP:pov and WP:weasel  // JdeJ (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oswald Skippings
I have serious concerns regarding some of the content of the above mentioned article, as it is entirely unsourced and contains information about the alleged criminal and otherwise inappropriate activities of a living person. John Carter (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm providing at least some sourcing from Google News. (there were already inline not fully formatted refs--2 to the  Times and one to a UK White Paper.) I removed some of the least supported material. He's a public figure, but this is a small country and there is not much online beyond what is copied from Wikipedia. -More is needed, but it requires serious research.   DGG (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Lara Logan

 * - Lara Logan is a war correspondant for CBS news. Given her recent appearance on the Daily Show and (I think) recent promotion at CBS -combined with her views on American media coverage of the war in Iraq, I suspect she will be the target of a defamation campaign.  I have reverted a recent attempt to include allegations of a sexual nature attributed to the New York Post (with the serious title, "News Babe's Iraqi Tryst").  This biography might need a few eyes on it.  Thanks,  R. Baley (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Logan's affairs have been reported in the National Enquirer as well as the NY Post. If this turns up in another source, it's going to approach notability. I don't think a defamation campaign conspiracy theory is going to be sufficient to keep it out.Verklempt (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not an American but I seem to recognise those names..... Sure enough after reading National Enquirer "is an American supermarket tabloid now published by American Media Inc (AMI). Founded in 1936, the tabloid has gone through a variety of changes over the years, and is currently well-known for its articles focusing on celebrity news, gossip, and crime. While it briefly sought a reputation for reliable journalism and had some success scooping other media with angles on the O.J. Simpson and Monica Lewinsky stories, notable erroneous reports such as those concerning the Elizabeth Smart case have not supported that effort and the focus has been alleged to have returned to celebrity gossip." I think I can safely say it is unlikely to be a reliable source for this sort of thing (tabloid gossip is one of the things which BLP is intended to stop). The New York Post's headline on the article doesn't exactly lead it credilence and in particular reading New York Post "The New York Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for what many consider its lurid headlines, sensationalism, blatant advocacy" I think we're going to need far better sources before we even consider including this Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran an Associated Press story on it. That's two votes in one for "notable."  Make that three: Howard Kurtz picked it up in a Washington Post article.Audemus Defendere (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No comment on the AP story since you didn't link to it but a brief mention in a newspaper blog doesn't exactly help the case IMHO particularly when the blog itself said "Which would mean it's not much of a story." Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Howard Kurtz is, whatever you think of him, the US' leading and most prominent media critic, so we can't dismiss him as a mere blogger. Gamaliel (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to find a link on the AJC website, but they usually dump AP content there after about 12-24 hours. It appears elsewhere, but a lot of it seems to be house-of-mirrors reflections of the National Enquirer piece, though one South African paper directly confirms the affair. Should be fun to watch, even if it fades below notability. Audemus Defendere (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The SA paper link is helpful. It looks like it's heading to a situation where it may have sufficienty notability for a mention in the article but since it seems unconnected to what she's notable for (as a journalist) and there is no suggestion it has affected her integrity as a journalist nor is it something she has crusaded against (if she were Ann Coulter say, things may be different since it's the sort of thing Ann Coulter condemns) it should be brief if at all, particularly if it's not long lasting. Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am unsure why mention of the steamy details of a relationship sourced primarily from notoriously unreliable divorce proceedings and tabloid newspapers even if "true" are relevant in the biography of a war correspondent/news reporter. Joe Burkett, the man in question, lacks notability to mention by name. So, while it may be helpful to add "Logan has been involved with a State Department contractor", to add the other sketchy lurid details serve only to disparage Logan which has no business in a BLP. &#8756; Therefore | talk 15:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why details of her personal life belong in an encyclopedia article at all. In the example given in WP:BLP, a politician is accused of having an affair, denies it, a scandal ensues and the New York Times confirms it. That sets a high bar that isn't met here. Also there is a sexist angle. Male foreign correspondents are not known for celibacy, but their sexual exploits don't make the news. --agr (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hip Hop Galaxy

 * Special:Linksearch/*.hiphopgalaxy.com

I see that a number of articles are utilizing HipHopGalaxy.com as a source for biographical information. I don't feel this source is reliable. Is there a way to check against this?? JBsupreme (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Their about page says that it is based on user contributions, so I would agree that it is absolutely not reliable, especially for bio information. I'll start at the top of the list. Kevin (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh crime family
Although there are references in this article, the claims are not footnoted to indicate which claims come from which reference. Thus it's virtually impossible to prove that the claims made against living people are accurate. Corvus cornix talk  23:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * These stories about thugs and criminals are normally overwritten for titillation of the reader or aggrandisement of the ruffian. The article can be safely deleted as nonsense.  People who want to read this kind of nonsense can watch The Untouchables or something. --Jenny (recently changed username) 07:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sean Hannity
I am concerned that the following is within the article.


 * Journalist Max Blumenthal, son of former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, in a June 2005 article published in The Nation, claimed that Hannity's radio show provided a regular forum for the rants of white supremacist Hal Turner and that their relationship extended to an off-air friendship from 1998 to 2000.[10] While the relationship claims were seconded by Turner in a posting on his personal blog, they were denied by Hannity and by the program director at WABC, Phil Boyce, who disputed the factual accuracy of many of the allegations.[11]

My primary concern is that reference "The Nation" ref relies on two sources, Hal Turner (and his blog site) and Daryle Jenkins of One People's Project (which is most likely not a reliable source.) Google searching has provided no additional published articles which quality as reliable sources regarding this issue, and as it stands it basically reads as Turner's word against Hannity. It has been stated by a few editors that it raises WP:REDFLAG and WP:WELLKNOWN. Being that Hannity is wellknown there should be additional sources which discuss this issue, but there are not. Additionally, this is a pretty exceptional claim, and if so there should be substantial reliable sources which discuss the incident less it be a case of WP:UNDUE Editors which have objected to the material have stated a desire for additional reliable sources. Editors in favor have stated that "The Nation" is a reliable source which is verifiable and that is all that is needed. Indeed "The Nation" is a reliable source, and it is verifiable that Turner made these statements, however, does his word reach the level which would validate inclusion? Are the allegations of a couple of people enough to include contencious material which Hannity has already denied? I believe that RS News Organizations may also cover this because it is an opinion piece being used as a statement of fact. Arzel (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A cursory examination of Google News Archives doesn't have much to go on, either. The Blumenthal piece shows up, but most of the other references are from News Hounds, whose motto is We watch Fox so you don't have to. There are also some hits for Infoshop News, whose motto is anarchist news, opinion and much more. Finally, there's one hit from ALM Research that strikes me as fairly reliable, but the article is about a libel suit by Cynthia McKinney's lawsuit against the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and only mentions in passing that Turner is an associate of Hannity's. Putting my rather strong dislike for Fox News and Sean Hannity aside, none of these sources seems very good. Personally, I think it's pretty likely they're correct, but I'd feel much more comfortable if this was discussed in some unbiased, non-opinion based sources. A  ni  Mate  04:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * HI Ani! What do you think about Blumenthal's The Nation article? Docku (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Parts of this are well-reported. It's verifiable with multiple sources that Turner promotes what has been called "message of hate". It's also widely reported that he was a frequent caller to Hannity's program. So the only matter at issue is whether Hannity spoke to Turner off the air. A reliable source (The Nation) reports that Turner says they did speak. A blog, Huffington Post, reports that Hannity denies even knowing who Turner is. Another blog says that the program director left a denial in a comment on the blog. The Blumenthal piece in The Nation is a higher-grade source than the blogs. Denials by 3rd-parties in blog comments are not suitable sources. I think that so long as we attribute the claims the material is suitable. While the denial is poorly-sourced, there's some benefit to including it for the sake of NPOV. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? The Nation Op-Ed on Turner's Blog site is more reliable than the denial by Hannity and his program director on another Blog site?  Arzel (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The editorial in the Nation is not Blumenthal's opinion but him repeating information gleaned from One People's Project. Since The Nation is a biased source (for a conservative BLP article : they bill themselves as left/liberal) that means the only sources for this controversial material in a BLP are: a biased editorial based on information from an unusable source, blogs and forums.  I don't think that's enough to include the material. --PTR (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a valid argument. BBC reporters reporting from Afghanistan sometimes have sources who are some poor Afghans. Are we going to question BBC report because of that??? We accept that as good information because we know BBC wouldnt report all the information they receive. Now, What about FOX news channel. Well, everyone knows that it is right leaning organisation but it doesnt mean that they report false news, and if they do, it will be detrimental to their reputaion. The point is right leaning or left leaning magazines, newspaper or news organisations which are also considered reliable sources may give more importance to or omit reports to suit their position. They dont report false information. If they do, they shouldnt be called reliable sources. Let us not confuse left leaning and right leaning with reliability. Docku (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash the overly long discussion on the Hannity talk page, I'm just going to make two points: First, this is not an "editorial", it is a regular article from a reliable source. It is only an "editorial" in the minds of some editors who oppose using the RS. Two, do we typically dissect the sources of articles from a RS like this? Do we even know what the sources are? Most sources are not identified and yet we accept the material when it comes from an RS, and we should do no different in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We should dissect them for a BLP. I would expect to do the same if a National Review editorial was the only source of controversial information someone was trying to include in [Al Franken].  The sources for something like this should be mainstream and multiple; not relying on one source that was listed in the index under columns, was written by a Media Matters Fellow, was web only (not in the print version), uses two blogs as it's sources and is in the Fox News Network section of The Nation, which is politically left.  The goal of getting it right is worth some time to make sure that controversial inclusions are well sourced.  --PTR (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If we should take the time to get it right, then we shouldn't repeat misconceptions like the fact that this is listed under "columns", when as I pointed out the talk page, the phrase "column left" is appended only to Robert Scheer's article. Also, the fact that it is web only is immaterial and I'm not sure why you bring it up. Innuendos about the writer's background are also immaterial. We aren't running opposition research here. We're deciding how to employ a reliable source, when all some editors appear interested in is creating and fabricating all sorts of fallacious reasons to slur a source that is perfectly acceptable according to WP policies. Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are small headings under different sections and it appears to me that the items under the column left heading are all in that category. The fact that it is web only makes it more likely that it's an editorial and not an article that they would have used in their print media.  I made no innuendos about the writer's background - in his bio on The Nation page it lists that he is a Media Matters Fellow.  I don't know what you consider slurs.  I mentioned that they are left/liberal.  The have that on their web page.   All I said was the use of this as the sole source for a conservative's BLP is not adequate and that multiple main stream sources were necessary. --PTR (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you follow the links for the different articles, you will see that Scheer's article is labeled "Column Left" at the top of the article and Blumenthal's is not. It's pretty clear that this means "Column Left" is the name of Scheer's regular feature or that it is part of a series called "Column Left", while Blumenthal's is not.  Your point about the web-only material meaning it is an editorial is only speculation and we shouldn't use such speculation when evaluating sources for BLPs.  The writer's background is pretty irrelevant.  MMfA and The Nation are both progressive, there is nothing unusual about a journalist working for both institutions, nor should we use that as an indication to speculate that a writer is less reliable because of it. The key question, which everyone is furiously trying to dance around, is this: is The Nation a reliable source? It is, so the material is acceptable to use. Gamaliel (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Blumenthal's piece is also not listed as an article and is in the Fox News Network section which primarily editorials about Fox News. It is written in editorial fashion using blogs as sources and representing one side only while at the end making editorial comments.  The writer's background on an editorial is relevant.  I'm not saying he is unrealiable or making any slurs on his character.  I would expect an editorial to be written from the viewpoint of the writer.  And the main question is not is The Nation a reliable source but: Is one non mainstream source, which is possibly an editorial, from a politically opposite source adequate for controversial material in a BLP.  As it says in [WP:RS} How reliable a source is depends on context. --PTR (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unbelievable. It is so tiring to argue with people who dont want to stick to the points and policies which matter to this discussion. I guess we should take it to WP:Mediation or WP:Arbitration. Docku (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What about WP:REDFLAG and WP:WELLKNOWN? Why don't you look at that?  As an admin you should have a good knowledge of WP policies, yet you have yet to make a single comment regarding these two important policies.  Arzel (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I only have so much time and energy. Perhaps if I didn't have to spend so much time discussing bullshit accusations like calling a magazine article a "blog" then I would have time to discuss those policies in depth. Gamaliel (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you consider concerns regarding a BLP "bullshit" then perhaps you should rethink your purpose here. I brought up WP:WELLKNOWN at the beginning.  WP:REDFLAG was also brought up at the beginning.  Your response leads me to believe you have no good answer.  Arzel (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess, Arzel's concerns were answered in the article talk page several times. I also think Gemaliel was refering to the misguided and inconsistent words used by both Arzel and PTK (column, editorial, blog column and finally blog) to characterise the The Nation article to support their argument wrongly, which led us to question their intentions. The question: Is it about getting a fair solution to this issue? or get the edit removed no matter what? Docku (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop trolling, Arzel. You know damn well I am concerned about BLPs (perhaps you recall asking your assistance regarding the bio of conservative Kevin James), but that concern doesn't make me resort to fabricating problem after problem to get my way and making blatantly false statements like calling a magazine article a blog. If you want to discuss the issue, discuss it without resorting to manipulating policy like this. Gamaliel (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference here is that it is clearly stated in the article that the source for "The Nation" article is a blog. Now if blogs like the one used in "The Nation" article are not suitable as a primary source, then why would an article that simply restates the blog be a reliable source?  Seems to me that the policy of WP:RS is being used word for word, but the spirit of the policy is being tossed aside.  In any case if this was an issue there should be several additional RS's that could be used, and I don't understand why superceding policies of WP:REDFLAG and WP:WELLKNOWN are being ignored by some.  What is the point of even having there policies if they are to be ignored?  Arzel (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Arzel on the above. I should state that I have been involved with the Hannity article in the past (starting in March or April of this year); I came there a neutral party, and I still regard myself as such. (I also ended up with the biographies of several other conservative media personalities on my watchlist at the same time, and I've unfortunately learned that critics of the people involved love to coatrack these bios with poorly-sourced "controversies".) I am the person who drafted the wording above (I did so to effect a compromise between warring parties) but I am still very uncomfortable with its inclusion. I researched this extensively, and everything seems to trace back to the word of a fringe racist figure (Hal Turner), which was picked up and amplified by Hannity's detractors. (A look into the article history will show that this claim has come and gone multiple times as different editors focus their attention on the article.) My research into commentary by the The Nation (the reliable source listed for this info) shows that they have engaged in polemical attacks against conservative figures in the past, particularly in editorial columns. I don't think we should keep this claim - particularly in a biography on Hannity, a prominent media figure who could cause damage to Wikipedia should he regard this as libel. I would support inclusion of the claim if more reliable sourcing could be found for the claim - but for now, the information should go. Kelly  hi! 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am wondering what changed Kelly's mind as he(she) admitted that he(she) (I guess Gemaliel was also involved in the compromised and balanced edit) was the one who presented the current version. FYI, It is not wikipedia policy to analyse the intentions and background of how informations land up in reliable sources. Our duty is to write what is reported in reliable sources. It is not about conservatism or liberalism, it is about reliable source. It is not a good idea to let ones affiliation to one ideology interfere with editorial process here. Docku (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What changed it was that I continued to research the issue after I drafted the compromise wording to end the edit war. I can't find any credible source to establish the claimed relationship between Hannity and Turner, aside from Turner himself. I initially took the The Nation as being an unquestioned reliable source, but the more I looked, the more I realized that were likely pushing a particular point of view about Hannity, and other conservatives, that could not be regarded as neutral. Just my opinion, but it appears others share that opinion. (And I will declaim for the public record right now that I myself an decidedly not a conservative - except when it come to compliance with WP:BLP.) If this claimed relationship is really notable, it should be easy to find another source to back it up - if not, I sincerely believe it should go. Kelly  hi! 16:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, The Nation is an unquestionable reliable source. Docku (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, that is questioned in this case. This is a perfect example of the situation described in WP:REDFLAG. It's appropriate to demand a high-quality source for this claim. Given Hannity's high profile in the media, I find it pretty suspicious that no other reliable source has mentioned this claimed association. Kelly  hi! 16:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The evidence from the reliable source satisfying WP:VERI, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR far outweighs that it can not be disqualified by your suggested policies. Docku (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read my previous reply again. The answer is there. Docku (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's clearly not a blog, and even if it were, it would be irrelevant as it is from an RS. Gamaliel (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, WP:RS doesn't work thatway in BLP's. Arzel (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is what is bothersome. A perceived disregard and condemnation for a procedure the subject initiated himself. Docku (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would want to remind the neutral observers here to have a look at the edit histories of the parties involved in the discussion. If a pattern adhering to WP:SPA can be ascertained from this edit history, it can explain some of the unusual argumental behaviours witnessed here. Docku (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure my pattern of editing on articles related to porn stars and other problematic BLP articles can be used to discredit what I'm saying (especially my DYK on Ashley Alexandra Dupre), by demonstrating that I'm some kind of Republican bible-thumper. Docku, please - focus your effort on finding sources to support your claim. Kelly  hi! 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral people here will probably confine themselves to commenting on the BLP issues. If you have concerns about an editing pattern then you should take it up in another forum, e.g. a user RfC. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will consider that option. Docku (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have read through all of the above, enough of the talk page comments related to this to get a proper flavor of the material there, and read the Nation article. For what it's worth, this is my take on the situation: So, from my reading unless and until you can identify additional WP:RS to corroborate these claims it seems wholly inappropriate to include this material given the potential harm to the subject and their family members. --GoRight (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hannity is obviously well known, so WP:WELLKNOWN applies. This means you need multiple reliable sources.  You have precisely one.
 * WP:REDFLAG includes "apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources". Note the plural there on the sources.  I suspect it is plural for the obvious reason.  Again, you have one.  And within that single source I find the following: "Turner (or someone claiming to be Turner) wrote in an August 4, 1998, Google discussion forum ...".  If the author of the article is unclear as to whether their sources are reliable, what more needs to be said?
 * The Hal Turner blog is a WP:SPS which was NOT written by the subject of the BLP and is thus NOT a valid source in this context per WP:BLP.
 * The only thread of a argument for inclusion that I can see is that, under ordinary circumstances, The Nation would be considered WP:RS and WP:V, but that fact alone does not warrant ignoring the concerns listed above, at least IMHO. To quote from WP:BLP, "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'."  The fact that we are talking about including material designed to paint Hannity as a racist solely using a guilt by association fallacy will obviously be harmful.

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism
Is is acceptable to use a blog comment by a scientist that is sharply critical of a minor (no WP article) signatory to the petition and also cite a throwaway line in the same blog comment that makes an accusation against another signatory? The reference is no. 32 in the article, blog by PZ Myers. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PZ is a great guy, and I love his blog, but his rhetorical comment about one of the signatories of a petition, in the context of the article, is insignificant. His efficient demolition of a blog posting by Egnor is of some interest, but we shouldn't be recording exchanges confined (as this one is) to the blogosphere.  --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 10:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to be a BLP issue so much as a question of sourcing. We don't use blogs. However, the article in question seems to be quite a POV-fest. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why people have such a problem. After all the petition itself is a product of the evolutionary process. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pritam
I started watching this article a couple of months ago when it showed up on the RefDesk. This article is hit by a lot of IP editors who feel a burning need to educate the world that Pritam is a plagiarist. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they were completely right, but usually these edits take the form of vitriolic unreferenced allegations, or simply pleas to the reader to go watch some comparison videos on youtube.

Recently, however, this site has been showing up a lot as a sole reference to support a whole paragraph (or more) on Pritam's plagiarism : http://www.itwofs.com/

The IP editors claim this is a very notable source, even though it seems to me to simply be a self-published web-site with no outside references beyond YouTube. Is this sort of thing an acceptable cite in a BLP article? APL (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

V.T. Rajshekar
I've watched this page for ages and kept off some BLP violations and I would really appreciate some fresh pairs of eyes. A lot of material could probably be shifted to Dalit Voice, the publication with which the subject is closely associated. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

John Aravosis
Persistent insertion of unsourced POV material by new editors. Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a 3RR warning to one of the offender's talk.--agr (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Offender has been blocked: . Bearian (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

George_Soros
There's a continuing issue on George Soros. This is the 3rd time it has come up over several years and both times before the material has been removed or toned down.

The apparent SPA who wants to include it in an inflammatory form has ignored my request to get a formal 3rd opinion on this, so I bring it here.

The issue is whether the 13 year old Soros "helped" or "assisted" the Nazis in confiscating Jewish property during the Hungarian halocost. Soros was acting under the orders of his father to act as the godson of a Hungarian official who helped in the confiscation. Remember that Soros is Jewish and his life depended on hiding from the Nazis. Also please remember that Soros was almost 70 years old during the following interview. The apparent SPA seems to imply that this is a confession of war crimes. A transcript of the interview is in hidden text in the section.

Kroft: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

....
 * Mr. Soros: Yes. That's right. Yes.


 * Mr. Soros: ... I was only a spectator, .... I had no role in taking away that property.

Please, somebody with a NPOV take a look at this section.

Smallbones (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your account of the controversy seems a bit self-serving -- I see three editors in the edit history who have supported the use of the interview. Only one of them, the IP editor who initially added the interview transcript, could be possibly called an "SPA." None of them "seem to imply that this is a confession of war crimes." It looks like you objected to the use of the transcript, which would be one way of ensuring that no one "implies" anything. To my mind, the solution would be to use the transcript, or to ensure that a summary of the transcript is as complete as possible. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Buster Capiñoaz is the apparent SPA, 11 of 23 edits on Soros, the rest look like political spin to me. The anon plunked down an out-of-context, unformatted transcript into the middle of the article, User:Mindmatrix reverted, the apparent SPA reverted and I supported Mindmatrix, the transcript is simply confusing and out of place, with a problem with WP:weight, so why put in a transcript where Soros ultimately says
 * I was only a spectator, .... I had no role in taking away that property. when the point of including the transcript seems to be that he did play a role in confiscating the property? The transcript is simply confusing and long, and irrelevant unless the point the editor is trying to make is that a 13 year old boy, hiding for his life from the Nazis, was somehow collaberating with the Nazis - but at the end of the transcript this interpretation is explicitly denied.   Why include it??


 * Smallbones (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That interview is famous. It was very high-profile ("60 Minutes") and a bit of a landmark in the life of the subject. It should be treated carefully, no spinning allowed, but it should not be swept under the rug. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It needs to be said here that the LaRouche movement considers Soros to be a villain. Some of the editors who've posted the material or defended it appear, due to their other edits, to be sympathetic to the LaRouche movement. Therefore it seems there is an effort to promote negative material about Soros in order to further a POV. Regarding the interview itself, it is a primary source and should be used with great care if at all. Secondary sources are much better. One of the secondary sources is a link to a site that is hosting a copyvio and so the link should be removed. The original reference, if found to say what it's purported to say, is sufficient if properly cited. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen this tactic before. Someone who has an axe to grind in a particular dispute manages to find a quote that indicates that LaRouche agrees with the other side, which is supposed to confer all kinds of legitimacy to the side of the quote-finder. This is guilt by association, an old rhetorical trick. The edits should be judged on their own merits. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have any axes to grind, so I'm not sure who you're talking about. I stand by my statement. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then the perhaps you could specify which editors you are accusing of having a hidden agenda. After all, Smallbones was kind enough to specify which editor he thinks is an SPA (although to me, that editor looks more like a Newby, as in "Don't bite the newbies." In my opinion, this discussion could use a healthy dose of WP:AGF. I heard somewhere that speculating about the motives of other editors was frowned on around here.) --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about a hidden agenda. I said that some editors have demonstrated a sympathy for the LaRouche movement, which is relevant to this matter becuase the LaRouche movement villifies George Soros. Wikipedia is not a publishing arm of the LaRouche movement. His concepts are thoroughly covered in the the articles about him and his movement. We don't need to use Wikipedia to further his ideas. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence whatsoever of a vast LaRouchite conspiracy here. If you have any evidence, present diffs. Otherwise, this is a total red herring. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I've never read the article until now, and on first glance it's strikingly problematic in its present form. The tone is not encyclopedic or biographical - it seems to be more of a reportage of opinions and scandals. Whatever the editors' motivations, the section inappropriately casts aspersions on Soros. It seems to be in argumentative style - trying to piece together facts. The account of the minutia of an interview is not relevant or informative, and there is no justification for the weight it is given. Clearly should be trimmed back and simply describe notable events in this part his life. Other parts suffer from this too. The article could use a substantial clean-up. Wikidemo (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and made an initial approach to the worst part of it. The full interview is way over the top, and I think any use of the interview is inappropriate - so I removed it from the text and the commented-out section (the talk page can link to it if anyone wants to preserve some reference or discuss it).  Under BLP, this kind of information does not belong.  Even outside of BLP, controversial material like this should not be added without consensus for inclusion.Wikidemo (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Neve Gordon

 * Wikipedia sockpuppets of Borisyy and Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Borisyy
 * Wikipedia sockpuppets of Borisyy and Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Borisyy
 * Wikipedia sockpuppets of Borisyy and Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Borisyy

See also Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive44.

Israeli academic and peace activist Neve Gordon won a libel action, confirmed by an appeals court, against right-wing academic Steven Plaut. There have been several attempts to use the articles on both of these figures to repeat the allegations found by two Israeli courts to be libellous, and to compound this by racist attacks against the judge.

Following the appeal verdict earlier this year, there was a concerted attack by sockpuppets, who falsely claimed that the appeal court had reversed the original verdict and found in favour of Plaut. The sockpuppets were blocked, and the article settled down. Now, however, Amoruso, on his return after a two-month block for "very abusive sockpuppetry", has repeatedly edited the article to deny the objective reports (from Haaretz and The Chronicle of Higher Education), and to assert that the appeal overturned the verdict. His source for this is an article in the neoconservatve Campus Watch, for which Plaut regularly writes, and a reference in Hebrew to the Israeli court judgement, apparently not available online.

There are several problems with this. The claim that the verdict was overturned is not supported by the objective third-party sources; Campus Watch is hardly a reliable source in any matter, even less so in one like this; and the use of the court verdict seems in direct contradiction of WP:NOR, which states "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews... All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

I have no wish to get involved in yet another edit war with this editor, and would appreciate comments from neutral observers on the appropriateness of his edits and sources. RolandR (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a ref for it being upheld: http://chronicle.com/daily/2008/03/1937n.htm--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The verdict was overturned. user:RolandR has a habit of not using talk pages and not engaging in discussions, but using false allegations. Apparently, he now blames me for using non reliable sources. Well, he should have done so in the wikipedia talk page. He also tries to slander me and say that I was banned in the past. I was banned, unjustly, but he user:RolandR was banned for disruptive behavior on Steven Plaut (same issue) article in the past more than once that this seems hypocrite of course. I was never accused for being a sockpuppet of someone who edited in this article in the past. Btw, he made this entry here without even telling me and also filed a report of a 3RR that never occurred. He tries to intimidate users in "terrorist" means it seems.


 * The matter is simple. I've engaged in the talk page - Talk:Neve Gordon and explained this in full. To copy from there:


 * Even though user:RolandR chose not to engage in the talk page, from his summary it seems he believes that we should not use the words from the verdict. I'm open to other opinions. user:RolandR prefers to use Source #1 which says that the court upheld the ruling while I showed that there is another source, Source #2  which says that the court overturned the ruling. This is a terminology issue because the court both upheld and overturned the ruling. However, it overturned 90% of the ruling, and upheld only a small part. Therefore, I proposed to use the words from the verdict - which explain exactly that. Is it not the most logical and WP:NPOV solution?


 * The verdict is available here. This all is depicted in the article nicely. The version RolandR is trying to force because of his WP:POV and WP:OWN (it's impossible to uphold WP:AGF here as much as I try) is simply faulty. The verdict was overturned except for one small thing (basically 10% of the verdict). Saying it was upheld and inventing stuff like "reduced because of exaggeration" simply because he found some place on the web that says it, is ridiculous. We're quoting the actual things the judges said. There are plenty of Hebrew speakers out there if he doesn't speak Hebrew to verify it. Amoruso (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I must say I think RolandR's summary does a decent job, while the Amoruso version seems to dwell rather too heavily on the details. The verdict was upheld on appeal but the damages were reduced because the appeal court found that Gordon had exaggerated Plaut's libels.  The rest just seems like undue weight.  Amoruso, I think you're treading on thin ice in impugning another Wikipedian's good faith just after returning from a long block for sock puppetry.   --Jenny 03:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jenny. On my part, before RolandR wrote here without telling me, I've asked for a third opinion through the proper channels, and the third opinion agreed with me. I think it's not about undue weight or summaries, it's about the factual information. The verdict was overturned. The first verdict said that Plaut was libelous in regards to many different publications. In the appeal the judges overturned that again and again. I think the main confusion is that it's not about damages - it's about whether he made libel - each publication stands on its own. Only one small publication was left and the damages therefore are dramatically changed. This was a victory for Steven Plaut, not Neve Gordon. What user:RolandR is trying to do is distort the facts of the appeal. I agree it's open to interpretation, so the best thing to do, the most WP:NPOV and WP:NOR way is to quote from the horse's mouth - the judges. The judges explicitly say the verdict is overturned. This is the correct judicial language. If you read the verdict, you would see how the first verdict is ferociously attacked and dissected to pieces. Saying that it was upheld therefore is a parody, not reality. Amoruso (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The bottom line, as far as this article is concerned, is that two Israeli courts have now found that Plaut libelled Gordon. The article must state this; anything else is commentary, which should not be allowed to disguise this central point. RolandR (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the bottom line is that the second higher court overturned the ruling. It used this exact wording in hebrew. Amoruso (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If I may advise you both, I think you're both tackling it from the wrong side. This was a small part of a busy and reasonably prominent person's life.  He would have a Wikipedia article even if not for the Plaut libel case.  A Ben-Gurion University professor (same place where Benny Morris teaches) with articles and papers published internationally in prominent papers like The Guardian, The Chicago Tribune, The Nation.  The article is about him, not about the lawsuit.  If the lawsuit should become important enough that it merits a lot of coverage, write a separate article, don't use this article as a coatrack for a court case that doesn't seem to have been that widely covered.


 * And for Amoruso: your source for the appeal says this in its summary page: "An Israeli appeals court has upheld a libel judgment that resulted from a dispute between two Israeli academics, but drastically slashed the damages." Try to write something similar to that, conveying the same information.  Nitpicking detail is not required.  And most important: if your source says the libel judgement was upheld, then it's original research to state or imply that it was overturned, and it's original research to say that the different counts are to be handled separately.  The appeal court apparently did concur that Gordon had been libelled but differed on the details and the extent. If the source isn't reliable, get one that is (and that doesn't mean try to interpret court documents yourself--original research again).  --Jenny 11:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jenny . Well, right now there is no consencus, and user:RolandR is doing some damage to the article and erasing my contributions. That's a shame. I think he tried to confuse with his WP:OR remark, which is nonsensical. It's not WP:OR to quote from the actual verdict. The verdict is available on-line. The verdict says that the first verdict is overturned. This is a better source than user:RolandR's source. Therefore we go by the best source. I asked for third opinion and he concurred in the talk page. Therefore it's what we will use I think it's fair... Amoruso (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you can wait for the 3O but generally court verdicts are regarded as primary sources. If they are significant verdicts they are immediately reported in newspapers. In this case the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz would be appropriate reliable secondary sources. If neither of them reported the verdict, then we must wonder why not. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The third opinion agreed with me that we should use the verdict's words. It's just that user:RolandR ignores wikipedia's dispute resolution process and reverts by giving false summaries. He wants to RV fight and scare me away. Haaretz didn't report of the second verdict, only the first one. There are many sources which say that the appeal was accepted. This source here says בית המשפט המחוזי בנצרת קבל חלקית את ערעורו של פרופ' סטיבן פלאוט - PARTIALLY ACCEPTED. it's from psakdin, major israeli legal site, like Westlaw.

We have English sources saying it overturned vs. one that says it was upheld.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8431B5B9-9777-4A3D-8218-94679BB9DCF9 (i think campus watch used this one).
 * This is one that says overturned:


 * This is another one that says it was overturned: isracampus.org.il


 * And RolandR has just one source that uses the other wording.


 * Why not use the verdict's own words then? Amoruso (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer is quite simple: because they are a primary source. It was sensible to get a 3O on the question, but because this is a BLP the need for reliable sourcing overrides the dispute resolution procedure. I doubt whether anyone will have any problem with psakdin as reliably reporting what the verdict was, but actually this question comes up really frequently and the answer is always the same. A secondary source is needed for interpreting what significance is to be attached to the verdict. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris Hodgson
Could someone here check out Chris Hodgson, please? I found it while updating Hodgson. It has what looks like potentially controversial allegations and coverage, and in general the article needs attention. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was highly problematic. I have tagged it as unreferenced and removed an offending paragraph. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also coming across a fair number of articles about living people that aren't in Category:Living people. Is there a regular effort to put uncategorised people or those lacking a death category in one or other of the right categories? I found User:Dsp13/People needing categorization as living or by year of death, but I'm not clear how active, up-to-date or complete that is. At the moment, I'm finding about 1 in 20 (rough guess) without Category:Living people. Carcharoth (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Alex Kulbashian
Please have a look at the above article. More revert waring, this time by Frank Pais in order to put in the article that the subject is a neo-nazi and white supremacist. I do not believe it has been sufficiently established by the sources and should be removed per WP:BLP. Please advise. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't the sources sufficiently establish this? The text states "... is a Canadian white supremacist who has been called a neo-Nazi by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs."  I agree that until recently, the referencing for this was insufficient, but it seems okay now. Neıl  龱  08:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:2006 Toronto terrorism case
persists in inserting this material, despite that fact that it's an egregious BLP violation and in no way relates to improving the article. I blocked him for BLP violations a few months ago, and he has since expressed a preference that I remove myself from his genitals, so I'll leave it for others to deal with. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mista-X was blocked for a month two days ago, but the material was still on the talk page, so I've removed it. Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  08:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dani Filth Biography
In the article on Dani Filth, it states that he married his girlfriend of 14 years in 2005. I do not believe this to be correct but that isn't what concerns me. It says that their daughter was born in 1991, which would mean that his girlfriend gave birth at 9 years old, which I believe is not true and defamming for Dani Filth to say a man in his late twentys did that to a child. The page is protected against editing so I can't change it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.120.19 (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone has fixed it - the page isn't protected, though! <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  08:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fred Singer
I've been trying to remove some rather egregious WP:SOAPboxing from the Fred Singer article. Our policies do not allow us to simply dredge through everything someone has ever written and pick and choose certain quotes in order to paint a subject in a poor light without secondary sourcing. Can someone please keep an eye on it? -- Kendrick7talk 11:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not soap and not an attack - read it. Just because some blogger misinterpreted something in a negative manner doesn't make it so. The section records an incident from 1960 which positively reflects on Singer. I'm not sure why Kendrick thinks it is negative - unless he is reading just the blogger's complaint rather than the article. Vsmith (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Heather Wilson
We have a dispute in an article that has seen at least one previous, outrageous, indefensible BLP violation against the husband of the biography's subject, calling him a child molester in a bold section header when he had been cleared in the investigation. There is source material indicating that at one time, Congresswoman Heather Wilson was under preliminary investigation by the House Ethics Committee. However, the most recent reliable source has a spokesperson for the committee saying that he is unaware of any such investigation.

We have an editor, User:Therefore, pushing to include a paragraph in the article lead claiming, "Currently, she is under a preliminary investigation by the House Ethics Committee over an alleged inappropriate contact with the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico by inquiring, shortly before an election in which she faced a stiff challenge, on the status of a corruption investigation involving a Democratic politician."

This editor's only concession was to add the following sentence at the end of the paragraph: "However, an official investigation has not been confirmed." In my opinion, without confirmation, it does not go into the lead of the article. Thoughts and comments, please. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note the notice at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you would please also review the discussion page at WP:BLP violation where several editors have participated in a discussion to modifying the above section. I don't know why T4K did not disclose this since consensus was nearing to completely rewrite the lede mention and in no fashion am I the writer or "pusher" of the sentence, quite the contrary. T4K has a history of contentious editing and non-collegial participation on talk pages. The page editors are in the process of resolving this issue. T4K has chosen instead not to participate in the points raised and to edit war. I was not informed of this current action. &#8756; Therefore | talk 13:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Kumiki Gibson
- This page is being switched back and forth between a diatribe against the subject, and an entry that reads like a letter of recommendation. I posted what I believed to be an objective version a few times, but gave up after a while. // Jpstead (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I tagged it as non-notable. Here is the opening sentence: "Kumiki Gibson (b. May 24, 1959) is a lawyer of Japanese and African American descent, originally from Buffalo, New York." And the article doesn't get any better than that. It either needs to be rewritten so it tells us something notable about the person or else deleted. IMO of course. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Martha Nussbaum
pls review 's edit to Talk:Martha Nussbaum. i've boldly refactored this user's latest comment to retain the editorial concern while getting rid of the polemics. Doldrums (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ato Boldon

 * - There currently seems to be a dispute on this Athlete's biographical page regarding a recent addition of a controversial issue that made the press. The "Letter to John Smith" section was added based on this source in the The Guardian, which reported an alleged letter between the athlete and his former coach regarding a drug usage scandal that has hit many similar athletes. User:Tonylongman - and several IP editors have been engaged in a revert war to remove the section. This user is the webmaster of Ato Boldon's official website. In comments on this User talk:Vianello, he has made some vague mention of lawsuits. His basis for the removal is that it was only initially covered by one newspaper, which was acting like a tabloid. However subsequent to this, the story has been referenced in several major newspapers, including the Times (UK), The Age (US) and the Trinidad Guardian. The user has been urged to take it to a content dispute, but has ignored these requests and continued to revert (in the above talk comment, vowed to keep reverting indefinitely). I have brought the issue here for additional opinions since I think more input is need. Personally I don't see a reason to remove the section. It is short and does not add any undue weight to the article. The event was sourced (the article in fact suffers from lack of sources, but having knowledge of the athlete, I don't see any unverifiable claims in the article) and has been mentioned in a number of reputable media houses around the world. Whether the allegations are true or not is something we can't determine. // Rasadam (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User reverting bad links
keeps reverting the removal of bad-links which mock the subject. User seems determined to be in a revert war so I'm posting it here instead. Affected articles -  --Otterathome (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My reverts were on talk pages, not on the claimed article pages; in one case (Talk:David Icke) Otterathome is removing other (possibly unrelated) comments to the Uncyclopedia link; and where is it said that a link to a page "mocking" the subject cannot be on a talk page?  For that matter, where is it said that a link to a page mocking the subject cannot be on the subject's page, if it's a notable mockery?  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The BLP policy also applies to talk pages.--Otterathome (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks as if you're attempting to reintroduce the failed guideline that "attack sites" should not be included. Although I tend to disagree with the decision, we should be consistent application of guidelines.
 * Still, "mocking" is clearly not a BLP violation, and there has been little attempt to include the actual mocking, only pointers to it, in the (improper) removals I reverted. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space" revert again, and I'll copy this report to WP:AN.--Otterathome (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite. The material isn't being kept on Wikipedia, only the questionable links.  As I said, although I agree that "attack sites" should not be included on Wikipedia, consensus was that Alex Jones's sites were allowed to remain.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential BLP violation?
Would this particular section need to be changed? It mocks persons but is not on a biographical article. If it does, feel free to make the changes yourself.--Otterathome (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't deal with biographical material. It reports on a parody website having parodies. Words like "Desciclopédian humour" ensure that it is known to be fictional. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It merely reports that the site makes fun of Brazilian celebs. It doesn't even repeat any substantial criticisms of them. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes but it mocks the death of Steve Irwin 'Cláudia Raia is portrayed as a stingray (Portuguese: raia) who vanquished Australian crocodile hunter Steve Irwin in 2006'. Which is very tasteless.--Otterathome (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when did "mock(ing) persons" become a WP:BLP violation? Has politenessman come to Wikipedia?  (Aparently not.) &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And Steve Irwin is, as Otterathome said, dead, not living, so BLP is at best dubious in that regard. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just curious, but wouldn't "death" instantly negate anything about the "L" in "BLP"? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not if the deceased individual has close living relatives.--Otterathome (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, only an individual being targeted can be defamed, which keeps multiple parties suing over one instance. Also, it should be noticed that the Supreme Court case with Hustler determined that parodies could not defame, so the point is moot. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Ottava above. We are in no way obligated to keep information from the biography of a dead person unless that information substantially damages, directly or indirectly, a living person. Thus, for instance, saying Mr. X bedded every broad in sight while Mrs. X stood by the way and did nothing could be removed from Mr. X's biography as it is implicitly insulting of Mrs. X, but I have no reason to believe that this is such an instance. That is not saying that content which violated POV should be included anywhere, but this does not seem to be such an instance. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I will check it out and see if I can make the sentence less offensive. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the mention of Steve Irwin, which didn't add anything to our understanding of the article's subject, but in the interest of good taste not WP policy. (p.s part of the problem seemed to be the original editor's awkward (and I'm guessing non-native) English.) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Saad Hariri

 * - Edit war over whether certain statements are supported by the sources or can be included as common knowledge, or not. // Coppertwig (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * - Same two editors editwarring over BLP material here; in one paragraph, editwarring over two different unreferenced versions, apparently. // Coppertwig (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hayley Jensen
this article reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic entry...
 * Yes, it's a typical promotional entry. What is the subject, a singer-songwriter? Just a singer?She had "an acoustic trio" so does she play guitar? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone has cleaned it up a bit, and I have done so a bit further. It doesn't read like an advertisement now, although could do with a few more references.-- Beloved Freak  18:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

David Giménez Carreras


I've also reported this at the COI Noticeboard, but as this is a BLP, I appreciate some input. Fidelio Artist are the publicists of David Giménez Carreras. The article was originally created by as a copyvio paste of David Giménez Carreras' bio at Michael Storrs Management. When the article here was then reduced to a stub by another editor, I rewrote it from scratch.

Today Elena Fidelio deleted the fact that he is the nephew of José Carreras which has been discussed by Giménez Carreras himself as well as by José Carreras in numerous press interviews and is referenced in the article. It is even stated on his official website here. I then restored that information and left a message on the article talk page about it. Whereupon immediately deleted the fact that he is the nephew of José Carreras again and left this unsigned message on my talk page admitting that they deleted the fact "not because the information is not correct, but because Mr. Giménez Carreras asked me to."

I don't know for sure what the reason is for wanting to suppress information which he has on his own web site but it certainly looks like an an attempt to de-emphasise the "interdependence" of his career with that of his more famous uncle. Note that the majority of the performances he has conducted so far including his professional conducting debut, professional opera conducting debut, and major house debuts have all featured José Carreras. Interestingly, both articles at Spanish Wikipedia and Italian Wikipedia pasted in by Elena Fidelio from www.davidgimenez.com actually mention that José Carreras is his uncle in the opening sentence. Could I have some advice here as to whether this kind of COI interference/censorship in a Wikipedia article is justfied and how should it be handled? Voceditenore (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ulich Drepper
There's lots of vandalism here thanks to reddit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlvtelvis (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Edward de Bono
Is my understanding of the WP:BLP issues on this article (as explained here) flawed, and if so how? Harry the Dog WOOF  12:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Melanie Morgan
Insertion of claims and/or implications that the article subject made a death threat against Nancy Pelosi, the United States Speaker of the House.  The sourcing is terrible. I've already removed it a couple of times and tried to explain on the talk page, but would appreciate an outside opinion. Thanks! Kelly hi! 19:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is the sourcing terrible? I note several reliable sources stating that she made the statement, the critiques of the statement, and her defense of the statement as being misinterpreted. Your rewritten version is much better than the original, and seems to me to present a neutral view of the dust-up. FCYTravis (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my original posting here was overtaken. The original source was a blog and some unlinked newspaper articles I couldn't track down at first. Kelly  hi! 00:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)